Weight Loss Weekly/to Date

read only section for reference and search purposes.

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Postby [old] rspenger » March 10th, 2006, 5:12 pm

<!--quoteo(post=58947:date=Mar 10 2006, 10:06 AM:name=DIESEL)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DIESEL @ Mar 10 2006, 10:06 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />Muscle weighs 5x more than fat - yet takes up 1/3 the space - very dense AND METABOLICALLY ACTIVE STUFF. <br />D<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Whoa! Where did you come up with that wild one. The density of fat is on the order of about 0.9 g/ml and proteins would be expected to be about 1.0 g/ml, i.e. about 1.1 times as much as fat. (I am not sure what you meant by 5x more than fat - it is about 10% more than fat.) As far as space is concerned, pure protein would take up about 9 tenths of the space of fat, but most muscle tissue is only about 25% protein with most of the rest being water. The result is that muscle tissue wold take up almost 4 times the space of fat.<br /><br />Bob S.<br />
[old] rspenger
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Postby [old] Meri Goehring » March 11th, 2006, 12:03 am

I'm willing to bet a MILLION DOLLARS that even though the scale remained the same, your body composition changed. Weights + rowing + clean diet = METABOLIC WARP SPEED !! <br /><br />Aren't you just itching to hit the gym now? :D <br />Almost forgot, <br />Go ahead and have that Bass, you've earned it, trooper ! :D <br /><br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />Well, no gym tonite, but I did make myself WALK BRISKLY to the neigborhood bar for that dirty drink (ie, not part of the 'clean diet' you recommend)- One plus, I realized I MUCH prefer brew from the tap; it helps me keep my intake down since I force myself to walk to get it. I'm not sure I'd bet that MILLION yet-you may be right as my clothes feel looser. I'm a bit too long in the tooth for metabolic warp speed, but will try to include weights this week and see what happens. Thanks for the kind encouragement. <br />Meri<br />
[old] Meri Goehring
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Postby [old] DIESEL » March 12th, 2006, 2:56 pm

<!--quoteo(post=58958:date=Mar 10 2006, 04:12 PM:name=rspenger)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Mar 10 2006, 04:12 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=58947:date=Mar 10 2006, 10:06 AM:name=DIESEL)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DIESEL @ Mar 10 2006, 10:06 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />Muscle weighs 5x more than fat - yet takes up 1/3 the space - very dense AND METABOLICALLY ACTIVE STUFF. <br />D<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Whoa! Where did you come up with that wild one. The density of fat is on the order of about 0.9 g/ml and proteins would be expected to be about 1.0 g/ml, i.e. about 1.1 times as much as fat. (I am not sure what you meant by 5x more than fat - it is about 10% more than fat.) As far as space is concerned, pure protein would take up about 9 tenths of the space of fat, but most muscle tissue is only about 25% protein with most of the rest being water. The result is that muscle tissue wold take up almost 4 times the space of fat.<br /><br />Bob S.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I guess I meant that muscle when on the body is more compact than body fat. For example a muscular chest arms is tighter looking than a guy who has man-boobs for a chest. But the general idea is that muscle weighs more than fat. That's why a muscular 180 fits into a smaller pair of pants than a fat 180. 5x was mere hyperbole to illustrate a point. But the general point that muscle takes up less space than fat is metabolically active tissue that burns energy while at rest still remains true. <br /><br />Thanks for the clarification. :D<br /><br /><!--quoteo(post=58985:date=Mar 10 2006, 11:03 PM:name=Meri Goehring)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Meri Goehring @ Mar 10 2006, 11:03 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br /><br />Well, no gym tonite, but I did make myself WALK BRISKLY to the neigborhood bar for that dirty drink (ie, not part of the 'clean diet' you recommend)- One plus, I realized I MUCH prefer brew from the tap; it helps me keep my intake down since I force myself to walk to get it. I'm not sure I'd bet that MILLION yet-you may be right as my clothes feel looser. I'm a bit too long in the tooth for metabolic warp speed, but will try to include weights this week and see what happens. Thanks for the kind encouragement. <br />Meri<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />A bit too long in the tooth? Hardly. The body doesn't care how old you think you are. If you give it the stimulus (exercise) and then give the it the tools to repair itself (a good diet) - it WILL respond. Whether you are 20 or 80 years old. Granted, the speed of the response may be a bit different - but comparatively speaking, your body WILL be on metabolic warp speed compared to what you had before. Thus, giving you some leeway to enjoy your Bass Ales once in a while without having to worry about the adverse consequences on your waistline. <br /><br />keep it up! <br />D
[old] DIESEL
 
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

Previous

Return to Posts from old forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests