60 lbs. overweight woman and weight training?

[Jdr]

Hi everyone!

I finally motivated my wife to get into the Gym, that weight
training (mainly) + cardio + eating healthy (no "diets", but
changing eating patterns) it's the only way to lose weight,
keep it off and improve energy.

Soooo, obviously I picked Krista's beginner's workout and I'm
preparing a routine for her.

She keeps asking me if she should do weight training being so
overweight. Maybe she could do only cardio till she loses some
weight and THEN start weight training. Everyone tells her that
if she starts now with weights then "fat will turn into
muscle" and she'll be fat but hard.

I told her (with my most secure tone) that those are
completely different cell types and one can't "turn" into the
other (as I've read here many times).

She has faith in me, but I want to corroborate those 2
questions:

1) It's ok for someone so overweight to start weight training
and cardio? (she has no previous weight training
experience) or she should lose some weight first and THEN
start a weight training programm?

2) It's true that fat cannot turn into muscle? All the time
people here in MFW are asking for references, can someone
tell me a URL about this so I can print it to her?

Thanks!

JD

[Spodosauru]

JDR wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I finally motivated my wife to get into the Gym, that weight
> training (mainly) + cardio + eating healthy (no "diets", but
> changing eating patterns) it's the only way to lose weight,
> keep it off and improve energy.
>
> Soooo, obviously I picked Krista's beginner's workout and
> I'm preparing a routine for her.
>
> She keeps asking me if she should do weight training being
> so overweight. Maybe she could do only cardio till she loses
> some weight and THEN start weight training. Everyone tells
> her that if she starts now with weights then "fat will turn
> into muscle" and she'll be fat but hard.
>
> I told her (with my most secure tone) that those are
> completely different cell types and one can't "turn" into
> the other (as I've read here many times).
>
> She has faith in me, but I want to corroborate those 2
> questions:
>
> 1) It's ok for someone so overweight to start weight
> training and cardio? (she has no previous weight training
> experience) or she should lose some weight first and THEN
> start a weight training programm?

Weight training will herlp her maintain the muscle she has
while she's losing weight. The body will eat muscle as well as
fat if you do not incoporate resistance training into your
exercise regimen while losing weight. This will make it even
harder to lose weight, because muscle burns a LOT of energy
even when at rest.

>
> 2) It's true that fat cannot turn into muscle? All the time
> people here in MFW are asking for references, can someone
> tell me a URL about this so I can print it to her?

Can I turn bone into nervous tissue? Can I turn a liver into a
brain? Fat does not turn into muscle. Anyone that says it does
is a moron, and should be removed from the gene pool. You can
gain or lose adipose (fat) tissue (there's more than one kind
of adipose tissue, but we're talking about subcutaneous white
fat here) and you can gain or lose muscle weight. You can even
do one whilst doing the other, but while possible, does not
usually happen. The best most people can hope for is to
maintain muscle while dropping fat. The woman in question is,
as you say, 60 lbs over weight (over fat would be a better
term). Imagine if she was 60 pounds over weight because of
muscle. She'd be able to deadlift a small car. It ain't gunnah
happen, not anytime soon anyway, and it won't come from some
magical transformation of fat to muscle! Ask her if the people
that have been feeding her this shitty misinformation also
have the recipe for turning lead into gold!

Ari

>
> Thanks!
>
> JD

--

Are you registered as a bone marrow donor? You regenerate what
you donate. You are offered the chance to donate only if you
match a person on the recipient list. Call your local Red
Cross and ask about registering to be a bone marrow donor.

spam trap: replace shyah_right with hotmail when replying

[Wendy Mars]

Tell her to email me. I started out as 60 pounds overweight.
Here's what I found:

Overweight people carry a lot of lean body mass to haul around
their blubber. That means she might have 130 pounds of muscle
and 70 pounds of fat starting out. (That's a body fat
percentage of 35% - clearly obese.)

If you diet and do lots of cardio you will lose both lean
muscle AND fat, but I don't believe there is any medical
benefit to losing lean body mass. The whole ball of wax is to
lose fat. Having more muscle helps you to burn more fat.

