I am looking into the no equipment, no gym style workouts that take 20 minutes.
[0]: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-mi... [1]: http://rosstraining.com/blog/never-gymless/
The other book lists 100 exercises with no equipment.
I am starting out slow trying to put together a coherent workout from these two.
From the linked website:
> Recognize that all these guys have low body fat, which helps reveal their muscles. You will not actually lose fat by lifting weights, so weight loss is a separate goal altogether.
Of course you can lose fat by lifting weights. Calories in < calories out = weight loss (hopefully fat). Any type of physical activity increases calories out.
Not necessarily, but the alternative is fat loss with greater muscle gain (b/c muscle has lower stored energy content per pound.)
For most people, weight loss is first and foremost a calories in problem.
If your muscles take weeks to recover you should see a doctor. That could be rhabdo or some other condition. It should never take that long.
Are you talking about normal recovery after weightlifting? The OP was talking about muscle strains.
I've hurt muscles that then take a month to recover. It seems fundamentally different from tired muscles after a workout.
But the problem is that you can't lift weights without consuming sufficient calories (in a sustainable way).
The body digests calories different depending on the source, e.g. eating an orange vs drinking orange juice. Going to the gym for an hour might burn a few hundred calories, which is about a snickers bar. These two combined means that adding the calories of your food vs the calories at the gym is a really bad way to lose weight.
Of course, I'm not a doctor and have no sources to back this up, other than reading the China Study 10 years ago. :)
Nope. When calories in < calories out the body responds by reducing energy expenditure, not consuming the excess:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-do-we-gain-weight...
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/a-calorie-is-a-calori...
> Any type of physical activity increases calories out.
This may be true but that doesn't mean that physical activity has a measurable effect on weight loss:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/myth-exercise-exercis...
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/exercise-effective-we...
This is both true and not true. If you increase muscle mass, you increase your metabolism, which means your resting metabolic rate increases. However, as they say, abs are made in the kitchen, and a better diet is the quickest, most efficient way to drop fat. But, why not both? The easiest way to drop weight is to stop eating bread and sugar (including beer, i.e. liquid bread). Plus, there are dozens of other benefits to dropping grains and sugar.
Yes, but not as much as people think [0]. It's about 5 kcals per lb. of muscle (compared to roughly 1 for fat). Your organs consume the vast majority of your calories. An extremely fit person can expect to burn maybe 50-100 kcals more a day than a fat one per pound. It's not nothing, but if you read men's magazines they make it sound like if you lift some weights, you can eat whatever you want.
This isn't to say there are not many good reasons to strength train, especially as you age. I just wish people weren't trying to sell benefits that didn't exist when there are so many that do exist.
[0]: https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/metabolismcon...
EDIT: I shouldn't say "50-100 per pound", I should say that a fit person can expect to burn 50-100 more than a fat person of the same weight, within a normal weight range.
Bonus, keto is kind of a brain booster too. Not dissimilar in effect from fasting except sustainable.