Training Hilary Swank to be a boxer
- Thread starter FiddleFit
- Start date
Kathryn you are SOOOO practical minded.:7 :7
Janice.....I was just reading an article Muscle and Fitness that discussed carb sensitive people. I happen to be one of those and I do pretty well on a "lower" carb diet (not ridiculously low), but it sounds like you are definitely NOT!! Regardless of whether we are or aren't...I believe we could do VERY well if we had all day to spend in a gym (no other distractions - no work, children, husbands) and a guy following us around mixing protein shakes and cooking us egg white breakfasts and hi protein lunches/dinners and cheering us on through our drop sets. NOT TO MENTION being able to get 9 hours of sleep per night to let our precious muscles recover. Heck, I have to get up twice a night to give a baby a bottle. Oh to be Hillary for 9 weeks!!!!!!! (this sounds nothing short of heaven to me). I'm just impressed to death that she could pump out 10 chin ups after 9 weeks. I'm STILL doing P90X, but I can't break 6-7 no matter what I do. As far as pushing the SUV.....I think any one of you guys could do it. I remember being 9 months pregnant and pushing our Jeep Grand Wagoneer off the road and down a ways when it died on the freeway - and I'm NOT that big of a person
(well when I was 9 months pregnant I WAS). Now pushing it up an incline????? That's another story. }( }(
Briee
Janice.....I was just reading an article Muscle and Fitness that discussed carb sensitive people. I happen to be one of those and I do pretty well on a "lower" carb diet (not ridiculously low), but it sounds like you are definitely NOT!! Regardless of whether we are or aren't...I believe we could do VERY well if we had all day to spend in a gym (no other distractions - no work, children, husbands) and a guy following us around mixing protein shakes and cooking us egg white breakfasts and hi protein lunches/dinners and cheering us on through our drop sets. NOT TO MENTION being able to get 9 hours of sleep per night to let our precious muscles recover. Heck, I have to get up twice a night to give a baby a bottle. Oh to be Hillary for 9 weeks!!!!!!! (this sounds nothing short of heaven to me). I'm just impressed to death that she could pump out 10 chin ups after 9 weeks. I'm STILL doing P90X, but I can't break 6-7 no matter what I do. As far as pushing the SUV.....I think any one of you guys could do it. I remember being 9 months pregnant and pushing our Jeep Grand Wagoneer off the road and down a ways when it died on the freeway - and I'm NOT that big of a person
(well when I was 9 months pregnant I WAS). Now pushing it up an incline????? That's another story. }( }( Briee
CathydsRNA
Cathlete
That's part of the problem. People who believe these claims and get motivated based on these claims are sure to get a swift kick from reality and get demotivated real fast. Here is an article from another thread that was pasted in that discusses what is really possible in turns of muscle gain. One example is that a man who trains hard for several years is likely to only add 10 lbs of muscle max over these several years. In addition, other studies demonstrate that women who train hard and heavy can only put on 1 lb of muscle a month for about 2 months and then this rate drops off quite significantly. The average women competitive body builder actually has only about 7 lbs more muscle than your average woman and women who lift and do steroids only have about 8-10 lbs more muscle than your average woman.
Art Carey | The myth of muscle as calorie burner
By Art Carey
Inquirer Columnist
Two weeks ago, I introduced you to Greg Ellis, whose new book, Dr. Ellis's Ultimate Diet Secrets (Targeted Body Systems Publishing, $59.95), is to eating and exercising what Moby-Dick is to whaling.
During a power walk, Ellis and I discussed some of the surprising things he's learned over the last 40 years about how the body turns food into energy, muscle and fat.
One of Ellis' favorite sayings is "putting it to the numbers" - his phrase for testing conventional wisdom against scientific fact. By putting it to the numbers, Ellis, 55, who has a doctorate in exercise physiology, has discovered that many accepted truths are myths.
"People don't do their homework," he gripes. "That's how these myths get started and propagated."
A prime example: If you build more muscle, you'll burn lots of calories.
"This one really irks me," Ellis says. "It's the big one, the great myth."
I confess: It's a myth that I, too, have helped propagate. As faithful readers know, I'm a big booster of resistance training - weight lifting for boys and girls, men and women, people of all ages. In this space and in public presentations, I have sung the benefits of pumping iron, including how it helps control weight.