If you do weight training while also doing cardio and watching
your diet then you lose only FAT instead of a combination of
fat and muscle. In fact, newbies gain muscle while losing fat,
leaving them with a better body fat percentage, looking
slimmer, feeling stronger, more protected form injuries from
their cardio, more energetic to do cardio, etc.

Some people would rather be weak, gaunt and slim. I call that
Heroin Chic. I'd rather be sturdy and healthy.

Wendy

[Thatdudeuk]

"JDR" <jdreich@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b20b0bd4.0302270743.5ce857f3@posting.google.com...
> Hi everyone!
>
> I finally motivated my wife to get into the Gym, that weight
> training (mainly) + cardio + eating healthy (no "diets", but
> changing eating patterns) it's the only way to lose weight,
> keep it off and improve energy.
>
> Soooo, obviously I picked Krista's beginner's workout and
> I'm preparing a routine for her.
>
> She keeps asking me if she should do weight training being
> so overweight. Maybe she could do only cardio till she loses
> some weight and THEN start weight training. Everyone tells
> her that if she starts now with weights then "fat will turn
> into muscle" and she'll be fat but hard.
>
> I told her (with my most secure tone) that those are
> completely different cell types and one can't "turn" into
> the other (as I've read here many times).
>
> She has faith in me, but I want to corroborate those 2
> questions:
>
> 1) It's ok for someone so overweight to start weight
> training and cardio? (she has no previous weight training
> experience) or she should lose some weight first and THEN
> start a weight training programm?
>
> 2) It's true that fat cannot turn into muscle? All the time
> people here in MFW are asking for references, can someone
> tell me a URL about this so I can print it to her?
>

I read somewhere about doing low amounts of weight for a long
period as opposed to muscle building heavy weightys for a
shorter period can help lose weight

[Forest]

Fat doesn't spontaneously turn to muscle, but it supplies the
energy needed for muscle growth. Muscle is protein and fat is
well..fat (adipose tissue).

[Rick++]

Sure, it will be very useful. Muscle burns calories.

Dont worry about the amounts- 20-30 lbs to start is OK. The
amount should should leave her light fatigued by the 3rd or
4th set of ten repetitions. When the final rep seems easy,
then add another 5 or 10 lbs the next session.

For the first year, concentrate on endurance rather than
strength training. That means lots of repetitions (3 x 10,
etc) of modest weights. You got to build you the muscles,
nerves, blood supply, flexibility, etc. before trying
advanced stuff.

[Lemony]

It's great that you're helping your wife out.

I recommend that she reads "8 Minutes in the Morning" by Jorge
Cruise. It's a great program for beginners, since it's short
so she won't get deterred. It's also quite informative about
healthy eating. I used that book for the first 4 weeks of my
weight training, and then I was able to move on to more
advanced stuff.

[Ignorcrew]

jdreich@yahoo.com (JDR) wrote in message
news:<b20b0bd4.0302270743.5ce857f3@posting.google.com>...
> Hi everyone!
>
> I finally motivated my wife to get into the Gym, that weight
> training (mainly) + cardio + eating healthy (no "diets", but
> changing eating patterns) it's the only way to lose weight,
> keep it off and improve energy.
>
> Soooo, obviously I picked Krista's beginner's workout and
> I'm preparing a routine for her.
>
> She keeps asking me if she should do weight training being
> so overweight. Maybe she could do only cardio till she loses
> some weight and THEN start weight training. Everyone tells
> her that if she starts now with weights then "fat will turn
> into muscle" and she'll be fat but hard.
>
> I told her (with my most secure tone) that those are
> completely different cell types and one can't "turn" into
> the other (as I've read here many times).
>
> She has faith in me, but I want to corroborate those 2
> questions:
>
> 1) It's ok for someone so overweight to start weight
> training and cardio? (she has no previous weight training
> experience) or she should lose some weight first and THEN
> start a weight training programm?
>
> 2) It's true that fat cannot turn into muscle?

Imagine that all the fat people were able to turn the fat into
muscle. Wouldn't that be nice? Tell her if she succeeds at it,
I will pay for the recipe.

