KraneXL

Sorry, but that is an incorrect answer. See post 120. Although no one can argue with the way it makes you "feel". Progressive resistance -- and although others try to resist it, there's no denying it. Other than that, there is surgery, but I'm assuming that since you included fitness, the question didn't imply anyone being that drastic.

wolfchild

Sculpt is just one of those " fitness buzz words" used by many people to mean, loose fat to allow more muscles to show through.

Deal4Fuji

^^^ True. Anyone remember Nautilus gym equipment and their progressive resistance chain & cam designed machines? Arthur Jones was Sheldon Brown of the weight training movement at one time and I had a membership at a Nautilus based gym with racquetball courts and pool. I digress - after I moved to a smaller town and had expenses that came with raising a family I got out of weight training until at age 50 (my ML crisis) I decided to buy some used free weights thinking rather than paying a monthly membership somewhere I could build a home gym and have something tangible to show for my fitness money. I could get old weights dirt cheap at Play It Again Sports stores vs collector prices on eBay. As I have with bikes more recently, I found a internet forum and became a little obsessed with collecting C&V

Homemade side-pull pulley weights

more homemade


for the daughters, Glamour Bells

OBoile

I know. The point its, it's a stupid/inaccurate word to use. In general, I see it used by either:
1. People who don't know what they are talking about.
or
2. People who are trying to sell something to people who don't know what they are talking about.

slowrevs

Sculpting is the removal of material to provide a finished product or artwork. Serious, regular aerobic exercise, in sufficient quantity, causes the body to burn fat reserves for energy and increase the density of lean muscle masses as a result. The subtraction of fat, flab and the resultant tightening of the skin organ produces a defined body, one that has been sculpted through exercise.

What kind of resistance are you referring to? How do the muscle adaptations differ? I am curious and always willing to learn something new...

OBoile

Might be best to refrain from using that term unless you're discussing artwork then.
This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.

Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.

Doge

More muscle is not always good. I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it. That is assuming the same body composition. Most 20 something males can do more with less muscle than more. Still, the drive to be buff is strong.

At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)

The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.

OBoile

No. Just no. The only ones that are likely true are:
Run faster, but only over long distances.
Higher VO2 max since this is based on weight.
Ride further, maybe, but I doubt there is any significant difference here.

There's absolutely no way that ~30 extra pounds of muscle is going to result in someone being able to do fewer push ups or pull ups. It's certainly not going to hinder their FTP (hence why most TT specialists are heavier than pure climbers) and is going to be beneficial for most track cycling disciplines.

The heavier male will be far stronger which will provide a massive advantage in many activities. Any of the 4 major North American sports would favor the heavier and stronger individual. Combat sports all have weight classes for a reason. No 5'10" 140 lb person is elite at Cross Fit. Elite gymnasts (while shorter than 5'10") are built. Rowing has weight classes and favours bigger, stronger people. 170# is also a pretty common weight for pro soccer players. The heavier person would also be far more effective at doing manual labour that involves any sort of heavy lifting. Most elite combat troops are far closer to 170 than 140 too.

Happy Feet

I am 5'10" and have done endurance sports my whole adult life and 140 is definitely not well muscled. What I considered my ideal athletic weight was 165 and that was very lean. If I ran too much I would slip down to 155-150, which felt light for long distance running but not strong. It felt thin.

If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.

KraneXL

Well of course, there are diminishing returns with anything. But 90% of us are nowhere near that yet. Especially, nowhere near close enough to use it as an argument.

livedarklions

My leg muscles are rather large, and all of my lower body workouts are aerobic. I use weights, but strictly for upper body and core. The key for my leg development is resistance. I work out on the bike and on the elliptical. On the bike, I live in the very high gears. On the elliptical, I do hours at max resistance.

I have no idea if this would work for anyone else. I really don't know anyone else who spends 6 hours on the elliptical every weekend in the winter and 14 hours on the bike every weekend in the summer.

