Re: One Basic Question.....

[Guest guest]

Cutting calories, increasing activity, like walking, plus Bullworker Training can result in a lean, muscular, strong body.rrbelloff wrote: Never seen any data to support the statement that the BW or isos would "speed up" the metabolism. If you are referring to basal metabolism, certain exercise is reputed to increase this although these studies have been contentious to say the least.I would expect very little effect on the metabolism from isos but it certainly coudn't hurt.As

they used to say, the best exercise is pushing yourself back from the dinner table sooner, rather than later.Oh, and a good walk doesn't hurt either.> > > Hi Gang!> > > > Wanted to know whether isometrics can result in fat> > loss? If yes, are there any studies to back this up?> > > > Cheers!> > > > DB> > > > >

> > > > ________________________________________________________________________> Be a PS3 game guru.> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121>

Never miss an email again!Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

On thinking about it more, I think one complements the

other. In my case, after several years I got sick of

looking at the growing medicine ball in my stomach and

decided to do something about it. Walking a half hour

to 45 minutes a day was barely keeping it under

control.

Walking will burn off calories, but when you eat too

much, and too much of the wrong things as I was doing,

all you do is slow down the weight gain slightly.

I remembered the old BW's that were gathering dust in

the back of the closet, got them out, and made up a

series of exercises using those I remembered from ages

ago and adding ones I invented. Then, in conjunction

with my walks, I began getting serious about cutting

back on my food intake.

One complements the other. As I began to see results

(very quickly), I realized that even at 60 yrs old I

could still do something about my appearance. Don't

know why I ever thought I couldn't.

The BW gave me more energy, strength and endurance. My

walks became quicker - more distance in the same time

- I became more active, and the pounds began to peel

away.

So, if the BW didn't directly cause the weight loss,

it contributed to it by giving me a new appreciation

of what I saw happening to my muscles and body. I

think this is what I was saying in my other post,

written in too much of a hurry.

Chuck

--- richard pancoast wrote:

> Cutting calories, increasing activity, like walking,

> plus Bullworker Training can result in a lean,

> muscular, strong body.

>

> rrbelloff wrote: Never

> seen any data to support the statement that the BW

> or isos

> would " speed up " the metabolism. If you are

> referring to basal

> metabolism, certain exercise is reputed to increase

> this although

> these studies have been contentious to say the

> least.

>

> I would expect very little effect on the metabolism

> from isos but it

> certainly coudn't hurt.

>

> As they used to say, the best exercise is pushing

> yourself back from

> the dinner table sooner, rather than later.

>

> Oh, and a good walk doesn't hurt either.

>

>

> >

> > > Hi Gang!

> > >

> > > Wanted to know whether isometrics can result in

> fat

> > > loss? If yes, are there any studies to back this

> up?

> > >

> > > Cheers!

> > >

> > > DB

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

__________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Be a PS3 game guru.

> > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and

> previews at

> Yahoo! Games.

> >

> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Never miss an email again!

> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail

> arrives. Check it out.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Finding fabulous fares is fun.

Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel

bargains.

http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

[Guest guest]

> Interesting statement, but I am not sure what you are

> advocating here? Yes, adding muscle mass raises basal

> metabolism. However, the BW as normally used will only

> add small amounts of muscle mass.

I agree with this if one is dealing with an already

muscular (though fat?) individual. However, for one who

has been mostly sedentary, BW or isometrics can maximize

one's muscle mass before a plateau (in mass) is reached.

In either case, if one gets the muscles, then s/he gets

the tissue needed to burn fat during rest, if insulin

is not around.

As for basal metabolism, we still need to go for fat

usage instead of glucose use/fat use blockage as

will occur with insulin. We may have two persons with

the same basal metabolic rate, but one may be burning

fat, while the other will not be using fat at all. It

really depends on insulin (which, I think, should be

considered an emergency hormone, and not one that must

be secreted after every meal).

> Are you suggesting that carb restriction/manipulation

> is the way to go with your eating. If so, there is

> PLENTY of research to suggest that that approach can be

> very fruitful indeed.

The important thing is control of insulin level. Insulin

is what makes us fat, and it's what keeps us fat. Fat can

never be used up if insulin is around, even in one on a

negative calorie balance. (One can still be in negative

calorie balance with meals that still spike blood glucose

level and thus cause insulin release.)

Dietary control of carbohydrate intake is only one way

to achieve blood glucose/insulin level control. However,

it's not the only method. Another method is simply

engaging in physical activity (i.e., muscle contraction)

when one's blood glucose level is high. As the reference

quoted shows, muscles in contraction will suck up the

blood glucose without the need for insulin. Then there's

also the role nutrients like chromium, which increase the

cell's sensitivity to insulin, thus decreasing the

amount of insulin secreted to produce a certain effect.

So it's insulin that makes us fat and prevents us from

losing that fat. Prevent insulin secretion by controlling

dietary carb intake, or by physical activity after meals,

or by being properly nourished of needed minerals, and

we're on our way to losing fat (and during rest at that).

Oh, and it's not my idea. It's a long known physiological

principle which I quoted from a basic physiology textbook.

Unfortunately, it's muddled with myths like negative

calorie balance. (But again, this is about fat loss, not

weight loss.)

> However, your contention that fat loss is not related to

> calorie intake is a very contentious issue with many

> studies refuting each other.