All the time people
> here in MFW are asking for references, can someone tell me a
> URL about this so I can print it to her?
>
> Thanks!
>
> JD

[Whitster]

Wendy Marsden <wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:3e5e3d01@nap.mtholyoke.edu...
> Tell her to email me. I started out as 60 pounds overweight.
> Here's what I found:
>
> Overweight people carry a lot of lean body mass to haul
> around their blubber.

most definitely true. especially in the lower body. some of
these people have damn good calves for instance.

That means she might have 130 pounds of muscle and 70 pounds
of
> fat starting out. (That's a body fat percentage of 35% -
> clearly obese.)
>
> If you diet and do lots of cardio you will lose both lean
> muscle AND fat, but I don't believe there is any medical
> benefit to losing lean body mass. The whole ball of wax is
> to lose fat. Having more muscle helps you to burn more fat.
>
> If you do weight training while also doing cardio and
> watching your diet then you lose only FAT instead of a
> combination of fat and muscle. In fact, newbies gain muscle
> while losing fat, leaving them with a better body fat
> percentage, looking slimmer, feeling stronger, more
> protected form injuries from their cardio, more energetic to
> do cardio, etc.
>
> Some people would rather be weak, gaunt and slim. I call
> that Heroin Chic. I'd rather be sturdy and healthy.
>
> Wendy

while i agree with your basic points, there is (of course
since this is MFW) incorrect anti-cardio prattle here.

you can do just cardio and maintain (and even grow) LBM as
compared to an untrained fat person.

first of all, cardio does not just mean running. in fact,
running is not a very good option for the very heavy.
Swimming, otoh, is an excellent exercise for the uh... adipose
enhanced. and while it is still the dreaded cardio, it can
also build a fair amount of muscle, and coordination, and
confidence, etc. etc.

the ergomoter (rowing machine) also builds a lot of strength
and muscle in the posterior chain as compared to an untrained
subject, it is great for fat loss (very intense), and it
supports weight and is not very high impact.

etc.etc.

hey, i am all for giving props to weight training and cardio
as a combo program, but don't think for a second that the
obese can't build a good physique, lose tons of bf, and get
reasonably strong, doing mostly, or exclusively cardio. i have
seen it done many a time.

i know you prefer weights, and that's great, and I would
recommend a combo of weights and cardio myself for the vast
majority of obese subjects, i think you don't give cardio the
props it deserves.

cardio alone will not make you "weak, gaunt, and slim",
anymore than weight training will make you inflexible,
musclebound, and slow. your anti-cardio diatribe is just
as silly, and incorrect, as the example I used for
weight trainers.

i have raced dozens of road races, biathlons, etc. the vast
majority of recreational cardio trainers never approach
"gaunt", for instance. yes, pro-marathoners are gaunt. but
comparing them to the average cardio trainer is like comparing
the average gym goer to Ronnie Coleman.

whit

[Jdr]

spodosaurus <strictform@shyah_right.com> wrote in message
news:<3E5E359E.5070501@shyah_right.com>...
> JDR wrote:
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I finally motivated my wife to get into the Gym, that
> > weight training (mainly) + cardio + eating healthy (no
> > "diets", but changing eating patterns) it's the only way
> > to lose weight, keep it off and improve energy.

[snip]

> > 1) It's ok for someone so overweight to start weight
> > training and cardio? (she has no previous weight
> > training experience) or she should lose some weight
> > first and THEN start a weight training programm?
>
> Weight training will herlp her maintain the muscle she has
> while she's losing weight. The body will eat muscle as well
> as fat if you do not incoporate resistance training into
> your exercise regimen while losing weight. This will make it
> even harder to lose weight, because muscle burns a LOT of
> energy even when at rest.

Right, I'll tell her (again) this. Thanks.

> > 2) It's true that fat cannot turn into muscle? All the
> > time people here in MFW are asking for references, can
> > someone tell me a URL about this so I can print it to
> > her?
>
> Can I turn bone into nervous tissue? Can I turn a liver into
> a brain? Fat does not turn into muscle. Anyone that says it
> does is a moron, and should be removed from the gene pool.
> You can gain or lose adipose (fat) tissue (there's more than
> one kind of adipose tissue, but we're talking about
> subcutaneous white fat here) and you can gain or lose muscle
> weight. You can even do one whilst doing the other, but
> while possible, does not usually happen. The best most
> people can hope for is to maintain muscle while dropping
> fat. The woman in question is, as you say, 60 lbs over
> weight (over fat would be a better term). Imagine if she was
> 60 pounds over weight because of muscle. She'd be able to
> deadlift a small car. It ain't gunnah happen, not anytime
> soon anyway, and it won't come from some magical
> transformation of fat to muscle! Ask her if the people that
> have been feeding her this shitty misinformation also have
> the recipe for turning lead into gold!

