|
07-19-2005, 11:36 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
|
It is an undeniable and indisputable scientific fact that if a woamn eats 2000 calories a day she will weigh between 120 and 130 pounds.
What is so tough about simply doing that?
If anyone can answer that question I will be your diet buddy and get you lean and healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
07-20-2005, 12:00 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
|
Whoa..quote the source of that fact. In my experience, not everyone's metabolism is the same. THAT is an undeniable fact. Also, if i had a woman at 2000 calories a day, and she worked out with me, she'd be less than 120lbs..guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
07-20-2005, 02:27 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jeeplaw@Jul 20 2005, 05:00 AM
Whoa..quote the source of that fact. In my experience, not everyone's metabolism is the same. THAT is an undeniable fact. Also, if i had a woman at 2000 calories a day, and she worked out with me, she'd be less than 120lbs..guaranteed.
[snapback]776[/snapback]
|
The souce of that fact is 100 years of research and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Metabolism is the same for all humans plus or minus 5%
The figure I use are for a moderately active woman. Certainly a 130 pound woman doing an hour of intense training is going to burn close to 1000 calories.
Here are the figures for a moderately active 25 yearold 130 pound woman
Resting (basal) metabolic rate: 1273 calories per day
Typical daily activities: 654 calories per day
Total calories burned: 1928 per day
My premise is sound. If she has low body fat and high muscle mass her metabolism would be higher than 1928.
By plus or minus I am referring to the BMR. Activity is the same. Work is work. Heat and energy are mutally convertable. If 2 women raise a ten pound weight 10 feet they are doing the same amount of work and therefore expending the same amount of calories. |
|
|
|
|
07-20-2005, 08:11 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
|
I don't argue with your explanation of resting BMR nor your typical calories burned per day. However, can you explain to me how 2 women who do the same amount of work in the gym, and follow the same pattern of diet and training- develop differently?
You would think that they wouldn't, according to your hypothesis. But it happens..I've seen it and helped it develop.
And I agree, if she has low body fat and high muscle mass, her metabolism would definately be higher..no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
07-20-2005, 12:33 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
|
Ball - Jeep is very much right. Furthermore, you're forgetting a key point: This group is for people trying to get to the "low body fat high muscle mass point" - and your tone suggests (though I could be wrong) that you're there already. Not every person - man or woman - is able to work out that long or hard - not yet.
Have patience with those around you - we're not exactly on a level playing field.
|
|
|
|
|
07-20-2005, 08:42 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
|
Metabolic rate don't vary all that much. 35 calories per day is about it.
By today's standards a 130 pound woman is pretty small. Certainly a 130 pound woman with low body fat will have a higher BMR that a 130pound woman with higher body fat but it won;t be much different.
They will achive fairly similar results if the train and eat identically. One may do slighly better.
I don't think it takes herculean workout to gain mass. If you do some heavy squats say 5 sets of 8 your pretty much finished for a few days.
20 minutes of upper body like rows, shoulder press and chess press is about all anyone needs to do to build mass. Long workouts are a myth. Arnold used to say he did massive workouts so that his competition would over train and lose mass.
Ofcourse genetics plays a greater role for men but that's why they make vitamin S.
It is not as hard as they make it sound. 90% of it is diet.
There are a few other factors like the person's health but overall it's pretty much equal.
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2005, 10:05 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
|
to answer your question as to why its so hard for a woman to eat 2000 calories a day to be at 120-130 lb. its sounds great but to actually do it is probably a lil challenging for them if they are not used to eating such a moderate amount. but for me i current try to mange 1200 so i dont see any problem at all with eating 2000 calories a day i'd love to add 800 more to my diet.. . its just tryign to distiguish good calories and bad calories.. so i'd love to be your buddy.. ( smile)
kiya55w@aol.com
www.sonicbids.com/takiya
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2005, 08:29 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
|
The great thing about these open forums is that everone can express their own opinion, right or wrong. There's no place for people with a "I'm right and you're wrong because I know it all" attitude. Nothing is accomplished in that matter. So tone down the attitude, Ball. We don't need your dogmatism.
Besides, there's more holes in the statements you made than in a piece of Swiss cheese.
"It is an undeniable and indisputable scientific fact that if a woamn eats 2000 calories a day she will weigh between 120 and 130 pounds. What is so tough about simply doing that?"
Weigh between 120 and 130 lbs of what? Let's be clear. It's true if this person ate a diet of complex carbs and quality protein and worked out hard, she might maintain her body weight. Millions of people in the East (China) are thin and healthy and still consume more calories than their Western counterparts, but it has to do with their diet and activity level. If this woman you're talking about sat around the house watching soap operas and ate 2000 calories of potato chips and chocolate cake, I can assure you she wouldn't weigh 120 to 130 lbs, and if she did, it certainly wouldn't be muscle. So let's cut out these blanket statements without qualifying them first because they simply are not true. You know, and I know, and everyone else on this forum knows that saying "It is an undeniable and indisputable scientific fact that if a woamn eats 2000 calories a day she will weigh between 120 and 130 pounds" is absurd. The "proof" to back that claim doesn't exist.
"If 2 women raise a ten pound weight 10 feet they are doing the same amount of work and therefore expending the same amount of calories".
Interesting! Let's look at that statement a little more closely.
"If 2 women raise a ten pound weight 10 feet they are doing the same amount of work..." I agree so far. Work = Force x Distance (weight x height), (if I remember my high school physics correctly!)
"...and therefore expending the same amount of calories". I disagree! See, I didn't say "Wrong!" They may do the same amount of work, but they don’t necessarily burn the the same number of calories. You quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics above, so you should know that no energy transfers are 100% efficient. If both of their bodies were 100% efficient they might burn the same calories. But no body is 100% efficient. So a fitter individual can do the same amount of work but use less oxygen and therefore burn fewer calories.
In order to find the efficiency of a body, the oxygen consumed must be measured, as it’s oxygen that is required for energy production. Once the amount of oxygen consumed is found, there is a conversion factor you multiply it by to find the calories burned. So again, forget the blanket statements. They don’t hold up to the facts.
"Certainly a 130 pound woman doing an hour of intense training is going to burn close to 1000 calories".
Explain that more fully to me. An individual running a marathon burns on average 2624 calories. So how can a 130 lb woman burn 1000 calories training intensely in only 1 hour? You forgot to subtract her RMR from your figure. A person is going to burn a certain number of calories just sitting around doing nothing - their RMR. So as I said, this number has to be subtracted from the figure given to get an accurate number of calories burned from activities.
There are other parts of you assertions that I would challenege, but this post is getting too long.
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2005, 12:39 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
|
Well what's the point dieting cause according to BRIAN,we're only losing water and muscle!but i still have muscle on my arms,legs otherwise i would'nt be-able to stand up or do my work at work would i!! <_<
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2005, 01:06 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by stella@Jul 26 2005, 05:39 PM
Well what's the point dieting cause according to BRIAN,we're only losing water and muscle!but i still have muscle on my arms,legs otherwise i would'nt be-able to stand up or do my work at work would i!! <_<
[snapback]826[/snapback]
|
Stella, I think Brian's point is that there is a correct way to diet instead of just losing pounds  Sites like this thanfully exist to help educate people on the in's and out's of losing "Good" weight.
Bad weight loss consists of losing muscle and water. And yes, some fat is lost along the way as well.
Take me for example: I was once over 300lbs. I lost a ton of weight by dieting the way that worked for me..and I thought it was a good way! I was wrong though..even though I lost the weight..i lost a ton of muscle in the process. I ate 2 meals a day, and didnt' drink a lot of water. I did it that way because I didn't know of any other way. And I ran..alot..which also contributed to increasing my metabolism and eating up muscle, water and fat.
A lot of people here do diet, but take it for granted that they are eating less and not giving their bodies enough nutrients. I've always been an advocate of eating smaller meals, but 4-5 times a day. I don't really count calories, but I know in my head that 1 bowl of ice cream every night is a bad thing to do if I'm trying to keep my waist slim, as opposed to once a week or twice a week having some italian ice or a small code :P
Dieting is a good thing..i do think it makes us into better people because we are trying to better ourselves and are energized to do just that. I don't want to see people losing weight the wrong way or yo-yoing and getting discouraged. |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
