Exercise! (was: 8-bit man!)

Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:10:44 -0500


At 10:22 PM 1/13/03 +0000, Russell Turpin wrote:
>Kelley:
>>2. The size of your muscle fibers increase, but that's not _new_ muscle 
>>cell growth.
>>
>>3. You may have grown more muscle cells from the newbie effect but, 
>>again, that's about 3 lbs.
>
>Does that difference really matter? Muscle
>atrophies when you don't use it. Even if you're
>just expanding the fibers already there, that will
>make a difference on your resting metabolism.

yah, but only very slightly. This isn't to discourage exercise at all. 
whatever anyone does is great--as long as they like it and will keep on 
doing it. forcing yourself to do it just because you think you're supposed 
to, it ain't gonna work.

I happen to to like WT--got into it as a kid, albeit with very little 
understanding of what i was doing. Not an unusual story. "they" dont' 
really know what's going on with WT in general. Not enough research on it. 
That's changing. I was a geeky nerd enough back then that I saw WT class as 
a way to avoid team sports! :)

I was otherwise  active most of my life--til I became a nerd working for a 
start up. gah. this is very detrimental for your health and eating 
habits--as I'm sure most folks know. Stress ain't so great either. I had to 
nip that one in the bud b/c I don't want to be staring middle age in the 
face just starting to nip it in the bud. double gah.

I must have not been clear enough, at any rate. When i said that the 
recruitment of blood and water circulation increased, I was saying that, 
yes, this would increase caloric expenditure.

i can look up the exact numbers if you'd like, but when it comes to cardio 
v. weight training, any post workout burn you get is very minimal with 
cardio as compared with weight training.

partly this has to do with the types of exercise you are doing since that 
determines the fuel you use while working out.

Fat burning, though, is rate limited. No matter how hard you work out, no 
matter how many calories you cut and no matter how big a caloric deficit 
you create by doing both, your body will only burn a certain amount of fat 
for fuel. It's an evolutionary adaptation.

After it burns that amount of fat, your body looks for glucose (and ketones 
when it can't get glucose). When it can't get enough glucose from stored 
glycogen, it burns ketones until it can breakdown (catabolize) 
extracellular mass and, eventually, muscle mass (both of which constitute 
what we call Lean Body Mass).

anyway, I don't know how hard you work when hiking but if you're working 
out pretty hard for a couple of hours, I'd urge you to eat something within 
an hour after you get done. I used to think like you, until I made myself 
very sick.

here's a reasonable explanation from someone who was pretty active at 
misc.fitness.weights <http://www.sover.net/~timw/postwo.htm>. It's hard to 
get good info on this because there's so much crap out there designed to 
sell sports drinks, shakes, and bars.

also, I highly recommend this series, below. Very bitful. As a geek, I very 
much appreciate knowing what the hell i'm doing to my body.

http://www.wannabebig.com/author.php?author=3
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=89
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=93




>I'm not into bodybuilding. I hike. In the summers,
>I also swim. I do chin-ups and pushups, but that's
>just to maintain a minimal amount of upper body
>strength. I'm never going to look like Arnold. I'm
>just a middle-aged nerd fighting gravity. ;-)

You'd have to take special "supplements" to look like Arnold. Part of the 
problem is that most of us are bombarded with bodybuilding images that are 
completely unrealistic. This is esp true for women.


http://www.stumptuous.com/me.html
http://www.stumptuous.com/afterpics.html

  She's an academic, a def. nerd, seriously into lifting, trains people on 
the side. Does she look like she-hulk?

Men don't have to either--cause hey it might tarnish your geek image! :)


Kelley