Well, those people never have lifted a weight, are overweight
also, etc.

Thanks again,

JD

[Wendy Mars]

Lemony (empapel@NOSPAMhotmail.com) wrote:
> It's great that you're helping your wife out.
>
> I recommend that she reads "8 Minutes in the Morning" by
> Jorge Cruise. It's a great program for beginners, since it's
> short so she won't get deterred. It's also quite informative
> about healthy eating. I used that book for the first 4 weeks
> of my weight training, and then I was able to move on to
> more advanced stuff.

Gag. I really hate those women's weight loss books that
suggest you buy sweet purple 3 pound dumbbells.

I suggest you get her Body for Life by Bill Phillips and let
her look at the pictures in the fly-leafs before reading it. I
think a big transformation is more inspiring that learning to
curl 3 pounds!

Wendy, curling 30

[Wendy Mars]

whitster (whit@whit.com) wrote:
>
> you can do just cardio and maintain (and even grow) LBM as
> compared to an untrained fat person.

I don't disagree, but I really think you hit the limit on
muscle growth pretty quickly and don't continue to get MORE
LBM. I'm also not a big fan of long cardio sessions done for
"fat-burning" when the intensity doesn't startle the body.
I've got tons of stamina - I didn't find that the "fat
burning" went on any longer than 1 second after I got off the
damn machine when I did long cardio. This is anecdotal and
maybe only applies to me, but I was a long-distance runner in
my youth and long-slow ANYTHING doesn't shock my body much
into either using more fat OR growing more muscle.

Obviously it uses calories while you're engaged in the
activity, but I'm really not sure that everyone dips into
their fat stores as easily as you do - in other words, I burn
muscle. (Please let me acknowledge that I'm simplifying. I
know about the Krebs cycle.)

> cardio alone will not make you "weak, gaunt, and slim",
> anymore than weight training will make you inflexible,
> musclebound, and slow. your anti-cardio diatribe is just as
> silly, and incorrect, as the example I used for weight
> trainers.

Agreed. In fact, to get that special dark-bags-under-the-eyes
"Heroin Chic" you have to use special supplements that you
can't get at GNC.

But excessive cardio combined with muscle loss from dieting
will make a person with recent weight loss look gaunt. I've
seen it over and over. They're the ones about the burst out
with fat all over in an instant rebound because of their
destroyed metabolism. (Look at nearly any big Weight Watchers
weight loss +6 months after goal.)

Wendy

[Whit]

"Wendy Marsden" <wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:3e5e809c@nap.mtholyoke.edu...
> whitster (whit@whit.com) wrote:
> >
> > you can do just cardio and maintain (and even grow) LBM as
> > compared to
an
> > untrained fat person.
>
> I don't disagree, but I really think you hit the limit on
> muscle growth pretty quickly

um. i don't know what you mean by pretty quickly. i think you
can (and do) gain muscle doing swimming, rowing, etc. for over
a year. obviously, generally speaking, cardio will not put on
as much LBM as an intelligent weight program.

>and don't continue to get MORE LBM.

even once the LBM gains slow, one can still burn tons of
calories doing just cardio. and one can maintain leanness and
decent muscle mass doing just cardio.

I'm also not a big fan
> of long cardio sessions done for "fat-burning" when the
> intensity doesn't startle the body.

nor am i

I've got tons of stamina - I didn't find that the "fat
> burning" went on any longer than 1 second after I got off
> the damn machine when I did long cardio.

well, i certainly did, as do many others.

This is anecdotal and maybe only applies to
> me, but I was a long-distance runner in my youth and
> long-slow ANYTHING doesn't shock my body much into either
> using more fat OR growing more muscle.

i have seen too many people get radical fat loss doing ld
running. and keeping it off. ditto for swimming, rowing, etc.

it may not work that well for you, and/or you may not have
been running hard enough.

>
> Obviously it uses calories while you're engaged in the
> activity, but I'm really not sure that everyone dips into
> their fat stores as easily as you do - in other words, I
> burn muscle. (Please let me acknowledge that I'm
> simplifying. I know about the Krebs cycle.)
>

i didn't have any fat stores to dip into, generally speaking,
so i am not talking about myself.

> > cardio alone will not make you "weak, gaunt, and slim",
> > anymore than
weight
> > training will make you inflexible, musclebound, and
> > slow. your
anti-cardio
> > diatribe is just as silly, and incorrect, as the example I
> > used for
weight
> > trainers.
>
> Agreed. In fact, to get that special
> dark-bags-under-the-eyes "Heroin Chic" you have to use
> special supplements that you can't get at GNC.
>
> But excessive cardio combined with muscle loss from dieting
> will make a person with recent weight loss look gaunt.

well, by definition. since "excessive cardio" would be a
tautology in that regards.

I've seen it over and
> over. They're the ones about the burst out with fat all over
> in an instant rebound because of their destroyed metabolism.
> (Look at nearly any big Weight Watchers weight loss +6
> months after goal.)
>

the same could be said of excessive weight training with a
weight watchers program.

whit

> Wendy

[Donovan Re]

In article
<l_s7a.4247$M85.447262@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
whitster wrote:

> i have raced dozens of road races, biathlons, etc. the vast
> majority of recreational cardio trainers never approach
> "gaunt", for instance. yes, pro-marathoners are gaunt.

I think even some of those comments about distance runners
are a bit exaggerated. Some are extremely skinny, but not
all of them.

Here's a webpage with some pictures of some elite marathoners.
Jerry Lawson is 5 foot 10, and weighs in at 155lb. Lawson is a
marathon specialist who logs a lot of milage (more than
100/week) -- he's not a miler who happened to run a marathon
one day. I don't know how big Todd Williams is, but his
physique isn't too shabby, even though he's probably not as
strong as Hobman. Paul Evans is kind of thin, but not
Anorexic-looking.

http://www.uwec.edu/Academic/Curric/hartnesg/hartnett/CHIMAR-
/26MI.html

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Brian Link]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:42:25 GMT, "whitster"
<whit@whit.com> wrote:

>
>Wendy Marsden <wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
>news:3e5e3d01@nap.mtholyoke.edu...
>> Tell her to email me. I started out as 60 pounds
>> overweight. Here's what I found:
>>
>> Overweight people carry a lot of lean body mass to haul
>> around their blubber.
>
>most definitely true. especially in the lower body. some of
>these people have damn good calves for instance.

Haha! I was just thinking today at the gym how wierd it was
that even though I'm bicep-curling 12x40" with great
difficulty, I'm doing a rotary calf machine at 12x320!

Too bad all that fat I lost wasn't stored in my fingers. I'd
have the arms of a brick mason by now.

BLink Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

[Donovan Re]

In article <3e5e809c@nap.mtholyoke.edu>, Wendy Marsden wrote:
> whitster (whit@whit.com) wrote:
>>
>> you can do just cardio and maintain (and even grow) LBM as
>> compared to an untrained fat person.
>
> I don't disagree, but I really think you hit the limit on
> muscle growth pretty quickly and don't continue to get MORE
> LBM. I'm also not a big fan of long cardio sessions done for
> "fat-burning" when the intensity doesn't startle the body.
> I've got tons of stamina - I didn't find that the "fat
> burning" went on any longer than 1 second after I got off
> the damn machine when I did long cardio. This is anecdotal
> and maybe only applies to me, but I was a long-distance
> runner in my youth and long-slow ANYTHING doesn't shock my
> body much into either using more fat OR growing more muscle.

What distances in terms of weekly milage ? I'm curious about
this because young runners usually aren't advised to do high
milage training. I found myself getting pretty ripped when I
went from 20 miles/week to 40 miles/week. Most of the increase
was in slow work. Running burns about 100cal/mile for a 137lb
runner. Which means I burn a lot (5000cal/week) but someone
who's smaller and on low milage won't burn a whole lot.