Again, it's not my contention. Any biochemistry or physiology

reference shows that a body's priority is to maintain blood

glucose level. When this drops, as in negative calorie balance,

the body maintains it by releasing glycogen stores in the

liver. (Muscle glycogen cannot be released back into the

blood.) When the liver's glycogen stores are depeleted, then

it makes glucose from glucogenic amino acids. It gets these

by breaking down muscle protein. It's only when glucogenic

amino acid stores are depleted as well (our muscles eaten up?)

that fat starts to be used. But such state is rarely reached

in a calorie restriction diet because a next meal usually

comes around and the process repeats itself, never reaching

the fat usage state.

And again, we must distinguish between plain weight loss and

fat loss. Negative calorie balance can result in weight loss,

but how much of that would be fat loss?

By knowing the principle or biochemical/physiological

pathways, we know what's going on and can easily resolve why

we have studies apparently refuting each other. Get to the

principles and pathways, and we see what went on behind such

conflicting studies. Like, why would Atkins (low carbs), Zone

(moderate carbs), or McDougall (low fat, high, but complex

carbs) all claim success? It may not be the diet after all,

but the effect on insulin, or even the associated exercise.

Of course, there were researches that made possible the

elaboration of those biochemical and physiological pathways.

But once we know those principles, then all we have to do is

apply them. We do not have to be confused by conflicting

studies.

Gerry

[Guest guest]

Several points.

The BW workouts as normally practiced will not produce appreciably

muscle mass. This is well known in exercise circles and is an

attraction for athletes who want strength increases with little or no

mass gains.

Yes, one CAN gain more mass using different iso techniques but those

are not normally used with the BW. They CAN be but then, what would

be the point. The largest muscle mass increases are very easily

attained by using weight training methods.

Specific to insulin, calories, weight and fat loss, this is way more

complex and contentious than you let on.

Simply go to Google and start sorting. The debate is ENDLESS.

> > Interesting statement, but I am not sure what you are

> > advocating here? Yes, adding muscle mass raises basal

> > metabolism. However, the BW as normally used will only

> > add small amounts of muscle mass.

>

> I agree with this if one is dealing with an already

> muscular (though fat?) individual. However, for one who

> has been mostly sedentary, BW or isometrics can maximize

> one's muscle mass before a plateau (in mass) is reached.

> In either case, if one gets the muscles, then s/he gets

> the tissue needed to burn fat during rest, if insulin

> is not around.

>

> As for basal metabolism, we still need to go for fat

> usage instead of glucose use/fat use blockage as

> will occur with insulin. We may have two persons with

> the same basal metabolic rate, but one may be burning

> fat, while the other will not be using fat at all. It

> really depends on insulin (which, I think, should be

> considered an emergency hormone, and not one that must

> be secreted after every meal).

>

> > Are you suggesting that carb restriction/manipulation

> > is the way to go with your eating. If so, there is

> > PLENTY of research to suggest that that approach can be

> > very fruitful indeed.

>

> The important thing is control of insulin level. Insulin

> is what makes us fat, and it's what keeps us fat. Fat can

> never be used up if insulin is around, even in one on a

> negative calorie balance. (One can still be in negative

> calorie balance with meals that still spike blood glucose

> level and thus cause insulin release.)

>

> Dietary control of carbohydrate intake is only one way

> to achieve blood glucose/insulin level control. However,

> it's not the only method. Another method is simply

> engaging in physical activity (i.e., muscle contraction)

> when one's blood glucose level is high. As the reference

> quoted shows, muscles in contraction will suck up the

> blood glucose without the need for insulin. Then there's

> also the role nutrients like chromium, which increase the

> cell's sensitivity to insulin, thus decreasing the

> amount of insulin secreted to produce a certain effect.

>

> So it's insulin that makes us fat and prevents us from

> losing that fat. Prevent insulin secretion by controlling

> dietary carb intake, or by physical activity after meals,

> or by being properly nourished of needed minerals, and

> we're on our way to losing fat (and during rest at that).

>

> Oh, and it's not my idea. It's a long known physiological

> principle which I quoted from a basic physiology textbook.

> Unfortunately, it's muddled with myths like negative

> calorie balance. (But again, this is about fat loss, not

> weight loss.)

>

> > However, your contention that fat loss is not related to

> > calorie intake is a very contentious issue with many

> > studies refuting each other.

>

> Again, it's not my contention. Any biochemistry or physiology

> reference shows that a body's priority is to maintain blood

> glucose level. When this drops, as in negative calorie balance,

> the body maintains it by releasing glycogen stores in the

> liver. (Muscle glycogen cannot be released back into the

> blood.) When the liver's glycogen stores are depeleted, then

> it makes glucose from glucogenic amino acids. It gets these

> by breaking down muscle protein. It's only when glucogenic

> amino acid stores are depleted as well (our muscles eaten up?)

> that fat starts to be used. But such state is rarely reached

> in a calorie restriction diet because a next meal usually

> comes around and the process repeats itself, never reaching

> the fat usage state.

>

> And again, we must distinguish between plain weight loss and

> fat loss. Negative calorie balance can result in weight loss,

> but how much of that would be fat loss?

>

> By knowing the principle or biochemical/physiological

> pathways, we know what's going on and can easily resolve why

> we have studies apparently refuting each other. Get to the

> principles and pathways, and we see what went on behind such

> conflicting studies. Like, why would Atkins (low carbs), Zone

> (moderate carbs), or McDougall (low fat, high, but complex

> carbs) all claim success? It may not be the diet after all,

> but the effect on insulin, or even the associated exercise.

>

> Of course, there were researches that made possible the

> elaboration of those biochemical and physiological pathways.

> But once we know those principles, then all we have to do is

> apply them. We do not have to be confused by conflicting

> studies.

>

> Gerry

>