 |
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
adam_h 
Posts:0
Newbie
 |
| 11/28/2003 3:48 PM |
|
| CBS Saturday night at 8pm: "48 Hours Investigates" will feature some diet and fitness reports, including a look at this slow-motion weight training protocol. (It is exactly Ken Hutchins' SuperSlow program, but with marketing.)
If your Sat. night social life is as boring as mine, this program might be worth tuning in to. This slo-mo method of weight training has been very effective for me and other Zoners.
But I expect to see a pessimistic slant. (Listen for the words "radical", "unsafe", "possibly dangerous", "unproven". Look for a counter-point comment from the Heart Association and maybe a representative from Bally's--if not Kenneth Cooper himself.) |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/08/2003 12:19 AM |
|
| On the SuperSlow website, it is stated:
"A professionally supervised SuperSlow exercise program will produce better results in only six weeks than most other programs are capable of producing in two or more years."
Since "most" weight training programs can easily produce 20 lbs. of muscle in two years, does this mean that SuperSlow can produce more than 3 lbs. of muscle per week? |
|
|
|
|
adam_h
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/08/2003 7:04 AM |
|
| BrianG wrote:[quote:5c2619f209]On the SuperSlow website, it is stated:
"A professionally supervised SuperSlow exercise program will produce better results in only six weeks than most other programs are capable of producing in two or more years."
Since "most" weight training programs can easily produce 20 lbs. of muscle in two years, does this mean that SuperSlow can produce more than 3 lbs. of muscle per week?[/quote:5c2619f209]
Good point, (though I question the word "easily"). It's doubtful any plan could add 20 lbs in 6 weeks, but even moreso if it includes a cardio program.
Keep in mind ALL the benefits of weight training: bone density, increased HDL, vascular efficiency (however we define and measure that), lower resting heart rate, better defense against injury...not just bulking up your guns and pecs.
A lucky minority of the population are able to keep growing muscle tissue indefinitely by working out; the rest of us hit a genetically determined size limit no matter how hard we exercise. S-S is, like the Zone, for the regular people who seek the fastest route to overall health.
Also, Brian, the line you quoted does not appear on the S-S Dot Com website, but is taken from O.P.T. ([url]http://www.optforfitness.com/[/url]). Please give your assertions proper citation and your quotations their actual source. Such irresponsible posting is downright plagiaristic and should not be tolerated by the moderators. |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/08/2003 3:21 PM |
|
| [quote:14046ee399]
Also, Brian, the line you quoted does not appear on the S-S Dot Com website, but is taken from O.P.T. ([url]http://www.optforfitness.com/[/url]). Please give your assertions proper citation and your quotations their actual source. Such irresponsible posting is downright plagiaristic and should not be tolerated by the moderators.[/quote:14046ee399]
No, that statement appears on the SuperSlow.com website:
http://www.superslow.com/exercise_specialist/frame.html
Click on "Effective" |
|
|
|
|
adam_h
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/08/2003 3:50 PM |
|
| I stand corrected. That branch has no link from the main page.
Looks like you've been reading, Brian. |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/14/2003 7:50 PM |
|
| This is an excerpt from the article "Exercise and Fat Loss" by SuperSlow Master Instructor Dan Carter (www.superslowofscottsdale.com):
[i:802106f4c5]"Running, a popular form of so called calorie burning activity, requires approximately 300 calories per mile.
But wait! About half of these calories represent basal metabolism! The average individual burns about 150 calories at complete rest! Therefore running increases calorie demand not by 300 per mile, but 150 per mile!"[/i:802106f4c5]
According to Mr. Carter's claims here, if you run at a pace of 8:00 per mile, then your basal metabolic rate is [b:802106f4c5 calories per hour or 27,000 calories per day....![/b:802106f4c5]
If this is a SuperSlow Master Instructor, then I sure feel sorry for the Level-1 and 2 instructors he's responsible for certifying. |
|
|
|
|
jackie
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/15/2003 8:19 PM |
|
| [quote:7e2685a0f8]Running, a popular form of so called calorie burning activity, requires approximately 300 calories per mile.
But wait! About half of these calories represent basal metabolism! The average individual burns about 150 calories at complete rest! Therefore running increases calorie demand not by 300 per mile, but 150 per mile!"
According to Mr. Carter's claims here, if you run at a pace of 8:00 per mile, then your basal metabolic rate is 1125 calories per hour or 27,000 calories per day....!
[/quote:7e2685a0f8]
? Maybe I'm just having a brain fart here, but where are you getting the 1125 calories per hour and the 27,000 calories per day. I'm not following. |
|
|
|
|
adam_h
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/15/2003 10:52 PM |
|
| That is a mistake. It should read that running on average burns 300 calories per [i:dab8f85cdb]hour[/i:dab8f85cdb]. (that's including the 150 calories per hour from the average basal metabolism.)
The point is that running, or any other 'aerobic' activity, or even weightlifting for that matter, does not really burn many calories while you are performing the exercise. Rather, fat is burned when you are at rest, when your body repairs itself. Carter's contention is that it is incorrect to think of exercise in terms of burning a certain number of Calories. The benefits of exercise are to increase our basal (resting) metabolic rate, and this is best accomplished by building some muscle tissue. |
|
|
|
|
jackie
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/16/2003 7:25 PM |
|
| Now that I can agree with, Adam! No wonder it wasn't making sense, 300 per hour and 300 per mile are very different! Thanks for clarifying! |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/22/2003 3:44 PM |
|
| [quote:ac65954eee]
Rather, fat is burned when you are at rest, when your body repairs itself. Carter's contention is that it is incorrect to think of exercise in terms of burning a certain number of Calories. The benefits of exercise are to increase our basal (resting) metabolic rate, and this is best accomplished by building some muscle tissue.[/quote:ac65954eee]
This is false though; muscle actually burns very few calories at rest. Carter and McGuff both state that each pound of muscle burns about 100 calories per day, which is completely ridiculous... the actual number probably more like 5-10. |
|
|
|
|
adam_h
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/22/2003 4:49 PM |
|
| I'll still favor the authority of someone with an MD or a PhD over someone whose expertise appears as the word "probably". |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/22/2003 8:29 PM |
|
| I say "probably" because there is no generally accepted figure, and it would be impossible to calculate anyway....... but common sense should tell you that 100 calories per pound of muscle mass is waaaaaaaay too much. Think about it: if muscle burns 100 cal/lb. daily, and your BMR was 2000 cal/day, then you would have LESS than 20 lbs. muscle on your body (much less actually, because muscle tissue only represents a fraction of your total BMR). |
|
|
|
|
rosebud101
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/23/2003 12:25 AM |
|
| RE: HOW MANY CALORIES DOES ONE POUND OF MUSCLE BURN?
I read several studies including the following that state each pound of muscle burns 37.5 pounds of fat.
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article870.html |
|
|
|
|
Charles
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/23/2003 1:11 AM |
|
| Thanks for the link. I think this is the passage you meant:
[quote:31c107abd8]At the end of the program, follow-up tests revealed that each trainee built calorie-burning muscle: on average approximately one-half pound per week, or 3 pounds in six weeks. Each pound of muscle added raised a person's basal metabolic rate by 37.5 calories per day. This was in addition to the calories burned during workouts. [/quote:31c107abd8]
- C. |
|
|
|
|
rosebud101
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/23/2003 1:59 AM |
|
| [quote:6edf6f031f]At the end of the program, follow-up tests revealed that each trainee built calorie-burning muscle: on average approximately one-half pound per week, or 3 pounds in six weeks. Each pound of muscle added raised a person's basal metabolic rate by 37.5 calories per day. This was in addition to the calories burned during workouts.[/quote:6edf6f031f]
Yes that was the passage from the link. I thought readers would prefer to see the whole article. It's actually a bit discouraging to learn how few calories each pound of muscle burns.And If cardio only burns approx 150 calories after deducting the base metabolic rate, that's not so great. And if after weight lifting and/or cardio, the calories you burn post work out are limited, it really comes down to eating a lot less. Oh well . . . I don't mind eating less but I would like to think I'm burning more fat with exercise than it appears is possible. It just seems that a low calorie diet is the key and exercise contributes to where the fat is lost and where muscle is put on. But it does not appear I can eat that much more as I gain muscle. Am I wrong? I am trying to lose about 10 pounds. Also if I am able to estimate my body fat percentage, do you know how I calculate how many muscles I have that will allow me to burn that measly 37.5 calories each per day?
Thanks,
Rosebud |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 12/23/2003 2:00 AM |
|
| [quote:362cadffae="rosebud101"]RE: HOW MANY CALORIES DOES ONE POUND OF MUSCLE BURN?
I read several studies including the following that state each pound of muscle burns 37.5 pounds of fat.
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article870.html[/quote:362cadffae]
Ellington Darden has achieved some remarkable fat-loss results with his programs, but that's not a real study on the metabolic rate of muscle tissue. The 37.5 cal/day figure was probably calculated based on the the amount of calories consumed per day and the amount of muscle gained and fat lost, which is a very crude method
Also, even if muscle tissue does not burn very many calories at rest, the process of synthesizing new muscle tissue does increase metabolic rate. I don't think Darden took that into account when he calculated that figure. |
|
|
|
|
rosebud101
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 01/08/2004 2:07 AM |
|
| Just for the heck of it, I bought [u:ec3f71e97c]Power of Ten [/u:ec3f71e97c]and have performed two work outs so far. However, in my research of SuperSlow (SS), I came across the limited studies comparing traditional training (TT) with (SS) and found the results of the studies (I could only find three!!) a bit discouraging:
Take a look at:
[quote:ec3f71e97c]Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11710656&dopt=Abstract[/quote:ec3f71e97c]
In the above study, sedentary women 19 to 45 were compared - SS vs. TT. The traditional training increased strength and mass considerably more than SS. And the aerobic benefits of TT were significantly better than SS.
Also take a look at this article that describes two other studies:
[quote:ec3f71e97c]http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/superslow.html[/quote:ec3f71e97c]
Again the studies only included sedentary trainers. And only the group in ages 55-80 achieved more muscle with SS. The younger sedentary trainers achieved poor results.
My concern is two fold. First of all, I'm not sedentary. So have there been documented studies comparing SS with TT for fit trainers. So far, if you look only at studies, SS works only for older sedentary women.
I really am anxious for a response. I don't want to waste my time.
Thanx SS experts,
Rosebud |
|
|
|
|
Scott
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 01/08/2004 2:57 AM |
|
| Unfortunately, both methods were performed 3x/wk. If it can be argued that the slower repetitions resulted in continuous tension throughout the set and greater inroads into recovery ability, than its possible that the slower-rep group may not have been provided with adequate recovery. |
|
|
|
|
rosebud101
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 01/09/2004 4:43 AM |
|
| [quote:85e842733f]Unfortunately, both methods were performed 3x/wk. If it can be argued that the slower repetitions resulted in continuous tension throughout the set and greater inroads into recovery ability, than its possible that the slower-rep group may not have been provided with adequate recovery.[/quote:85e842733f]
Scott, that's a good point. And there also other flaws in the limited 3 studies I found. No studies compare NON sedentary groups. And I still would like more studies done proprerly with the advocated SS methods of 1 or 2x wk exercising to failure and [b:85e842733f]with Non sedentary people in all age groups. [/b:85e842733f]
Do you practice SS? Do you or anyone you know see better results than with traditional training?
Thanx,
Rosebud |
|
|
|
|
BrianG
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 01/09/2004 11:29 PM |
|
| A big problem here: what is "traditional training"?
Most people in the conventional gym setting do not train in any organized/systematic fashion; rather they just do whatever they feel like or copy others around them. So how can that be pinned down as "traditional"? Furthermore, the protocol that is commonly employed by bodybuilders for muscle mass gains is very different from the protocol used by strength athletes for improving maximal strength (i.e. 1-rep max). From my perspective, there is no such thing as "traditional" training.
Studies need to be very specific about the protocols they are comparing, because a study only proves exatcly what it demonstrates... for example, if a study shown that SuperSlow improves strength more than doing 3 sets of 10 reps @ 202 tempo (two seconds up, two seconds down), then you can only conclude that SS is superior to that specific protocol. You cannot conclude that SuperSlow is superior to, say, 5 sets of 3 reps @ 101 tempo, which is very different. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
Start getting Zone recipes, tips, articles and exclusive promotions sent right to your inbox!
After you provide your email address we’ll send you a confirmation email. You can “opt-out” of this program at anytime by following the simple instructions provided at the end of every email we send you. We will never send too many emails (spam) and we’ll never sell of rent your email to another company.
If you are already registerd with ZoneDiet.com and are receiving emails from Dr. Sears Zone then you do not need to provide your email address to us at this time.
To assure your Zone emails reach your inbox, be sure to add our email address,
reply@zoneliving.com, to your address book.
|
|