To keep it in perspective, "slow" running usually means heart
rate in the range of 75-85% max heart rate (as opposed to fast
or moderately fast which pushes you up to and over 90% pretty
quickly). It's nearly impossible to be in the "fat burning
zone" while running.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Whit]

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnb5tc0u.iq8.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> In article
> <l_s7a.4247$M85.447262@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
whitster
> wrote:
>
> > i have raced dozens of road races, biathlons, etc. the
> > vast majority of recreational cardio trainers never
> > approach "gaunt", for instance. yes, pro-marathoners are
> > gaunt.
>
> I think even some of those comments about distance runners
> are a bit exaggerated. Some are extremely skinny, but not
> all of them.
>
> Here's a webpage with some pictures of some elite
> marathoners. Jerry
Lawson is
> 5 foot 10, and weighs in at 155lb. Lawson is a marathon
> specialist who
logs
> a lot of milage (more than 100/week) -- he's not a miler who
> happened to
run a
> marathon one day. I don't know how big Todd Williams is, but
> his physique isn't too shabby, even though he's probably not
> as strong as Hobman. Paul
Evans
> is kind of thin, but not Anorexic-looking.
>
> http://www.uwec.edu/Academic/Curric/hartnesg/hartnett/CHIMA-
> R/26MI.html
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi

i agree. my point is that looking at elite marathoners, or the
elite in almost any sport, does not necessarily give you a
representative look at what most athletes in that sport look
like, and/or what that sport "does" to your body in terms of
physique changes. it is like looking at top NBA players (who
are overwhelmingly tall) and concluding that basketball is
going to make you tall. or looking at top swimmers who usually
have a big wingspan, big hands, etc. and concluding that your
hands will get bigger if you swim a lot.

the people who succeed at marathoning (generally speaking) are
usually somewhat short (well, not for MFW, but short compared
to real people), "light framed", have a preponderance of slow
twitch muscle fibers (which is in large part genetic), etc.

of course, it also apparently helps to be born of east african
descent and/or at a high altititude, but that is another
argument entirely! :l

at the elite level, bw is extremely important. if you can
improve your time by 1 minute over the 26 mile 385 yard
distance, that can be all the difference between 1st and 2nd
place, for instance. so, these guys are not going to be
muscular. because it adds too much weight. even if 15 lbs of
muscle mass only resulted in a 3 minute slower marathon time,
it would not be worth it for an elite marathoner. duh.

in general, it is going to be somewhat hard to maintain a
LOT of muscle mass while training for the marathon (much
easier to do so while training for a 5k for instance), that
much is true.

the people who DO the marathon do not necessarily fit this
bill, vs. the elite.

fwiw, while steve prefontaine was not a marathoner, he was a
phenomenal middle distance runner. he was also very strong
despite his relatively thin appearance.

several of his teammates (throwers etc.) commented on how
steve could bench press etc. weights that somewhat blew their
mind considering his rather small frame. as several shirtless
pics have showed, he also had totally ripped abs, etc. some of
these guys (middle distance) look pretty thin, but they also
may have a strength to weight ratio that would surprise you.

whit

> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Wendy Mars]

Donovan Rebbechi (abuse@aol.com) wrote:

> > This is anecdotal and maybe only applies to me, but I was
> > a long-distance runner in my youth and long-slow ANYTHING
> > doesn't shock my body much into either using more fat OR
> > growing more muscle.
>
> What distances in terms of weekly milage ? I'm curious about
> this because young runners usually aren't advised to do high
> milage training.

Please note that I was in *great* shape as a high school
athlete. I worked out in the weight room (it was a co-ed cross
country running team and the coach treated the girls just like
the boys) and I did three seasons of sports. In the fall I ran
the 2 mile and would run maybe 30-40 miles a week. This was 20
years ago, though.

Now I rarely run at all. The thing is, I'm over-fat, have
insulin resistance, a mother of three and my body is GREAT at
endurance. I'm not saying that I don't lose weight from
cardio, but I'm saying that it isn't as effetive at
fat-burning because of my own particular issues as it is for
some other people.

