Weight Loss vs Muscle Buildup

[tom pinckney]

Good job -Of course, the quesiton was: have I lost fat and gained muscle?

The best way to judge that is by looking in the mirror and the fit of your clothes. Are other people saying: "have you lost weight" or "you look pretty good!" There's also the other benefits of better cholesterol, lower sugar levels, better bp and how you feel.

I've discovered that by adding a little more time (45 minutes rather than 30) at the same pace, that I lose weight much more efficiently. Your body becomes a "fuel-efficent machine!"

Wondering.....are you also lisfting weights and changed other things about your lifestyle? It all "adds up" in weight loss!

[Bob S.]

I've discovered that by adding a little more time (45 minutes rather than 30) at the same pace, that I lose weight much more efficiently. Your body becomes a "fuel-efficent machine!"

Frankly, I regard that as "bass ackwards." A person who uses their fuel efficiently has trouble losing weight. Those of us who have no problems with weight gain have inefficient metabolisms, just burning off a lot of calories keeping warm without producing as much real physical work as those who use their fuel efficiently.

I have had this argument before with a person who had a lot of problems with weight gain. Her concept of efficiency was getting rid of fat. Mine was in the physical concept of producing the most work from a given amount of fuel. It all depends on your point of view. You can be "efficient" at getting rid of weight, but a fuel efficient "machine" is one that gets the most work out of a measure of fuel.

Bob S.

[tom pinckney]

I am somewhat confused as to what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying that someone with no weight problems (meaning muscular?) has an inefficeint metabolism and does not use their food (fuel) efficiently? If that IS the case - it means a faster metabolism due to MORE musle tissue which burns more fat at rest than someone of the same weight with less muscle. This is a more efficient metabolism. Studies show that fat people actually eat less than muscular people due to their slower (less efficient) metabolisms.

Doesn't matter what one calls it. It is the build-up of muscle (and loss of fat - not replacing it) by lifting weights AND doing an aerobic activity in my case - an additional 15 minutes that has worked for me with pretty good weight loss (mostly fat) while at the same time becoming more muscular. Kind of like a bigger engine in a car.

By adding additional time (in my case I mentioned 15 minutes) more calories are burned while exercising and the carry-over along with muscle gained (from weights) which builds more calories at rest. Of course proper eating habits (notice I did not say diet) is in order and you don't want to do too much aerobic activity because it will result in loss of more muscle in addition to the fat.

As far as muscle gained from rowing or weights - an easy way to determine this is by improvements in strength gains. Of course some of it is by better technique - but not all of it.

[tom pinckney]

I've thought a bit about this "efficient metabolism" and have come to this conclusion: it's all in how you determine what "efficient" means and what you want our "metabolism to do - burn calories or store them?

I believe we were talking about burning fat. The faster metabolism would be considered a more efficient fat burner.

A slow metabolism could be more efficent in that it would store more fat.

However, in terms of exercise - why would anyone want a slower metabolism?

[jamesg]

M asks Could I just be building muscle mass and not seeing a weight loss because muscle is replacing fat?

Maybe, but at 2.35 for 2h a week the change will be marginal. 2.35/500 (100W) means you are not applying a large amount of force to the handle, so there's no reason why muscle should increase substantially.

Try doubling the amount of work by increasing time and/or your Power output. To do this you will need to develop a good stroke, so that you can do it at 20-24 rating. This will require force and extension, so is fine for keeping our condition up to scratch.

I think I'm a reasonably fit, and have noticed a muscle or two. My amount of time on the erg is around 1% of total time, as yours. 2% would be better (½h a day). However I try to stay always higher than 160W (2W/kg) at 20. As a guide I keep going until my HR gets higher (as a number) than my Watts.

To see a work-based weight loss programme, have a look at the one on the UK site. You'll need a HR monitor to use it. It'll get you fit too.

Of course you can ignore all suggestions and just go back to basics: erging hard gets us fit, eating hard gets us fat. Complications and delusions start when we try to mix the two.

[Bob S.]

I've thought a bit about this "efficient metabolism" and have come to this conclusion: it's all in how you determine what "efficient" means and what you want our "metabolism to do - burn calories or store them?

I believe we were talking about burning fat. The faster metabolism would be considered a more efficient fat burner.

A slow metabolism could be more efficent in that it would store more fat.

However, in terms of exercise - why would anyone want a slower metabolism?

Tom,

First I should apologize for my semantic quibbling. It actually started with with the aforementioned discussion that I had with a woman that had a weight problem. We were on a walking trip of many days and she commented on that fact that I seem to be consuming far more food than her and yet had no problem with my weight even though we were both walking the same distance. My reply was that I had an inefficient metabolism. A good part of the food I consumed was just getting converted to heat without doing real physical work. She questioned this, since her concept of efficiency was the effectiveness of the exercise in getting rid of fat. I found this amusing at the time, i.e. that we had absolutely opposite ideas of what efficiency meant. It was a matter perspective. Her goal was to lose weight, so efficiency to her meant doing a good job of getting rid of weight. As a chemist, I used the term efficiency in mechanical sense of getting the most physical work done out of a given amount of fuel.

You are right on in saying that it depends on what efficient means, but I don't see the burning or storing fat part of it. My view of efficiency is a matter of how much of the burning goes into real mgh work and how much is lost as waste heat. The other idea of efficiency is a matter of getting rid of a much fat as possible with a given amount of work.

I am not quite sure what you mean by slow metabolism — efficient in the mechanical sense perhaps? I think that the advantage is that it is a life-saving feature in times of starvation. Those of us who don't have that would be in deep trouble in a period of famine.

Bob S.

[tom pinckney]

kind of gets us both thinking doesn't? Perhaps a better way of putting it would be high metabolsim (aka "fast") or low metabolism (aka "slow").

Many people think of it in its simplest sense: as something that influences how easily our bodies gain or lose weight. So muscular people are more effiecient at "burning fat" while those less muscular people are efficient at storing fat. Of course some of this may be inherited from our parents as just how "efficient" we either gain or lose weight.

Apparently as a fat guy (lost 60 pounds and have a way to go) that's getting more muscular my more "effciient" metabolsim that gains weight must be overcome by my growing muscular in some sort of efficient way of burning fat to lose weight! Sort of half-fast!