My first visit to the gym, how did I do?

Hi all, I'm 19 yo male. I just got back from my first visit to the gym
and my whole body feels like a sack of potatoes. I'm not exactly
overweight, just need to get rid of small gut, and tone up. Anyways, I
did the bike machine for 30 minutes, and it told me I burned 170
calories, is that good for beginners? Then I went on to use some of
the weight machines, I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around
40 lbs, I guess I'll get better as I go along. Also, for cardio which
is the best and most effective to use? the bike, treadmill,
stairsmaster, etc?

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 subsize32@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hi all, I'm 19 yo male. I just got back from my first visit to the gym
> and my whole body feels like a sack of potatoes.

A good sign!

> I'm not exactly overweight, just need to get rid of small gut, and tone
> up. Anyways, I did the bike machine for 30 minutes, and it told me I
> burned 170 calories,

I believe these numbers are usually pretty inaccurate.

> is that good for beginners?

If it's true, it's half a mars bar. If you're interested in losing weight,
you can get the same effect as this by eating half a mars bar less instead
of going to the gym.

Do you guys even have mars bars? Subtitute 'generic chocolate bar' for
mars bar above if not.

> Then I went on to use some of the weight machines,

Don't do that. Use free weights. Except for pulldowns and rows, machines
are fine for those.

> I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around 40 lbs,

Without telling us what lift that was, that's kind of not terribly
informative. Although i'm afraid 40 lb qualifies as 'virtually nothing'
for almost any significant lift.

> I guess I'll get better as I go along.

You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination
and unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach
to lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find
that you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2
x 10) to develop your strength.

> Also, for cardio which is the best and most effective to use? the bike,
> treadmill, stairsmaster, etc?

Whatever you're most comfortable doing - the more comfortable you are with
the motion, the faster and longer you can do it. I would say a bike,
rowing machine or elliptical crosstrainer is better than a treadmill,
though, since the latter can be a bit hard on the knees. Playing squash is
also good cardio, and potentially even more fun (personally, i hate it).
Swimming's also good, and a rather useful life skill.

tom

--
We'll never win by being like them. Our best tactic is to be
better. Better necessarily means different. -- Jon Rentzsch

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 subsize32@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Hi all, I'm 19 yo male. I just got back from my first visit to the gym and
>> my whole body feels like a sack of potatoes.
>
> A good sign!
>
>> I'm not exactly overweight, just need to get rid of small gut, and tone up.
>> Anyways, I did the bike machine for 30 minutes, and it told me I burned 170
>> calories,
>
> I believe these numbers are usually pretty inaccurate.
>
>> is that good for beginners?
>
> If it's true, it's half a mars bar. If you're interested in losing weight,
> you can get the same effect as this by eating half a mars bar less instead of
> going to the gym.
>
> Do you guys even have mars bars? Subtitute 'generic chocolate bar' for mars
> bar above if not.
>
>> Then I went on to use some of the weight machines,
>
> Don't do that. Use free weights. Except for pulldowns and rows, machines are
> fine for those.
>
>> I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around 40 lbs,
>
> Without telling us what lift that was, that's kind of not terribly
> informative. Although i'm afraid 40 lb qualifies as 'virtually nothing' for
> almost any significant lift.
>
>> I guess I'll get better as I go along.
>
> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> to develop your strength.

I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.

>
>> Also, for cardio which is the best and most effective to use? the bike,
>> treadmill, stairsmaster, etc?
>
> Whatever you're most comfortable doing - the more comfortable you are with
> the motion, the faster and longer you can do it. I would say a bike, rowing
> machine or elliptical crosstrainer is better than a treadmill, though, since
> the latter can be a bit hard on the knees. Playing squash is also good
> cardio, and potentially even more fun (personally, i hate it). Swimming's
> also good, and a rather useful life skill.

Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around. If you are
looking to lose weight you may consider scrapping the cardio and simply
cut calories and focus on the weights.


--Sir Jackery

On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> > You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> > unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> > lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> > you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> > to develop your strength.
>
> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.

Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
5RMs.

> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.

An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
a day.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:

> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
>>> to develop your strength.
>>
>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
> 5RMs.

I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.

>
>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> a day.

Not true.


--Sir Jackery

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Sir Jackery wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 subsize32@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around 40 lbs, I guess I'll
>>> get better as I go along.
>>
>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination
>> and unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume
>> approach to lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and
>> you'll find that you get much better at it. Then switch to a
>> medium-volume approach (2 x 10) to develop your strength.
>
> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.