The OP's wife may have these same problems. Covert Bailey had
a tip for over-fat women that involved doing whatever would
startle their body into getting better at accessing fuel from
fat. He suggested HIIT 20 years ago. That appears to work MUCH
better for me (and my issues, and possibly the OP's wife's
issues) than the traditional advice to keep your heart at 65%
for 45 minutes.

> I found myself getting pretty ripped when I went from 20
> miles/week to 40 miles/week. Most of the increase was in
> slow work. Running burns about 100cal/mile for a 137lb
> runner. Which means I burn a lot (5000cal/week) but someone
> who's smaller and on low milage won't burn a whole lot.

I'm not in this league anymore. These days I get sore knees.
Before glacial ice settled on my land (three long months
ago) I used to run to the gym (maybe 1/2 a mile) and back
after my workout.

> To keep it in perspective, "slow" running usually means
> heart rate in the range of 75-85% max heart rate (as opposed
> to fast or moderately fast which pushes you up to and over
> 90% pretty quickly). It's nearly impossible to be in the
> "fat burning zone" while running.

Fatties like me intermingle running with walking. That's how.

Wendy

[Lucas Buck]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:18:06 GMT, wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu
(Wendy Marsden) wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi (abuse@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> > This is anecdotal and maybe only applies to me, but I was
>> > a long-distance runner in my youth and long-slow ANYTHING
>> > doesn't shock my body much into either using more fat OR
>> > growing more muscle.
>>
>> What distances in terms of weekly milage ? I'm curious
>> about this because young runners usually aren't advised to
>> do high milage training.
>
>Please note that I was in *great* shape as a high school
>athlete. I worked out in the weight room (it was a co-ed
>cross country running team and the coach treated the girls
>just like the boys) and I did three seasons of sports. In the
>fall I ran the 2 mile and would run maybe 30-40 miles a week.
>This was 20 years ago, though.

High school jpegs please.

[Lemony]

> Lemony (empapel@NOSPAMhotmail.com) wrote:
> > It's great that you're helping your wife out.
> >
> > I recommend that she reads "8 Minutes in the Morning" by
> > Jorge Cruise.
It's
> > a great program for beginners, since it's short so she
> > won't get
deterred.
> > It's also quite informative about healthy eating. I used
> > that book for
the
> > first 4 weeks of my weight training, and then I was able
> > to move on to
more
> > advanced stuff.
>
> Gag. I really hate those women's weight loss books that
> suggest you buy sweet purple 3 pound dumbbells.
>
> I suggest you get her Body for Life by Bill Phillips and let
> her look at the pictures in the fly-leafs before reading it.
> I think a big transformation is more inspiring that learning
> to curl 3 pounds!

Sorry, Wendy's right... ignore the weight suggestions in the
book. Start with ten pounders if you're a beginner... I don't
own any 3 pound dumbells.

My point was that with a 60 pound weight loss, you need to
look at the whole picture - eating, lifting and cardio.
Jorge's book is a good read for those who are prone to
slacking off (like I was). Body for Life is great but only
if you can really commit to the 12 weeks. I found 4 weeks
easier at first.

Lemony

[Eric Witte]

> Obviously it uses calories while you're engaged in the
> activity, but I'm really not sure that everyone dips into
> their fat stores as easily as you do - in other words, I
> burn muscle. (Please let me acknowledge that I'm
> simplifying. I know about the Krebs cycle.)

The last time I tried running my weight lifting results went
down 20-30% in 4-6 weeks. I was really only running a little
over 5 miles a week.

Eric

[Mistress K]

"whit" <whit@whit.net> wrote in message
news:b3m517$1nu0dj$1@ID-181351.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Wendy Marsden" <wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
> news:3e5e809c@nap.mtholyoke.edu...
> > whitster (whit@whit.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > you can do just cardio and maintain (and even grow) LBM
> > > as compared to
> an
> > > untrained fat person.
> >
> > I don't disagree, but I really think you hit the limit on
> > muscle growth pretty quickly
>
> um. i don't know what you mean by pretty quickly. i think
> you can (and
do)
> gain muscle doing swimming, rowing, etc. for over a year.
> obviously, generally speaking, cardio will not put on as
> much LBM as an intelligent weight program.

People, people... why not put the chocolate in the peanut
butter and do both?

