Excersise vs Genetics

ysabella said:
I think weightlifting really is the best tool. But as they say in the P&T episode, if you have a genetically flat butt, you won't be able to change that much if at all.
Click to expand...

As others have suggested, I think under the right conditions, you should be able to hypertrophy your glutes (primary gluteus maximus) to some extent.

David Driscoll
Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian
Sydney, Australia
 
ysabella said:
I'll try 'em after I have the baby...have to be pretty careful with weights this far along (you don't want to increase the pressure inside your abdomen).

I think you will find that any type of lifting, or even bending forward, you will increase intra-abdominal pressure as a mechansim to stabilise your trunk/spine.

>> But your muscle shape and attachment is very hard to influence, so there are some people who will have flattish butts no matter what.

You could almost always increase the size of the muscle, despite is shape/attachment.

David Driscoll
Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian
Sydney, Australia
Click to expand...
 
El Greco said:
Have you been doing heavy, deep squats (15 reps, you can absolutely not do a 16th) or equally heavy and deep leg presses, 2 times a week, for a few years (alternating exercises each month or so) ? QUOTE]

Or better yet, using a technique known as pre-exhausting, using an 'isolation exercise' (any kind of hip extension movement) followed by a 'compound movement' like squats, deadlifts, leg press lunges going deep as previously suggested? Find the appropriate repetition range (some would suggest absed on predominant muscle fibre type). This will increase the chances that the glutes are the limiting/fatiguing factor.

David Driscoll
Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian
Sydney, Australia
Click to expand...
 
Gymnerd said:
Hi,

While I'm a recent "Mainstream" Skeptic, I've been an active one in my field of Exercise Physiology and Dietetics for years.

I'm a little surprised how little scientific discussion has taken place on this topic in this forum?
Click to expand...

Welcome! Quoting a study in your first post can be nothing but good!

There *is* some scientific discussion going on here related to your field, but of course don't expect the same activity as in dedicated fora. I would say that here the emphasis is on "debunking myths", whatever that may mean, but of course more debunkers are to be found in places like http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ . You'll find that there are far more popular subjects here, like bashing fundamentalists and clairvoyants :)
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
A couple of years ago I could swim 500 yards... in the past 18 months I've been trying to swim between 2 to 3 times a week. I've worked myself up to 2000 yards. It takes me an hour and 15 minutes* to do it, but I figure it is not the speed but the effort that counts (a friend who swims at the same place is a former competetive swimmer, she does 2000 yards in a half hour when she is pressed for time).

Interesting side point on swimming, some studies suggest that free-living people tend to eat more after swimming than other types of acrdio exercise. A few theories why, nothing concrete to date as far as I know. Great for fitness, maybe not so good for weight loss.

Increased caloric intake soon after exercise in cold water.
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2005 Feb;15(1):38-47.

Am J Sports Med. 1987 May-Jun;15(3):275-9.

Weight loss without dietary restriction: efficacy of different forms of aerobic exercise.

Gwinup G.

Since obese patients with orthopaedic disabilities are often advised to undertake swimming as a part of a weight loss program, the effect of swimming on body weight was systematically studied. Minimally to moderately obese, otherwise healthy young women seeking to lose weight through a program of exercise without dietary restrictions were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which only the type of daily exercise was different. The three types of exercise were brisk walking, riding a stationary cycle, and swimming laps in a pool. All women slowly but progressively increased the time spent in daily exercise to 60 minutes. After 6 months or slightly longer, the women assigned to walking lost 10% of initial weight, the women who cycled lost 12%, but the women who swam lost no weight. The thickness of the subcutaneous panniculus over the middle of the extensor surface of the upper arm was measured using a Lang skin-fold caliper (Graham Field Co, New York, NY) and showed equivalent substantial reductions in the walkers and cyclists, but no change in the swimmers. The results of this study show that both walking and cycling are effective methods of reducing body fat, but that swimming is not.

Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Apr;56(4):288-96.

Energy metabolism in humans at a lowered ambient temperature.

Westerterp-Plantenga MS, van Marken Lichtenbelt WD, Strobbe H, Schrauwen P.

Department of Human Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. M.Westerterp@HB.Unimaas.nl

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the effect of a lowered ambient temperature, ie 16 degrees C (61 degrees F), compared to 22 degrees C (72 degrees F), on energy intake (EI), energy expenditure (EE) and respiratory quotient (RQ) in men. DESIGN: Randomized within-subject design in which subjects stayed in a respiration chamber three times for 60 h each, once at 22 degrees C, and twice at 16 degrees C, wearing standardized clothing, executing a standardized daily activities protocol, and were fed in energy balance (EBI): no significant difference between EE and EI over 24 h). During the last 24 h at 22 degrees C, and once during the last 24 h at 16 degrees C, they were fed ad libitum. SUBJECTS: Nine dietary unrestrained male subjects (ages 24+/-5 y, body mass index (BMI) 22.7+/-2.1 kg/m(2), body weight 76.2+/-9.4 kg, height 1.83+/-0.06 m, 18+/-5% body fat). RESULTS: At 16 degrees C (EB), EE (total 24 h EE) was increased to 12.9+/-2.0 MJ/day as compared to 12.2+/-2.2 MJ/day at 22 degrees C (P<0.01). The increase was due to increases in sleeping metabolic rate (SMR; the lowest EE during three consecutive hours with hardly any movements as indicated by radar): 7.6+/-0.7 vs 7.2+/-0.7 MJ/day (P<0.05) and diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT; EE-SMR, when activity induced energy expenditure as indicated by radar=0): 1.7+/-0.4 vs 1.0+/-0.4 MJ/day (P<0.01). Physical activity level (PAL; EE/SMR) was 1.63-1.68. At 16 degrees C compared to at 22 degrees C, rectal, proximal and distal skin temperatures had decreased (P<0.01). RQ was not different between the two ambient temperature situations. During ad libitum feeding, subjects overate by 32+/-12% (at 22 degrees C) and by 34+/-14% (at 16 degrees C). Under these circumstances, the decrease of rectal temperature at 16 degrees C was attenuated, and inversely related to percentage overeating (r(2)=0.7; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: We conclude that at 16 degrees C, compared to 22 degrees C, energy metabolism was increased, due to increases in SMR and DIT. Overeating under ad libitum circumstances at 16 degrees C attenuated the decrease in rectal core body temperature.

David Driscoll
Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian
Sydney, Australia
Click to expand...
 
Gymnerd said:
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Interesting side point on swimming, some studies suggest that free-living people tend to eat more after swimming than other types of acrdio exercise. A few theories why, nothing concrete to date as far as I know. Great for fitness, maybe not so good for weight loss.

Increased caloric intake soon after exercise in cold water.
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2005 Feb;15(1):38-47.


Energy metabolism in humans at a lowered ambient temperature.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Apr;56(4):288-96.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to keep on top of these, and chalk them up to urban legend at this point. While the research is valid, the key factor that makes these papers moot is that swimming as it is practiced is not a 'lowered ambient temperature' or 'cold water' sport. Pools are heated, and worse - swimming is a sport where perspiration's evaporative mechanics are defeated, and overheating is a major problem.

Granted, casual swimming in lakes, oceans, rivers, and some open-water events will have cooler water, but they're not a training environment.

My impression is that the sport has more latitude for adipose accumulation because it is not a weight-bearing activity, and in fact, buoyancy is a benefit. Swimmers' body composition is probably an effect of participants' self-selection, rather than a consequence of the activity.

Cultural demographics may also play a role.
Click to expand...
 
Gymnerd said:
...
Interesting side point on swimming, some studies suggest that free-living people tend to eat more after swimming than other types of acrdio exercise. A few theories why, nothing concrete to date as far as I know. Great for fitness, maybe not so good for weight loss....
Click to expand...

Actually I noticed that. Since the lunch time swim starts at noon... I try to eat a decent small lunch at 11am, because if I don't I start to feel faint after a half hour of swimming. When I get back from swimming, I am hungry, so I try to stave if off with a healthy snack, something like an orange.

So, unlike the women in the study, I have lost 10% of my weight since starting, mostly in the first few months, but have more to go. The main differences now are that I have more endurance and my blood pressure is lower. I have a few weeks to find out if I've done anything to my cholestoral (the main reason I have reduced my consumption of cheese and butter, while being married to a half-Dutch guy who has LOW cholestoral while eating a diet of sausage, butter and cheese: stupid genetics).

I also try to walk or so something like gardening on the days I do not swim.

Actually, even though the pool is heated, it is still 10 degrees below human body temp (in Fahrenheit). That still gives a net heat loss. Also, if I push it I do get flushed (actually once I find I can do my goal without getting flushed, I start adding laps --- which I may do since I've recently cut 5 minutes off of my 2000 yard session).