OBoile

Yeah that would be a more reasonable statement.
Of course, 200-210 at 5'10" and 8% body fat is approaching the genetic limits of what a person can do without drugs (IIRC, most top natural bodybuilders are ~200 and around 5%). It would take decent genetics, plus years of dedication to achieve this naturally. Very few of the "young males" working out in gyms will get anywhere near that.

5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.

slowrevs

Sculpting is a metaphor. If you don't understand metaphors, I can't do anything about that.

As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).

Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.

People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."

Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.

As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.

Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.

slowrevs

If you have never used an AirDyne ergometer, saddle up when you find one and learn what progressive resistance is all about.

KraneXL

Not possible naturally; that person would look massive. That is an unusual feat even with drugs.These are marathon runner characteristics. They can achieve very low bf, but being very skinny is the results.

OBoile

This post makes it clear that you are neither knowledgeable on this subject, nor honest. As such, I see little point in continuing this discussion.

KraneXL

Actually, you could define the term, and/or give examples.Fat is metabolically inactive. However, the more muscle you have the higher your metabolism. There are myriad supplements and drugs (including caffeine) that can raise your metabolic rate to enhance the burning of fat. Caloric intake definite plays a role in weight management but it is secondary to the role played by your hormones particularly those such as the fat storage hormone insulin and leptin -- a fat-burning hormone.Carbs trigger the greatest insulin response.However, had you done so, your results would likely have been noticeable improved.Generally correct, albeit particularly scientific. It is a "response" reaction

livedarklions

The relationship between alcohol and fat storage of carbs is a little more involved than that, which is the reason excessive alcohol use is associated with cirrhosis. Alcohol has 7 cal./gm, which is less than fat but more than carbs. The big issue, however, is that the body processes it faster than anything else in part because of its toxicity. Basically, the body puts the other types of calories "on hold" in preference to burning the alcohol. Thus, carb calories tend to be stored as fat at a lower threshold of intake in people who drink excessively, and much of that storage is in the liver, hence the liver scarring (cirrhosis).

There are skinny drunks in the world, but odds are they aren't eating much.

slowrevs

As ad writers, we are taught to be succinct and write to an eighth grade educational level. I always try to do that unless dealing with an audience known to have a higher degree of literacy. Even eighth graders understand metaphors.

To my knowledge, my post was not about supplements or drug use, but an exercise machine and the effects of aerobic vs anaerobic workouts - with some additional comments on physics and resistance.

BTW, a little science never hurt anyone.

slowrevs

The alternate scenario is that I am honest and well informed

You may be either misinformed generally, or simply in error

Either way, your further non-participation in this discussion is fine with me.

wolfchild

185 lbs to 211 lbs in one year while loosing fat at the same time by doing only cardio ??... It's very hard to believe that you gained 26 pounds of solid muscle and 4 inches on your biceps while loosing fat at the same time from only doing AirDyne bike and no other forms of resistance training. Cardio just doesn't produce those kinds of gains...I can only think of three possibilities here: You must be a genetic anomaly or you're exaggerating or maybe taking steroids... or you're just full of crap

KraneXL

No, it does not; its a fake claim. Even with drugs, you'd still need resistance training to make changes such as the one described here.

wphamilton

No not really, I've been there myself and it was neither marathon runner nor "really scrawny" when it's 7-8% body fat. In fact it's not far from the middle of ideal weight range for 5'10".

Doge

My first sentence was More muscle is not always good [for every sport]. A good half my examples were cycling related. There is a reason world tour cyclists look like they do. Even for one-day events, the extra weight is a liability once getting beyond a couple hours with any longer. If you are in a sport that works against gravity, or involves a couple hour event, the extra mass will generally not help. Even 100% lean muscle mass. If your sport is on the same horizontal plane, likely the extra mass will help.

That picture posted early (or search) was Kalman Szkalak who was about 240# and lean when he started riding. He got to be a faster more competitive cyclist by losing weight. My kid became less competitive as a cyclist as he could do more pull-up and push-ups (and gained weight).

Doge

6-7Kcal/g Fat is 9Kcal/g