I agree that’s 100% BS physiologically. But it has a certain practical folk “common sense” reality.
Imagine somebody who works out regularly & is muscular who suddenly becomes sedentary and doesn’t change their eating habits. Now fast forward a year or more. Odds are they’ll have less muscle mass, more fat mass, and weigh the same or a little more.
Did any microscopic muscle cell transmogrify into a fat cell? Certainly not.
At the macro scale of their whole body, is there now a bunch of fat on their arms, legs, and midsection in places where, roughly speaking, muscle mass used to be? Yes.
So to a folk knowledge level of detail, the “muscle turned to fat”. And the folk remedy that implies, namely don’t become sedentary and if you do, cut back your eating, works well both as a “common sense” explanation and as real biological reality.
Fat weighs more than muscle, and on that same track, if you haven’t lost any weight, or have in fact gained weight, but have been ‘working out’ for >1 month, it’s probably because you’ve gained so much muscle that it’s covering up the fat loss. Wait, no, probably not. You’re probably eating too much or not working out as hard as you’re estimating. Muscle is hard to build - no one can build 5 lbs of muscle in a month. In fact, 1 lbs to 2 lbs a month is the most you can realisticly expect, with consistent heavy lifting and the right diet. And it certainly doesn’t weight more than fat.
Similarly, it’s way more likely that you aren’t tracking your diet/exercise very well than that you have a ‘genetic predisposition’ to being overweight and struggle to lose. Something like 2% of the population have actual medical conditions that prevent them or slow them from losing weight when appropriate effort is put in to it. You are probably not that special snowflake, and if you are, you need to work with your doctor and find the right diet and probably medication instead of continuing with the fad diets.
I also don’t really agree with the fat acceptance movement. I don’t think you can be significantly overweight and ‘healthy’. Chubby (i.e. top end of normal BMI or just in to overweight) and healthy, maybe by some measures. But there are all sorts of problems with being significantly overweight and I don’t understand how anyone at that point can claim they are healthy.
The opposite myth is more widespread I think–i.e., that aerobic fitness is the sole or best measure of fitness. Actual strength, as distinct from say muscle size, is pretty far down in the popular conception of what makes one fit in the US, at least. Crossfit is changing that a little (for better or worse).
Amazingly a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle. Per unit volume muscle weighs more. Per calorie stored muscle weighs more as well.
Someone who is exercising, especially including resistance exercise, while possibly modestly restrictng calories, who is staying the same weight or even marginally putting some weight on, may in fact be losing some fat mass while putting some muscle mass on, or at least preserving muscle mass more than someone who is dieting alone.
There is no question that there are genetic predisposiions to becoming overweight and obese given the modern obesiogenic environment. Established obesity itself is an “actual medical condition” that fights against weight loss for a given amount of effort; your “2%” claim notwithstanding.
One can be overweight and fit and someone overweight and fit is healthier by most measures than someone “normal” BMI and unfit.
The fact that you agree with certain myths and disagree with certain facts does not change the facts.
Richard Parker and jtur88 - are either of those myths? Seems like differences of opinions to me. What should be the definition of “fitness” in common usage? It is like “strength”, a word with an official definition that is not what most actually mean in real life use … which is very unclear.
Actually my perception is that popular culture views aerobic capacity as the be-all and end-all of fitness, and that is no more (or less) accurate than only recognizing strength.
My related fitness-myth-that-should-die is that diet is the only thing you have to do to lose weight. What you should do is moderately restrict calories and exercise in ways that develop aerobic capacity as well as do resistance training. That way you lose fat and gain, or at least maintain, muscle, which is in fact denser than fat. You can markedly improve how you look, feel, and perform without losing much weight at all.
After a certain point, you can’t. Sure, if one starts out as morbidly obese with no muscle mass, they can lose weight while simultaneously building muscle and getting stronger. But a guy who is starting out at 10% bodyfat, with decent musculature, is going to find it next to impossible to get stronger and get leaner at the same time.
The space between “morbidly obese” and 10% body fat is quite large though Ambi. Most guys in the “overweight” category (BMI 25 to 29.9) have about 20 to 25% body fat. The fraction of the general population down to 10% is very smal.
A novice will gain strength by neuromuscular adaptation before any mass is gained. Gaining more strength with the addition of muscle mass is difficult to do while overall losing weight (thus more fat mass loss than muscle mass gained), even with some significant fat mass to call upon, but other than for the exceptional sort of case you reference, it is possible, and not just for the morbidly obese.
Tru dat. But a scale can’t tell you that anyway. All it can do is tell me what I weigh, and allow me to compare weight readings over time. That’s a very useful thing, but it can’t tell me how much of that weight is muscle or fat.
I think it is largely a matter of taste. Some people are perfectly content to be non-athletes and have very high quality of life by their own standards.
I certainly don’t think that physical fitness = winning at life.
That’s what I was going to say; it’s a myth that you’re not fit if you’re not ripped and in super-good shape like the Crossfit people or the models in all the fitness glurge and ads.
Plenty of people are fit enough to be healthy and have perfectly fine lives, without making fitness some sort of crazy obsession or their only hobby, which is what a LOT of these fitness wonks do.
Remember though that achieving moderate fitness in mid-life does not only extend life a couple of years, it helps make that last decade (or more if you be so lucky) much more likely to be disability free. If you want to be able to function independently and be vital (both physically and cognitively) as you age you are well advised to invest in that outcome when you are younger, with aerobic fitness, strength, and muscle mass, and with a healthy diet as well.
Indeed such can be achieved without being obsessed. But if you are not exercising enough that you can hit at least a peak rate of jogging at 5 mph, you are a set-up for spending more years of your (slightly shorter) life disabled and enfeebled.
People who choose to completely sedentary should at least be aware of that.