The conventional wisdom: Muscle is metabolically active. It burns calories even when your body is at rest - 50 to 60 calories a day per pound of muscle. Ergo, if you add a pound of muscle, you can burn an additional 350 calories a week, 1,500 calories a month, 18,000 calories a year - the equivalent of 5 pounds of flesh.
In other words, if you gain a pound of muscle, everything else being equal, you can, in a year, shed 5 pounds of flab.
Trouble is, it ain't so.
"Putting it to the numbers" reveals that resting muscle burns a mere tenth of that - about 5 to 6 calories per pound per day, Ellis says. Since every pound of fat burns 2 calories a day, muscle hardly confers a hefty metabolic advantage - a mere 3 to 4 additional calories per pound.
How does this play out in the real world?
Suppose a woman who weighs 150 pounds begins working out, walking two miles a day, lifting weights three times a week. After six months, she manages to shed 18 pounds of flab and gain 6 pounds of muscle.
To feed that new muscle, her body needs 30 calories of food energy a day (6 pounds x 5 calories = 30). But because she has dropped 18 pounds of fat, her energy needs have also dropped - by 36 calories (18 pounds x 2 calories = 36). Result: Despite all that new muscle, she needs to eat 6 calories a day less to maintain her new weight.
Moreover, adding 6 pounds of muscle is no easy feat. When Ellis was working on his doctorate, doing body-composition studies in the lab, he found that the muscle mass of female bodybuilders, compared with that of untrained women, was greater by only 6 pounds.
"Steroid girls had only 8 to 10 pounds more lean body mass," Ellis says. "I'm talking about hard-core bodybuilding chicks - not someone lifting 5-pound dumbbells, but a gal benching 150, and going at it hard."
Ditto for guys. After several years of training hard, a man may be able to gain 10 pounds of muscle, max. Even with steroids and other anabolic aids, the most a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle, Ellis says. At 5 calories per pound of muscle, all that extravagant anabolic gingerbread revs the metabolism by a mere 150 calories - an amount that could be wiped out by a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.
"So when Diane Sawyer works out with rubber bands and 5-pound dumbbells and manages to add a quarter-pound of muscle, she may be burning more calories through the exercise itself," Ellis says, "but she's doing zip to increase her resting metabolism."
Can Ellis be believed? For proof, he showed me citations and tables from his trusty texts, including a real page-turner titled Energy Metabolism: Tissue Determinants and Cellular Corollaries. But more persuasive than academic data was this argument: "If new muscle burns 50 calories a pound, why doesn't already existing muscle burn 50 calories a pound?" Ellis asks. "How does the body determine that new muscle burns 50 calories, while old muscle burns only 5?"
Answer: It doesn't, because all muscle burns only 5 calories. Putting it to the numbers: If every pound of muscle burned 50 calories, a typical 200-pound man would have a resting metabolic rate (RMR) from muscle alone of 4,000 calories (80 pounds of muscle x 50 = 4,000). Since muscle accounts for about 40 percent of the RMR (organs such as the liver, kidneys, brain and heart account for about 60 percent), the RMR of our hypothetical musclehead would be 10,000 calories - an impossibility. Even Ellis, a mesomorphic pillar of vintage beefcake, has an RMR of only 1,900 calories. So if muscle isn't a calorie-gobbler, why bother to lift weights?
Because, besides making you stronger, fortifying your bones and joints, improving your balance, reducing the risk of heart disease, and giving you a sense of power, control, accomplishment and well-being, pumping iron will make you look better.
"If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 5 pounds of fat, the impact on your shape and appearance will be dramatic," Ellis says. "If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 10 to 20 pounds of fat, you're definitely going to be eye candy."
Art Carey | The myth of muscle as calorie burner
By Art Carey
Inquirer Columnist
Two weeks ago, I introduced you to Greg Ellis, whose new book, Dr. Ellis's Ultimate Diet Secrets (Targeted Body Systems Publishing, $59.95), is to eating and exercising what Moby-Dick is to whaling.
During a power walk, Ellis and I discussed some of the surprising things he's learned over the last 40 years about how the body turns food into energy, muscle and fat.
One of Ellis' favorite sayings is "putting it to the numbers" - his phrase for testing conventional wisdom against scientific fact. By putting it to the numbers, Ellis, 55, who has a doctorate in exercise physiology, has discovered that many accepted truths are myths.
"People don't do their homework," he gripes. "That's how these myths get started and propagated."
A prime example: If you build more muscle, you'll burn lots of calories.
"This one really irks me," Ellis says. "It's the big one, the great myth."
I confess: It's a myth that I, too, have helped propagate. As faithful readers know, I'm a big booster of resistance training - weight lifting for boys and girls, men and women, people of all ages. In this space and in public presentations, I have sung the benefits of pumping iron, including how it helps control weight.
The conventional wisdom: Muscle is metabolically active. It burns calories even when your body is at rest - 50 to 60 calories a day per pound of muscle. Ergo, if you add a pound of muscle, you can burn an additional 350 calories a week, 1,500 calories a month, 18,000 calories a year - the equivalent of 5 pounds of flesh.
In other words, if you gain a pound of muscle, everything else being equal, you can, in a year, shed 5 pounds of flab.
Trouble is, it ain't so.
"Putting it to the numbers" reveals that resting muscle burns a mere tenth of that - about 5 to 6 calories per pound per day, Ellis says. Since every pound of fat burns 2 calories a day, muscle hardly confers a hefty metabolic advantage - a mere 3 to 4 additional calories per pound.
How does this play out in the real world?
Suppose a woman who weighs 150 pounds begins working out, walking two miles a day, lifting weights three times a week. After six months, she manages to shed 18 pounds of flab and gain 6 pounds of muscle.
To feed that new muscle, her body needs 30 calories of food energy a day (6 pounds x 5 calories = 30). But because she has dropped 18 pounds of fat, her energy needs have also dropped - by 36 calories (18 pounds x 2 calories = 36). Result: Despite all that new muscle, she needs to eat 6 calories a day less to maintain her new weight.
Moreover, adding 6 pounds of muscle is no easy feat. When Ellis was working on his doctorate, doing body-composition studies in the lab, he found that the muscle mass of female bodybuilders, compared with that of untrained women, was greater by only 6 pounds.
"Steroid girls had only 8 to 10 pounds more lean body mass," Ellis says. "I'm talking about hard-core bodybuilding chicks - not someone lifting 5-pound dumbbells, but a gal benching 150, and going at it hard."
Ditto for guys. After several years of training hard, a man may be able to gain 10 pounds of muscle, max. Even with steroids and other anabolic aids, the most a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle, Ellis says. At 5 calories per pound of muscle, all that extravagant anabolic gingerbread revs the metabolism by a mere 150 calories - an amount that could be wiped out by a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.
"So when Diane Sawyer works out with rubber bands and 5-pound dumbbells and manages to add a quarter-pound of muscle, she may be burning more calories through the exercise itself," Ellis says, "but she's doing zip to increase her resting metabolism."
Can Ellis be believed? For proof, he showed me citations and tables from his trusty texts, including a real page-turner titled Energy Metabolism: Tissue Determinants and Cellular Corollaries. But more persuasive than academic data was this argument: "If new muscle burns 50 calories a pound, why doesn't already existing muscle burn 50 calories a pound?" Ellis asks. "How does the body determine that new muscle burns 50 calories, while old muscle burns only 5?"
Answer: It doesn't, because all muscle burns only 5 calories. Putting it to the numbers: If every pound of muscle burned 50 calories, a typical 200-pound man would have a resting metabolic rate (RMR) from muscle alone of 4,000 calories (80 pounds of muscle x 50 = 4,000). Since muscle accounts for about 40 percent of the RMR (organs such as the liver, kidneys, brain and heart account for about 60 percent), the RMR of our hypothetical musclehead would be 10,000 calories - an impossibility. Even Ellis, a mesomorphic pillar of vintage beefcake, has an RMR of only 1,900 calories. So if muscle isn't a calorie-gobbler, why bother to lift weights?
Because, besides making you stronger, fortifying your bones and joints, improving your balance, reducing the risk of heart disease, and giving you a sense of power, control, accomplishment and well-being, pumping iron will make you look better.
"If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 5 pounds of fat, the impact on your shape and appearance will be dramatic," Ellis says. "If you add 5 pounds of muscle and lose 10 to 20 pounds of fat, you're definitely going to be eye candy."
"That's part of the problem....etc"
I understand what your saying Cathy and you posted a very good article, but I still get motivated when I've read of someone who has achieved muscular gains, definition, and PULL UP reps!!!! and some days I NEED this motivation more than others. In the grand scheme of things your article keeps me plugging away through the years, BUT stories like Hilary's push me to really BLAST those muscles THIS MORNING and all week long and sometimes I need this. Make sense???
Hilary had to have worked incredibly hard for this role and I admire her for this. On the other hand (and I'm sure you'd agree), I do get my underwear in a bunch when they have some skinny model on the cover of these pop magazines telling me "two easy moves for five minutes a day will get you defined muscles in 21 days". And all this time I've been lifting heavy for hours (not to mention years) on end while I only had to do THIS and walla....muscles will appear - yeah right!!!
Briee
I understand what your saying Cathy and you posted a very good article, but I still get motivated when I've read of someone who has achieved muscular gains, definition, and PULL UP reps!!!!
and some days I NEED this motivation more than others. In the grand scheme of things your article keeps me plugging away through the years, BUT stories like Hilary's push me to really BLAST those muscles THIS MORNING and all week long and sometimes I need this. Make sense??? Hilary had to have worked incredibly hard for this role and I admire her for this. On the other hand (and I'm sure you'd agree), I do get my underwear in a bunch when they have some skinny model on the cover of these pop magazines telling me "two easy moves for five minutes a day will get you defined muscles in 21 days". And all this time I've been lifting heavy for hours (not to mention years) on end while I only had to do THIS and walla....muscles will appear - yeah right!!!
Briee
FiddleFit
Cathlete
Hey! This is the guy who attempted to take on Cathe, and lived to regret it! If you weren't around at the time, he wrote something about home fitness videos not being "real" exercise. Somehow Cathe got into his line of fire, and she challenged him to a one-on-one workout session. There is a link to his subsequent article, and the entire saga, is on Cathe's home page, under "Winding Down the Debate With Art Carey." It's a hoot to read.
Pedmom - I agree with you 100%! Hollywood PR machines love to create drama and hype. I guess no one on here really believes what the press is saying, but we all seem to agree that Hilary worked hard. I guess we really are an "educated crowd," as Cathe likes to call us
Cheers,
Sandra
Pedmom - I agree with you 100%! Hollywood PR machines love to create drama and hype. I guess no one on here really believes what the press is saying, but we all seem to agree that Hilary worked hard. I guess we really are an "educated crowd," as Cathe likes to call us
Cheers,
Sandra
naughtoj
Cathlete
Briee.......you are sooo funny!! I think pretty much any of us old timers around here could push around an SUV. That seems a heck of a lot easier than 10 pull ups!
Briee...I don't think you do well on a carb sensitive diet. I just think you are a MOM who has learned to live in a constant state of catatonicity (is that a word) and not complain one bit about it. Hey girlfriend, I am sure you can put up with a HECK of a lot more than I could! Kids have a way of toughening you up! Take your kids away and you could probably put Hilary Swank in the dust as far as muscle gain goes!!
Briee...I don't think you do well on a carb sensitive diet. I just think you are a MOM who has learned to live in a constant state of catatonicity (is that a word) and not complain one bit about it. Hey girlfriend, I am sure you can put up with a HECK of a lot more than I could! Kids have a way of toughening you up! Take your kids away and you could probably put Hilary Swank in the dust as far as muscle gain goes!!
LOL....I DO hope you're right. AND I hope when my kids are grown I'll have a bicep vein to show for it!!!! :7 :7 :7
Briee
(And I think you'll do just fine with kids when they are your own!!! I've been having my 6 year old hang on my legs while I'm in the top position of a pullup and I try to lower as slowly as possible....all this to break my "stall" in pullup progression. See Janice...kids are VERY useful to weightlifters!!!!)
Briee
(And I think you'll do just fine with kids when they are your own!!! I've been having my 6 year old hang on my legs while I'm in the top position of a pullup and I try to lower as slowly as possible....all this to break my "stall" in pullup progression. See Janice...kids are VERY useful to weightlifters!!!!)