Quite true. I meant 'for mass', but was inadequately precise.

>> Whatever you're most comfortable doing - the more comfortable you are
>> with the motion, the faster and longer you can do it. I would say a
>> bike, rowing machine or elliptical crosstrainer is better than a
>> treadmill, though, since the latter can be a bit hard on the knees.
>> Playing squash is also good cardio, and potentially even more fun
>> (personally, i hate it). Swimming's also good, and a rather useful life
>> skill.
>
> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories

Does it? I don't think it's as intense as dedicated cardio. At least, it's
not when i do it!

> and the muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.

Not so much.

> If you are looking to lose weight you may consider scrapping the cardio
> and simply cut calories and focus on the weights.

Or even not bothering so much about the weights. Strength training isn't
going to do much for you if you're running an energy deficit. Maybe for a
beginner, though; i have heard that's possible.

tom

--
It's Brains you want!

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Sir Jackery wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 subsize32@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around 40 lbs, I guess I'll
>>>> get better as I go along.
>>>
>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination
>>> and unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach
>>> to lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find
>>> that you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2
>>> x 10) to develop your strength.
>>
>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> Quite true. I meant 'for mass', but was inadequately precise.
>
>>> Whatever you're most comfortable doing - the more comfortable you are with
>>> the motion, the faster and longer you can do it. I would say a bike,
>>> rowing machine or elliptical crosstrainer is better than a treadmill,
>>> though, since the latter can be a bit hard on the knees. Playing squash is
>>> also good cardio, and potentially even more fun (personally, i hate it).
>>> Swimming's also good, and a rather useful life skill.
>>
>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories
>
> Does it? I don't think it's as intense as dedicated cardio. At least, it's
> not when i do it!

According to exrx.net I burn 1440 calories per workout. Take a look at
this link to calculate yours:
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/Calories.html

>
>> and the muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> Not so much.
>

One pound of muscle - 30-50 calories per day, one pound of fat about three
calories per day.

see: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Toning.html

>> If you are looking to lose weight you may consider scrapping the cardio and
>> simply cut calories and focus on the weights.
>
> Or even not bothering so much about the weights. Strength training isn't
> going to do much for you if you're running an energy deficit. Maybe for a
> beginner, though; i have heard that's possible.
>


-- Sir Jackery

subsize32@yahoo.com writes:

> Hi all, I'm 19 yo male. I just got back from my first visit to the
> gym and my whole body feels like a sack of potatoes.

That feeling will go away in time.

> I'm not exactly overweight, just need to get rid of small gut, and
> tone up.

That's good. The best way to lose weight is to not gain it in the
first place.

> Anyways, I did the bike machine for 30 minutes, and it told me I
> burned 170 calories, is that good for beginners?

One of the problems with cardio machines, in my opinion, is that it is
very hard to quantify your efforts. If you tell me that you ran 2
miles in 20 minutes then I have an idea as to where you are at, and
you have a personal record that you can set about trying to beat. If
you tell me that you burned 170 calories on some random machine I have
a hard time judging how much work that is.

> Then I went on to use some of the weight machines, I was only able
> to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around 40 lbs, I guess I'll get better as
> I go along.

The same problem applies to weight machines really. If you deadlift
200 lbs. for 2 sets of 10 we all know what you are talking about. If
you use some machine it's hard to know what sort of leverages apply,
etc. For this reason and a host of others I would suggest that you
learn some exercises with free weights and start there.

> Also, for cardio which is the best and most effective to use? the
> bike, treadmill, stairsmaster, etc?

Best and most effective for what? To a certain extent cardiovascular
fitness carries over to whatever you might want to do, but good
cyclists aren't necessarily good runners or swimmers. If you don't
care about being good at running, cycling, etc. and you are only
looking to get your heart racing then just pick whatever you like
best, or switch things around when you get bored.

Jason

On Mar 10, 8:59 am, subsiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi all, I'm 19 yo male. I just got back from my first visit to the gym
> and my whole body feels like a sack of potatoes. I'm not exactly
> overweight, just need to get rid of small gut, and tone up. Anyways, I
> did the bike machine for 30 minutes, and it told me I burned 170
> calories, is that good for beginners? Then I went on to use some of
> the weight machines, I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around
> 40 lbs, I guess I'll get better as I go along. Also, for cardio which
> is the best and most effective to use? the bike, treadmill,
> stairsmaster, etc?

There are some weight training class offered at local colleges, even
community colleges, and if you take such a class you will learn proper
form to do wieght lifting. Or just a book that explained. I did just
that but the book wasn't for the typical weight training class. It was
for a class this pre-med girl was taking and one of the book shows
pictures how to use those machines and that's how I started trying
those machine about 11-12 years ago.

In fact here is a link where you can learn musle group names and
exercises for those muscle groups.

ExRx Home Page at http://www.exrx.net/index.html

Excercise Info at http://www.exrx.net/Exercise.html

Exercise & Muscle Directory in alphabetical order for each:
http://www.exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html

For names of muscle groups for Male at http://www.exrx.net/Lists/WtMale.html

Exercise Safety: http://www.exrx.net/ExInfo/Deficiencies.html

"geek_girl" <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> schreef:

> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> a day.

Which is why the only people who can actually benefit from having muscle
mass wrt burning fat are the ones that went from, lets say, 180 pound as a
beginner to at least 230 pounds.

This is also the reason why lifting heavy is a crappy way to lose fat for
women.

--
Pete

"Sir Jackery" <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> schreef:

> One pound of muscle - 30-50 calories per day, one pound of fat about three
> calories per day.

> see: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Toning.html

I still am around 260.

And i still have aprox. 60 pounds more muscle mass than the avarage person
who is 6 feet.

So i burn 2400 more than that person? Thats very unlikely. Due to
circumstances i only consume maybe 3500 Kcal/day.

But i am not losing any weight.

--
Pete

On Mar 10, 11:38 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> >>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> >>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> >>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> >>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> >>> to develop your strength.
>
> >> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> > Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
> > technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
> > couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
> > 5RMs.
>
> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>
>
>
> >> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
> >> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> > An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> > second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> > a day.
>
> Not true.

Your saying "not true" and then not providing a figure of your own is
really stupid.

How many lbs. of muscle mass do you think you have? If you believe
the common figures that range from 30 - 100 calories per lb. per day,
then you would probably have to eat several extra thousand calories
per day just to feed your existing muscles, which is absurd.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Sir Jackery" <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> schreef:
>
>> One pound of muscle - 30-50 calories per day, one pound of fat about three
>> calories per day.
>
>> see: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Toning.html
>
> I still am around 260.
>
> And i still have aprox. 60 pounds more muscle mass than the avarage person
> who is 6 feet.
>
> So i burn 2400 more than that person? Thats very unlikely. Due to
> circumstances i only consume maybe 3500 Kcal/day.
>
> But i am not losing any weight.
>
> --
> Pete

Everyone is different. I am losing weight and I consume a ridiculous
amount of calories daily (three, four, maybe five poops). The 30-50 was
the only data I could find in a short time on the net. As of yet I haven't
seen anyone submit a better source yet that contradicts my data. I started
my weight training weighing in at <120lbs 6' tall. I have since decreased
my BF and now weigh ~180lbs.

I am cutting right now and am on a low calorie diet. Here is what I ate
yesterday I didn't eat anything until 4 hours after I woke up:

4 Cups Sauerkraut
5 Cups Kimchi
5 Servings Kashi Golean Crunch (~210 cals/serving?)
1 Large popcorn at the movie (couldn't resist (-: )
A Large serving of venison with scalloped potatoes after the movie
1 Glass of wine, two margaritas (doubles), two shots of whiskey (doubles),
two Bud Lights. (It was Friday)
A couple bites of the GF's cake
1/2 Cup fat free cool whip.
An Ultra Lean Pocket w/added turkey peperoni (About 25 pieces total
consumption)
A handful of jellybellies (about 30 at 4 calories each)
4 Pieces of turkey breast lunch meat
Some dried apples and dried apricots.
About 100 calories of low fat ice cream.
A small salad w/o dressing or croutons
French toast (Made with wonderlite bread and egg-whites)
And I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff.


Now may a remind you, I am running a deficit. Yesterday was my break from
the gym. We are all different, perhaps I am more active than you are and
thus need to consume more. I am willing to believe that a pound of muscle
burns 6 calories more than fat when totally sedentary (like just smoked
three bongloads sedentary).



--Sir Jackery

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:

> On Mar 10, 11:38 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
>>>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
>>>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
>>>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
>>>>> to develop your strength.
>>
>>>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>>
>>> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
>>> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
>>> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
>>> 5RMs.
>>
>> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
>> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
>>>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>>
>>> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
>>> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
>>> a day.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> Your saying "not true" and then not providing a figure of your own is
> really stupid.

I agree, that's why I did provide my own figure elsewhere in this thread
with the source referenced.

On Mar 11, 9:56 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 11:38 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> >>>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> >>>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> >>>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> >>>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> >>>>> to develop your strength.
>
> >>>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> >>> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
> >>> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
> >>> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
> >>> 5RMs.
>
> >> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
> >> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>
> >>>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
> >>>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> >>> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> >>> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> >>> a day.
>
> >> Not true.
>
> > Your saying "not true" and then not providing a figure of your own is
> > really stupid.
>
> I agree, that's why I did provide my own figure elsewhere in this thread
> with the source referenced.

OK, I didn't see that before. My apologies. Anyway, it is a dumb
assertion that flies in the face of reality. How much muscle mass do
you think an average man has? I don't think 70 lbs. is too wild of a
figure. Imagine that a pound of muscle burns 30 calories per day,
which is the low end of the range you provided. It would cost over
2,000 calories per day just to sustain the existing muscle mass of
this average man!

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:

> On Mar 11, 9:56 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, throatslasher wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 11:38 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
>>>>>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
>>>>>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
>>>>>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
>>>>>>> to develop your strength.
>>
>>>>>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>>
>>>>> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
>>>>> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
>>>>> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
>>>>> 5RMs.
>>
>>>> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
>>>> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>>
>>>>>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
>>>>>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>>
>>>>> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
>>>>> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
>>>>> a day.
>>
>>>> Not true.
>>
>>> Your saying "not true" and then not providing a figure of your own is
>>> really stupid.
>>
>> I agree, that's why I did provide my own figure elsewhere in this thread
>> with the source referenced.
>
> OK, I didn't see that before. My apologies. Anyway, it is a dumb
> assertion that flies in the face of reality. How much muscle mass do
> you think an average man has? I don't think 70 lbs. is too wild of a
> figure. Imagine that a pound of muscle burns 30 calories per day,
> which is the low end of the range you provided. It would cost over
> 2,000 calories per day just to sustain the existing muscle mass of
> this average man!

Makes sense to me.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Sir Jackery wrote:

> I consume a ridiculous amount of calories daily (three, four, maybe five
> poops).

Okay, so are we going to rename this place misc.coprophagy and have done
with it?

tom

--
Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, and then perhaps we will learn the
truth. -- Friedrich Kekule

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Sir Jackery wrote:
>
>> I consume a ridiculous amount of calories daily (three, four, maybe five
>> poops).
>
> Okay, so are we going to rename this place misc.coprophagy and have done with
> it?


I guess I could have worded that a little differently :-P

--Sir Jackery

On Mar 10, 1:38 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> >>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> >>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> >>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> >>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> >>> to develop your strength.
>
> >> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> > Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
> > technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
> > couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
> > 5RMs.
>
> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.

Again, it depends on who you're talking about. A new lifter certainly
can gain strength with 10 rep sets.

> >> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
> >> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> > An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> > second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> > a day.
>
> Not true.

That number comes from this paper - sorry I only have the abstract.
But others who have actually read the full text report that it says 13
kcal/kg/day, which works out to about 6 kcal/lb/day.
http://www.co-clinicalnutrition.com/...856144!8091!-1

I suspect that the number you're thinking of is the one that came from
an average of all FFM, not muscle specifically. As you can see from
the abstract, the problem with that is that the average includes
organs, which use far more energy per lb than muscle.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:

> On Mar 10, 1:38 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
>>>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
>>>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
>>>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
>>>>> to develop your strength.
>>
>>>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>>
>>> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
>>> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
>>> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
>>> 5RMs.
>>
>> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
>> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>
> Again, it depends on who you're talking about. A new lifter certainly
> can gain strength with 10 rep sets.
>
>>>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
>>>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>>
>>> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
>>> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
>>> a day.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> That number comes from this paper - sorry I only have the abstract.
> But others who have actually read the full text report that it says 13
> kcal/kg/day, which works out to about 6 kcal/lb/day.
>
http://www.co-clinicalnutrition.com/...856144!8091!-1
>
> I suspect that the number you're thinking of is the one that came from
> an average of all FFM, not muscle specifically. As you can see from
> the abstract, the problem with that is that the average includes
> organs, which use far more energy per lb than muscle.

What I meant by "just sitting around" was performing average daily tasks.
Not resting. I'll believe 6Cal/(lb*day) resting.

--Sir Jackery

On Mar 11, 3:17 am, "Pete" <phouts...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> "geek_girl" <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> > An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> > second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> > a day.
>
> Which is why the only people who can actually benefit from having muscle
> mass wrt burning fat are the ones that went from, lets say, 180 pound as a
> beginner to at least 230 pounds.

Right, most people don't benefit, wrt to burning calories, from
adding a little extra muscle mass.

>
> This is also the reason why lifting heavy is a crappy way to lose fat for
> women.

No, not at all. Even though the muscle doesn't burn a lot, the
activity of lifting burns a lot of calories, and if I weren't so damn
lazy I'd dig up the study that shows that it can keep metabolism
elevated for up to 38 hrs. Also, intense lifting keeps both men and
women from losing too much muscle while dieting, which can have a
significant effect on both health and appearance.

Are you not recommending heavy lifting for women at all, or are you
simply saying that they can't rely on it to lose fat, and they should
also keep calories in check if they wish to lose weight/fat? If it's
the latter I do agree with you. I think lifting helps a lot, but no
matter what type of exercise they're doing, most people also need to
reduce calories in order to achieve any significant fat loss.

"geek_girl" <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 10, 1:38 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
>> >
>> > An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
>> > second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
>> > a day.
>>
>> Not true.
>
>That number comes from this paper - sorry I only have the abstract.

For something a little more accessible, try this one:

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/278/2/E308

More math involved, but the conclusion is the same.

On Mar 11, 11:58 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 1:38 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> >>>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> >>>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> >>>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> >>>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> >>>>> to develop your strength.
>
> >>>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> >>> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
> >>> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
> >>> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
> >>> 5RMs.
>
> >> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
> >> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>
> > Again, it depends on who you're talking about. A new lifter certainly
> > can gain strength with 10 rep sets.
>
> >>>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
> >>>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> >>> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> >>> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> >>> a day.
>
> >> Not true.
>
> > That number comes from this paper - sorry I only have the abstract.
> > But others who have actually read the full text report that it says 13
> > kcal/kg/day, which works out to about 6 kcal/lb/day.
>
> >http://www.co-clinicalnutrition.com/...bstract.000751...
>
>
>
> > I suspect that the number you're thinking of is the one that came from
> > an average of all FFM, not muscle specifically. As you can see from
> > the abstract, the problem with that is that the average includes
> > organs, which use far more energy per lb than muscle.
>
> What I meant by "just sitting around" was performing average daily tasks.
> Not resting. I'll believe 6Cal/(lb*day) resting.

70 lbs * 30 cal/lbs = 2100 cal
70 lbs * 6 cal/lbs = 420 cal
2100 - 420 = 1680

So, in other words, the average man can burn at least 1,680 more
calories by performing average daily tasks than he would burn by just
resting.

On Mar 11, 11:58 am, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 1:38 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, geek_girl wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 12:20 pm, Sir Jackery <roeh...@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> >>>>> You guess right. At the moment, you're limited far more by coordination and
> >>>>> unfamiliarity with the lift than strength; take a high-volume approach to
> >>>>> lifting (three sets of 15 reps, say) for a month or so, and you'll find that
> >>>>> you get much better at it. Then switch to a medium-volume approach (2 x 10)
> >>>>> to develop your strength.
>
> >>>> I would recommend less than 10 reps for strength.
>
> >>> Not for a noob. He needs to take some time to work on form and
> >>> technique, and also to let his connective tissues adapt. The first
> >>> couple of months in the gym is not the time to go for 1RMs. Or even
> >>> 5RMs.
>
> >> I wasn't recomending he train low reps. But if one were to train for
> >> strength one wouldn't do 10 rep sets.
>
> > Again, it depends on who you're talking about. A new lifter certainly
> > can gain strength with 10 rep sets.
>
> >>>> Not to mention that the weightlifting alone burns tons of calories and the
> >>>> muscle mass it produces burns calories just sitting around.
>
> >>> An emphatic yes to the first, and a meh, not much to speak of to the
> >>> second. Each extra pound of muscle only burns about 6 extra calories
> >>> a day.
>
> >> Not true.
>
> > That number comes from this paper - sorry I only have the abstract.
> > But others who have actually read the full text report that it says 13
> > kcal/kg/day, which works out to about 6 kcal/lb/day.
>
> >http://www.co-clinicalnutrition.com/...bstract.000751...
>
>
>
> > I suspect that the number you're thinking of is the one that came from
> > an average of all FFM, not muscle specifically. As you can see from
> > the abstract, the problem with that is that the average includes
> > organs, which use far more energy per lb than muscle.
>
> What I meant by "just sitting around" was performing average daily tasks.
> Not resting. I'll believe 6Cal/(lb*day) resting.

