jobo
Grandmaster
why should i google it, i know your wrong, its you that making wild claim , you are the one that needs to provide some,science to prove it
How often of work out in week exercise to get in shape myth?
- Thread starter moonhill99
- Start date
Anarax
Master Black Belt
Well, it seems whatever link I post you're not going to read it if you already know I'm wrong. However; if you do choose to research it yourself, you will see it's a topic that many have addressed and explained both scientifically and personally.
Except it's not a "wild claim". It's something many people have experienced, and many professionals recognize. Now, he may have the processes incorrect (I don't know one way or the other), but you've not presented anything that counters the idea that a faster metabolism (common usage of the term, I don't know if that's technically what's going on in folks like me) makes it more difficult to gain muscle. It's entirely possible it's nothing more than requiring more of everything (calories, protein, and maybe even exercise) to gain the same %.
jobo
Grandmaster
the fitness industry is,full of bro science. Myths
we have two facts, one) some people have difficulty putting on muscle
two) some people consume more calories when resting than others, other wise know as a fast metabolism
and people have assumed a connection between the two, or rather that b) has caused a)
now who ever is making that claim needs to come up with some study that shows that connection.
the bizzare thing about this claim, is that people,with a greater muscle mass generaly consume greater calories when resting, ie have a faster metabolism than those with little muscle mass. Perhaps the logical place to start would be to show that thin people are thin because they have a fast met,,.
if that cant he done then there is no point doing the rest
Not a claim he made.
There is evidence that SOME people are thin because of their metabolism. Some are thin because they simply don't eat much and don't get much muscle-building exercise. And there are other factors, and combinations of factors.
And none of that changes the fact that what he said was not, as you claimed, a "wild claim". Even your assertion (without the same sort of evidence you're suggesting he should provide, I might point out) that "he fitness industry is,full of bro science. Myths" is a much larger and more sweeping claim than his.
jobo
Grandmaster
is there? Where?
Here's some of the easy stuff to find that's related to the question.
If you need, I can do a better search later. Searching scholarly articles on the topic is difficult because most searches turn up a lot of thyrotoxicosis and many about hypothyroid and/or low metabolism. These results are mostly around hyperthyroidism, which results in a higher metabolism (BMR) and many effects thereof.
jobo
Grandmaster
so you have nw conflated ac" fast metab" with an over,active thyroid? It's interesting as popular wisdom is that i am slim because i have a fast metabolism, ive been told that hundreds of times in my life,yet there is nothing at all wrong with my thyroid, or i would image the fast majority of slim people
I conflated nothing. Overactive thyroid is one cause of fast metabolism.
The rest of your rant gets us to the point of talking about "wrong" (using your word) versus "elevated". A diagnosis of hyperthyroidism generally would require markers above a certain level. Hypothyroidism generally would require markers below a certain level. That leaves a range considered "normal". A range. That means that someone can have a more active thyroid than another person, and both be within "normal" range.
Nor is the thyroid the only thing that affects BMR. There's evidence (and I'm not doing your searching for you - since you are inclined to take pot shots at the method of the search, do your own damned search) that BMR can is genetically influenced. There are other factors that are easily controllable (diet, exercise, sedentary state, etc.), but there are at least two (thyroid and genetics) that are not under the control of the individual.
But, once again, you knew most of this, and were simply arguing to be arguing.
jobo
Grandmaster
well you seem to have gone round in a circle now and concluded that being slim might be genetic, which it most certainty is, however we are still looking for the evidence that a fast metabolism is a restriction to muscle growth rather than having a genetic limit to the amount of muscle you can grow.
people who are naturally slim have no trouble putting on muscle of they use chemical assistance and load them shelves up with steroids and or test /human growth hormone, so the answer would seem to be dependent on changing their blood chemistry rather on their fast metab consuming all the calleries, which was the other guys point
Last edited:
Nothing circular there. You're just not paying attention.
As for WHY the fast metabolism makes gaining difficult, he never said it was because they burned calories faster: "For example, someone with a slower metabolism will have an easier time putting on muscle mass opposed to someone with a faster metabolism." From there, you dragged the conversation toward the conclusion you drew from that sentence. Any emphasis on calories first has been yours.
jobo
Grandmaster
now you are being circular, what science do you have that slower metaba have an easier time putting on muscle, that's the wild claim i pulled the other guy over and now you are repeating it
Still nothing circular (that's a pretty specious argument, in and of itself). I didn't make that claim, except to cite anecdotal evidence of it and say I didn't know what support there was beyond that. Quoting someone's claim to clarify what they claimed is not the same as making a claim.
But then you knew that, too.
jobo
Grandmaster
he obviously cant support, you despite all your blusters can't support it, at that point i have no idea what you are arguing about ?
No bluster. I provided a bit of evidence and offered to do more searching. Rather than asking for something different, you chose to act like I'd conflated two ideas (when I clearly pointed out my original results had only produced that one thing).
But you knew that.