Edit to add: I swim because I know how. I also have ankle problems (each one has been sprained multiple time, plus one has been broken). So I do not run... I walk, swim and garden (and with my yard gardening often involves going up and down steps and/or a ladder, this being an area of sloped terrain with rockeries and trelleses, there is a danger of falling off the yard!... I should prune the grapes today now the sun has actually made an appearance, but it looks like I really need to walk to the office supply store to get filing stuff... rats!).
 
Last edited:
I totally lack the coordination to swim. I cannot get arms, legs and head to all move in concert. I like to walk when the weather is warmer, but mostly, I elliptical. I've been doing these workouts. They are pretty good interval training workouts.
 
It is whatever you can do. I do know there is a skill angle when it comes to swimming. I spent my childhood practically in a swimmig pool.

Long ago in the days of Double Income and No Kids we used to belong to a $100/month athletic club. I tried to do the aerobic classes there, but after each one I found I was too wound up. So I had to go to the pool and swim at least 500 yards to calm down. When I did not do the aerobics, I swam 1500 yards. AND... to top it off, I got injured in the stupid aerobics class! I sprained my big toe, which really hurt when I tried to swim.

You do what you are most comfortable. I just came back from the office supply store. I did not know that 100 manila folders were so heavy (plus 50 hanging folders). I got a good walk in... now I have to go and walk elsewhere.
 
El Greco said:
Not to start any arguments or give any advice, but this may give some idea about how I feel:

I'm male, expend about 500 kcals daily on exercise, and when I'm dieting my calories are 1200. That's a daily deficit of 1800 for me. How else but slooooowly would a female lose bodyfat at 1500 kcals, asthma or not, hypothyroidism or not ?
Click to expand...
I said I don't mind advice, and I meant that! What I dislike is people assuming I'm lazy because I'm large. As long as you don't think I'm lying about this stuff you're okay with me; I can handle constructive criticism.

Regarding fat loss, I didn't say "slowly," I said essentially "not at all for six weeks, or if my meds aren't optimized, just plain not at all."
Online calculators say my BMR is 1800-2000 calories (pre-pregnancy, I had an LBM around 150 lbs, total body weight 260). Eating 1500 cals and working out 6 days out of 7 (between lifting and cardio) should create a lovely calorie deficit and take off, say, a steady pound a week at least, and that would be great. But first of all I burn less calories than the typical calculator assumes, because of my thyroid slowing down my metabolism. The real catch-22 that I have discovered is that eating low in calories/carbs can cause my thyroid to slow still further - a serious problem, although I've found that taking T3 along with T4 helps in that. Also, I cycle my calories and carbs, higher on lifting days, lower other days, planned treat meals, that sort of thing helps.

I was sticking to this and it was working, slowly but working, when I fell pregnant. I'm pleased to say that my fitness has given me an excellent healthy pregnancy.
 
Gymnerd said:
As others have suggested, I think under the right conditions, you should be able to hypertrophy your glutes (primary gluteus maximus) to some extent.

David Driscoll
Exercise Physiologist and Sports Dietitian
Sydney, Australia
Click to expand...
I'm actually not the one with the flat butt. Mine's a whole other story. ;)
 
>> I'll try 'em after I have the baby...have to be pretty careful with weights this far along (you don't want to increase the pressure inside your abdomen).

Gymnerd: I think you will find that any type of lifting, or even bending forward, you will increase intra-abdominal pressure as a mechansim to stabilise your trunk/spine.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that I should avoid holding my breath, and I shouldn't lift as heavy as I did when not pregnant. Also, no squats. But all I've really been doing is walking and working 60 hour weeks lately. Still, I haven't gained too much.

>> But your muscle shape and attachment is very hard to influence, so there are some people who will have flattish butts no matter what.

Gymnerd: You could almost always increase the size of the muscle, despite is shape/attachment.
Click to expand...
Going back to the original thread topic, the Buns of Steel series is trying to convince people that they can change their butt shape to be like Tamilee's with some light cardio, which I think you can agree is way, way off.
 
ysabella said:
Online calculators say my BMR is 1800-2000 calories (pre-pregnancy, I had an LBM around 150 lbs, total body weight 260). Eating 1500 cals and working out 6 days out of 7 (between lifting and cardio) should create a lovely calorie deficit and take off, say, a steady pound a week at least, and that would be great. But first of all I burn less calories than the typical calculator assumes, because of my thyroid slowing down my metabolism. The real catch-22 that I have discovered is that eating low in calories/carbs can cause my thyroid to slow still further - a serious problem, although I've found that taking T3 along with T4 helps in that.
Yes, this is key. Learn and monitor your baseline calorie burn.