70 lbs * 30 cal/lbs/day = 2100 cal/day
70 lbs * 6 cal/lbs/day = 420 cal/day
2100 cal/day - 420 cal/day = 1680 cal/day

In other words, the average man burns 1,680 more calories when he
performs average daily tasks than when he is just resting all day.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:34:53 -0700, Sir Jackery <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Pete wrote:
>
>> "Sir Jackery" <roehrig@cs.ucdavis.edu> schreef:
>>
>>> One pound of muscle - 30-50 calories per day, one pound of fat about three
>>> calories per day.
>>
>>> see: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Toning.html
>>
>> I still am around 260.
>>
>> And i still have aprox. 60 pounds more muscle mass than the avarage person
>> who is 6 feet.
>>
>> So i burn 2400 more than that person? Thats very unlikely. Due to
>> circumstances i only consume maybe 3500 Kcal/day.
>>
>> But i am not losing any weight.
>>
>> --
>> Pete
>
>Everyone is different. I am losing weight and I consume a ridiculous
>amount of calories daily (three, four, maybe five poops).

In metric, sure. How much is that in SAE?

On Mar 10, 10:59 am, subsiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi all, I'm 19 yo male. I just got back from my first visit to the gym
> and my whole body feels like a sack of potatoes. I'm not exactly
> overweight, just need to get rid of small gut, and tone up. Anyways, I
> did the bike machine for 30 minutes, and it told me I burned 170
> calories, is that good for beginners? Then I went on to use some of
> the weight machines, I was only able to do 2 sets of 10 lifting around
> 40 lbs, I guess I'll get better as I go along. Also, for cardio which
> is the best and most effective to use? the bike, treadmill,
> stairsmaster, etc?

Getting sore in a new sport or exercise routine is
very common the first few weeks.
That will disappear and you body will crave regular
exercise.

Perhaps split up exercise among 2-3 days?
Cardio machines one day, upper body resistance
a second, lower boday a third day. else you might
get tired doing too much each day.

Getting sore in a new sport or exercise routine is
very common the first few weeks.
That will disappear and you body will crave regular
exercise.

Perhaps split up exercise among 2-3 days?
Cardio machines one day, upper body resistance
a second, lower boday a third day. else you might
get tired doing too much each day.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, rick++ wrote:

> Getting sore in a new sport or exercise routine is
> very common the first few weeks.
> That will disappear and you body will crave regular
> exercise.
>
> Perhaps split up exercise among 2-3 days?
> Cardio machines one day, upper body resistance
> a second, lower boday a third day. else you might
> get tired doing too much each day.

I just got the weirdest case of deja vu...


--Sir Jackery

"geek_girl" <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> schreef:

>> This is also the reason why lifting heavy is a crappy way to lose fat for
>> women.

> No, not at all. Even though the muscle doesn't burn a lot, the
> activity of lifting burns a lot of calories...

I have my doubts.

A set is usually around 10-15 seconds. 20 max. Lets say you do 20 sets,
thats around 5 minutes of actual work.

Thats doesnt burn nowhere near as much as 1 hour of cardio.

> and if I weren't so damn lazy I'd dig up the study that shows that it can
> keep metabolism
> elevated for up to 38 hrs.

I believe you. But elevated at what %? I am willing to bet that NOT eating a
300 Kcal snack will create the same effect. In those 38 hours.

> Also, intense lifting keeps both men and
> women from losing too much muscle while dieting, which can have a
> significant effect on both health and appearance.

When you are on a diet, i recommend you lift a little less intense.
Chances are that you destroyt more than you can rebuild.

Also, hormones are a crucial factor.

> Are you not recommending heavy lifting for women at all, or are you
> simply saying that they can't rely on it to lose fat, and they should
> also keep calories in check if they wish to lose weight/fat?

No, i think women should lift. But NOT for losing fat.
Women dont build enough muscle to increase the BMR. And i suspect that the
elevation of the BMR following an intense workout is NOT that sigificant.

Also, i think that the elevation is different in men than it is in women.

> If it's the latter I do agree with you. I think lifting helps a lot, but
> no
> matter what type of exercise they're doing, most people also need to
> reduce calories in order to achieve any significant fat lo