Krista Showing her age with that reference

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista@stumptuous.com

[Hoff]

"Lucas Buck" <lefty@dodgerssuck.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:vd3u5vs33rqthb5add9t8sd21f42uf9g2v@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:18:06 GMT, wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu
> (Wendy Marsden)
wrote:
>
> >Donovan Rebbechi (abuse@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> >> > This is anecdotal and maybe only applies to me, but I
> >> > was a long-distance runner in my youth and long-slow
ANYTHING
> >> > doesn't shock my body much into either using more fat
> >> > OR growing more muscle.
> >>
> >> What distances in terms of weekly milage ? I'm curious
> >> about this
because young
> >> runners usually aren't advised to do high milage
> >> training.
> >
> >Please note that I was in *great* shape as a high school
> >athlete. I worked out in the weight room (it was a co-ed
> >cross country running team and the coach treated the girls
> >just like the boys) and I did three seasons of sports. In
> >the fall I ran the 2 mile and would run maybe
30-40
> >miles a week. This was 20 years ago, though.
>
> High school jpegs please.

Seconded.

You weren't, by chance, a cheerleader too, were you?

Or maybe with a plaid skirt, knee-high stockings...<slap>

Sorry.

Hoff

[Chris Brau]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:29:55 GMT, wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu
(Wendy Marsden) wrote:

>If you do weight training while also doing cardio and
>watching your diet then you lose only FAT instead of a
>combination of fat and muscle.

I think this is overstated. In my experience, doing weight
training (and I do a lot of it) while dieting and doing cardio
helps reduce muscle loss but does not entirely eliminate it. I
don't think it's possible to lose only fat and no muscle
(though I sure wish it were).

Chris

[John Smith]

"Chris Braun" <braun_chris@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ko806vkslss1rni65q542hrqr9ln9oeas9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:29:55 GMT, wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu
> (Wendy Marsden) wrote:
>
> >If you do weight training while also doing cardio and
> >watching your diet then you lose only FAT instead of a
> >combination of fat and muscle.
>
> I think this is overstated. In my experience, doing weight
> training (and I do a lot of it) while dieting and doing
> cardio helps reduce muscle loss but does not entirely
> eliminate it. I don't think it's possible to lose only fat
> and no muscle (though I sure wish it were).
>
> Chris

But is this true if you have a high body fat percentage and
haven't been doing strength training? A fellow I work with has
lost about 20 lbs this last year (he was probably 50 lbs
overweight) and has definitely put on muscle.

-John

[Chris Brau]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 07:32:07 -0500, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>"Chris Braun" <braun_chris@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ko806vkslss1rni65q542hrqr9ln9oeas9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:29:55 GMT, wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu
>> (Wendy Marsden) wrote:
>>
>> >If you do weight training while also doing cardio and
>> >watching your diet then you lose only FAT instead of a
>> >combination of fat and muscle.
>>
>> I think this is overstated. In my experience, doing weight
>> training (and I do a lot of it) while dieting and doing
>> cardio helps reduce muscle loss but does not entirely
>> eliminate it. I don't think it's possible to lose only fat
>> and no muscle (though I sure wish it were).
>>
>> Chris
>
>But is this true if you have a high body fat percentage and
>haven't been doing strength training? A fellow I work with
>has lost about 20 lbs this last year (he was probably 50 lbs
>overweight) and has definitely put on muscle.
>
>-John
>

You're right, John. I wasn't thinking about that case. My
situation is different, as I had already been weight training
seriously for 3 years or so when I began working on fat loss.
For someone who's new to strength training, the muscle gains
will likely offset any possible muscle loss from dieting.

I'm somewhat skeptical of most methods for measuring BF%, so
can't really say how much muscle I may have lost. But there
are some strength losses. My previous max bench press was 185,
and now I'm doing well to get 165-170. (Before you laugh too
much at my numbers, let me point out that I'm a 54-year-old
woman). However, I'm lifting a larger percent of body weight,
so I'll take it. I am hoping that when I get to my
(undetermined) desired weight, I can build my bench back up.
(My Olympic lifting hasn't suffered noticeably, I think
because of improved speed with weight loss.)

Chris