I have a friend who is a 5'8" male and assumed that his baseline was 2400 calories because he categorized himself as 'active' on one of these online BMR tools. We did some strict calorie monitoring for three months until his weight stablized, and concluded that his actual baseline is about 1600 to start. This explains why he was gaining weight on a 2000 calorie/day diet. Now, he's eating 1500/day and enhancing exercise.

I believe my metabolism is even slower. I have a great deal of respect for people with low baselines, but have to be strategic and polite, but firm, when suggesting that it is not an 'excuse' to gain weight. It's a sign that it's time to reduce serving size. A small person can get enough nutrition on 1200/day if they're not trying to build significant muscle.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
El Greco said:
Not to start any arguments or give any advice, but this may give some idea about how I feel:

I'm male, expend about 500 kcals daily on exercise, and when I'm dieting my calories are 1200. That's a daily deficit of 1800 for me. How else but slooooowly would a female lose bodyfat at 1500 kcals, asthma or not, hypothyroidism or not ?
Click to expand...


You burn 5,000 calories a day? What do you do? Run a marathon everyday?

I find that highly unbelievable.
 
blutoski said:
Yes, this is key. Learn and monitor your baseline calorie burn.

I have a friend who is a 5'8" male and assumed that his baseline was 2400 calories because he categorized himself as 'active' on one of these online BMR tools. We did some strict calorie monitoring for three months until his weight stablized, and concluded that his actual baseline is about 1600 to start. This explains why he was gaining weight on a 2000 calorie/day diet. Now, he's eating 1500/day and enhancing exercise.

I believe my metabolism is even slower. I have a great deal of respect for people with low baselines, but have to be strategic and polite, but firm, when suggesting that it is not an 'excuse' to gain weight. It's a sign that it's time to reduce serving size. A small person can get enough nutrition on 1200/day if they're not trying to build significant muscle.
Click to expand...
Still, if people with low BMRs want a little sympathy, it's not hard to agree that it sucks to eat so little, and have it all be cottage cheese, whey shakes, and lean chicken breast. But cycling carbs/cals is a tool that helps (and it works better for me anyway).
I know quite a lot of people using Lyle McDonald's PSMF plan, which is often 700 calories a day - owch! - but with an ECA stack and required treat meals/refeeds. Your workouts just have to aim for keeping your muscle mass when doing that. People who have trouble seeing results on any other plan have seen it doing this, and pretty quickly. So apparently it can be a good kick-start.
I don't know if I could do it - I can't tolerate caffeine well, plus the plan will muck up my thyroid for months practically guaranteed, although I do know some people going ahead with it who figure taking T3 makes up for it. I plan to watch what happens with them over time. In any case that kind of extreme plan is out of the question for me until I wean the baby anyway (who isn't even born yet).
 
You know what else is interesting is how some of us absolutely have to watch the carbs, and I mean amount and type. I meet people who don't seem to have a problem with carbs, but I definitely do.

My brother Steve doesn't have any of my medical issues but he has the strong family history of diabetes. He his wife are thousands-of-miles-per-year cyclists. I've often met him at the ends of rides and seen that his bike calculator says he's burned 7000 calories since he's been riding for 15 hours on Mount St Helens or wherever. During the biking season he does those rides a lot, and even over winter he clocks plenty of miles (and does some lifting at home on a machine). But, he still had a tummy and these sort of chipmunky cheeks that he's always had.

I figured I knew why - his wife sends out emails about their major rides, and she always says what they eat. And Steve was always having mochas, and cookies, and spaghetti. And I was thinking, you know, if he cut out the simple carbs I'll bet he'd look like a greyhound. He has genetics like mine and I'm willing to bet we just have incredible sugar sensitivity.

2005 came around and Steve and his wife decided to do "Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle," aka BFFM. A few months into spring is all it took; Steve lost the cheeks and the belly that he had all his life (he looks gaunt to me, since I'm so used to his face) and now you can see his leg muscles quite clearly. Also, since he was taking in some good fats on that plan (a lot of salads dressed with Udo's Choice oil vinaigrette), his skin tone became just gorgeous where he was always slightly acne-prone. His wife did well also, but Steve's change was so marked that most people notice it more than hers.

I do think exercise is important, but I think fat loss is largely managed in the kitchen, too.
 
Last edited:
Dustin said:
It looks like I misread...

He said "500 K cals" meaning 500 thousand calories.

K as in kilo.

It obviously was a mistype.
Click to expand...

No, that's correct.

1Calorie (capital C) = 1kcal = 1000calories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom