T Nation

Blows Me Away...


Sorry if this has been posted already...

I read this article on the front page of Yahoo.com and it really made me wonder. This is supposed to be an "authority" on health and this is what she is spewing to the masses. No one wonder people are getting fatter.

Here is the link:http://health.yahoo.com/experts/joybauernutrition/16888/five-ways-to-rev-your-metabolism;ylt=AjcVdQwrN0H0Yi7rs34bHYa788F

I wrote something back in response. Tell me what you think about it.. do you think it will benefit anyone?

I'll say that I agree in part with your first two points. Everyone needs to be doing exercise--cardiovascular and anaerobic exercise (weights). But they need to be reversed. You should try to be doing weight training four times a week and cardiovascular training two to three times a week. Overall, training for one hour with weights will burn more calories than steady state cardio. Not only are you burning the calories while in the gym, but your body has to repair the damaged muscles which keeps your body burning for up to another 24 hours. Because your body is repairing the damaged muscle, it also keeps the metabolism raised for much longer. Muscle, like the author pointed out, is also more metabolically active than fat. The more muscle you have, the more calories are automatically burned. So, in conclusion, lift weights more than you do steady state cardio. (And no ladies, you won't get gigantic lifting weights :wink:

To touch on the next point about eating at least 1000 calories a day... Unless you're a 50 pound 8 year old, that isn't NEARLY enough. I weigh 200 pounds and I weight train roughly 4 times a week. I need at least 3500 calories a day to maintain. Now obviously a 135 girl will need much less and depending on your weight, your activity each day, and your natural metabolism you would need to cater. But the same 135 pound girl should still be taking in around 2500 calories a day broken up into 6 small meals taken in every 2-3 hours. This leads me to my next point. I believe eating every 4-5 hours is waiting too long. Research shows that your metabolism starts to level off again after about 3 hours. This is why I think you should be eating every two to three hours. Not only will you keep your metabolism up longer, you will feel full longer too! I just don't see why you would wait longer if you didn't have to. You will burn more calories eating every 2-3 hours than every 4-5.
And lastly... Research strongly shows that eating at least one gram of protein per pound of body weight is the way to go. Doing so encourages a positive nitrogen balance which in turn will help you build more muscle at a faster rate. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn. Protein is also the most "active" of the macronutrients. It shows little to no propensity for being stored as fat. You would seriously have to overeat on protein for it to be stored as fat. Take what I call real world science into perspective also. Look at the best bodies in the industry i.e. the fitness models, bodybuilders, sprinters, etc... 99% are eating at least one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you don't belive the science, just take a look at these guys and do what they do. I write this to help all of you out there that might read this article. It's hard in all of our hectic lives to be "health concious," so if these tips help out anyone at all, then I feel that this post was worth it. If any of you have any other questions I would be more than happy to help you out. Cheers!


This point in particular doesn't convince me.
Even if you're very muscular , if you sit on your ass you don't burn anything.
You consume enenrgy only when doing something and a more muscular person can perform more hence consuming more,but I don't think that muscles are "active when at rest".


if two people sit down for 4 hours, the person with more muscle will probably be burning more calories. Muscle takes more energy than fat to maintain.


Now I understand why T-Nation no longer uses the slogan "Bodybuilding's Think Tank". There's a potential risk of false advertising.


hmm what she wrote wasn't that bad. I've seen far worse advice.

Gotta remember she's appealing to the masses and not highly motivated people who will dedicate themselves to eating every 2-3 hours, 4 times a week weight training, and getting 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight.


ROFL... you cynical bastard you...


Very true... I suppose I've seen worse also. I guess it's so much easier to "dedicate" yourself to being an unhealthy slob.. and on that note, I'm off to the gym.


I've actually been quite amazed lately by the quality of many of the MSN type health articles. There's one on the MSN homepage today about gym myths that is right on target by T-Nation standards. The world at large (literally :wink:, seems to be slowly coming to its senses and accepting that which we've all known for years.


2500 cal for a 135lb girl? She better be 2 percent bodyfat


Are you making fun of my answer ?
Explain, thanks.


There is not much to explain. Muscle requires alot of calories and nutrients to maintain, it actually accounts for most of an individual's energy consumption. Because of muscle's great need for energy, have alot of it will boost your basal metabolic rate.


Your right! That stuff about RMR is all junk and it doesn't really exist. So why do bears and such eat lots before they go into a hibernated state. They don't do anything for about 3 months, so why would they need to eat lots before they hibernate. According to you, animals don't burn calories sleeping.


I didn't say you don't burn calories at rest.
I was just questioning this "great energetic demand" of muscles WHEN AT REST.

I found an article about this :

Your opinions please.


In your first post you said:

Which pretty much says you don't burn calories at rest.

Regardless of that, simply put: A body with more muscle burns more calories at rest than a body with less. If you cannot grasp this simple concept, you have a lot more research to do.

Someone who weighs 200lbs @ 10%BF will need more calories to maintain body weight than and somebody who weighs 200lbs @ 20% BF. Why? Calculate their LBM and you will have an answer.


Oh and jesus most of the replies to that "article" are fucking ridiculous.


That article seems like a lot of horseshit.

""Steroid girls had only 8 to 10 pounds more lean body mass," Ellis says. "I'm talking about hard-core bodybuilding chicks - not someone lifting 5-pound dumbbells, but a gal benching 150, and going at it hard."

Ditto for guys. After several years of training hard, a man may be able to gain 10 pounds of muscle, max. Even with steroids and other anabolic aids, the most a competitive bodybuilder can add is 30 to 40 pounds of muscle, Ellis says."

This guy seems to not know what he is talking about.


LMAO! What does a guy do to get to 250lbs lean? I'll tell ya:

Super-terrestrial-alien-steroids...and he doesn't even need to lift weights.


I would love to know where he got his numbers regarding calories burned. I suspect he is correct.

No matter how muscular you are if you don't stay active you will get fat unless you starve yourself.