all posts post new thread

Kettlebell 100 swings or 1 hour walk for fat loss?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I'll throw in my two cents again as I'm an enormous advocate of walking. Weight training is better as are HIIT and HIIRT such as S&S swings etc, but weight training misses muscles that walking hits. Walking is a natural movement and develops some important muscles and strength systems that you just can't access with weight training. Thus, walking is needed to fill-in the parts of you missed with weights. Even though walking may be a low-intensity and a low-level strength training activity, it is better to hit those missed muscles with a low level thing like walking than to neglect them altogether.

This is why in my opinion the bodies of some weight lifters look ogre like instead of natural, and they walk weird. I think this is because they are neglecting their natural locomotive strength systems in their body in favour of stationary heavy lifting.

I do not think walking is enough however, nor is it in exclusion from lifting weights natural. We have hands and we are meant to interact physically with our environment. The ancients focussed their lifting on the deadlift and the press as these are natural ways to interact with objects in this world. I agree with them.
 
Last edited:
Both. Walk in morning, fasted. 200 swings later in day. I've noticed when I walk every day, how low my blood pressure is.
 
kennycro@@aol.com said:
With that said an increase in muscle mass doesn't increase you metabolic rate that much. Research show that the net increase in metabolism from gaining a pound of muscle means you end up burning around 80 kcal more a day; which is still good.
Click to expand...

That seems a bit high. Your source may have mixed up units. Maybe the number is 80 kJ/day/pound of muscle (20 cal/day/pound) or even 80kJ/kg/day (10 cal/day/pound). The human body has about 30-40% of its mass in muscles according to Google. For a lean 180 pounds male, that's at least 60 pounds of muscles. At 80 kcal per day, he would need to consume 4800 cal for his muscles alone, which doesn't make any sense as a recommended calories consumption is 2000-3000 cal/day for "regular folks", depending on how active they are. Or I am not understanding the number and it's about how many more calories you need to consume to build that muscle mass.

After writing the above, I found a good discussion of this issue by the NCSF here.
 
Manuel Fortin said:
That seems a bit high.
Click to expand...

Here is the some of information that I have on it.

So, what is the "true" metabolic rate of muscle?
The Myth about Muscle and Metabolism

In her book Ultimate Fitness: The Quest for Truth about Exercise and Health, science writer for The New York Times Gina Kolata talked to Professor Claude Bouchard, a respected researcher in the field of genetics and obesity.

Bouchard points out that muscle actually has a very low metabolic rate when it is at rest, which is most of the time. And the metabolic rate of muscle pales in comparison to other parts of the body.

In fact, the heart and kidneys have the highest resting metabolic rate (200 calories per pound). The brain (109 calories per pound) and liver (91 calories per pound) also have high values [5]. In contrast, the resting metabolic rate of skeletal muscle clocks in at just 6 calories per pound, with fat burning just 2 calories per pound.

Organ or tissue
Daily metabolic rate
Adipose (fat)
2 calories per pound

Muscle
6 calories per pound

Liver
91 calories per pound

Brain
109 calories per pound

Heart
200 calories per pound

Kidneys
200 calories per pound

In other words, while skeletal muscle and fat are the two largest components, their contribution to resting energy expenditure is smaller than that of organs. The vast majority of the resting energy expenditure of your body comes from organs such as liver, kidneys, heart, and brain, which account for only 5% to 6% of your weight.

As is often the case with these things, not everyone agrees on the exact figure.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Robert Wolfe, Ph.D., Chief of Metabolism and Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Texas Medical Branch, points out that, "every 10-kilogram difference in lean mass translates to a difference in energy expenditure of 100 calories per day, assuming a constant rate of protein turnover."

That's 10 calories for one kilogram of muscle, or a little less than 5 calories per pound — not too far away from the previous estimate of 6 calories per pound.

Wolfe does mention that this number assumes "a constant rate of protein turnover." Most types of resistance exercise will increase protein turnover (an increase in the rate of protein synthesis and breakdown), which is going to increase calorie expenditure in the hours (and, in some cases, days) after exercise.

And there are studies to show that the more muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn after an intense workout [6].

"When exercise ends, it takes time and energy for muscle cells to return to resting levels," says Chris Scott, Ph.D., exercise physiologist at the University of Southern Maine Human Performance Laboratory. "Recovery can also be expensive:

Depleted glucose and fat stores need to be refilled, accumulated cell products need to be removed and protein levels need to be built back up. All this requires energy."

And the more rebuilding to be done, the greater the rate of EPOC, which in turn means that more calories (mainly from fat) are being burned after your workout.

So, while the resting metabolic rate of muscle isn't as high as previously thought, it is going to help you burn a few more calories after a workout is finished.

Take Home Message

Increasing muscle mass does not dramatically increase you metabolic rate as much as everyone has been lead to believe.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Also from an evolutionary perspective, if having more muscle knackered us we'd be dead as a species. It is a survival trait that we retain fat and burn low amounts of calories, and also have big appetites to replenish us!

I think there is a bit of a chimaera going on with regards to "fat loss". While fat loss is something, improved appearance is probably more in line with the goals of people claiming to strive for "fat loss". By building musculature under your fat, you make yourself more shapely and attractive in spite of not losing fat. Musculature shapes your body, including the layer of fat on top of it, in an aesthetically pleasing way. Thus, someone who is overweight but gets decent exercise will still look rather attractive to a lot of us in spite of having some fat covering his or her strong muscles underneath the veneer.

At 102 kg I can either look like a Hamburgler blob or an MMA athlete depending on how regularly I'm doing my S&S etc.

If you take a given person who has little muscle but is fat and then take the same person, train them in walking, weights etc for a few months, they'll look a whole lot more attractive to everyone without losing any weight at all.

If we're talking about morbidly obese, it's a different story, and clearly reducing the ridiculous amount of calorie intake has to be at the centre of the struggle.
 
Kozushi said:
I've actually gone through this myself a long time ago. I lost an awful lot of weight through walking every day, but for more than an hour generally.

1 hour is fine though.

The reason it works is because you're so heavy that the extra weight causes you to burn more calories than you should. This is what I suspect some of the fitter people on the forum don't understand. If you're a skinny little guy walking is not going to burn a lot of calories nor strengthen you much, not that it doesn't have other benefits. If you're overweight and big, walking wastes a lot of calories and builds a significant amount of muscle. It is also something you can do for long periods of time without harming yourself. Actually it's the extended time that makes walking so effective when you're desperate to lose fat, but it does take time. If you're able to walk for more than an hour a day you'll naturally achieve your goals faster.

Walking also builds natural muscles and a physique that looks nice along with making the heart and lungs healthier without overstressing yourself nor it becoming too annoying to do.

If you're up for it a good S&S session every day ought to provide better results, but the catch is that you have to do it every day.

My suggestion for your daily workout is to:
  • prioritize S&S - so if you're up for it, do it.
  • if you're not up for S&S then walk for at least an hour.
  • if you can, both walk and do S&S (like on weekends or holidays when you have the energy and time for both)
Click to expand...

You make a good point here. I had a conversation with an obese colleague recently and I did not realize that taking the stairs was so difficult that they are winded and the rate of perceived exertion is something like me at middle age in my Muay Thai class for fitness. The strain on the knees and back too is quite a lot for the obese. It is hard for us who are relatively fit and average weight to realize what a burden physically and mentally that it can be. I joke that it is like doing a loaded carry with a 24KG all day.
 
guardian7 said:
You make a good point here. I had a conversation with an obese colleague recently and I did not realize that taking the stairs was so difficult that they are winded and the rate of perceived exertion is something like me at middle age in my Muay Thai class for fitness. The strain on the knees and back too is quite a lot for the obese. It is hard for us who are relatively fit and average weight to realize what a burden physically and mentally that it can be. I joke that it is like doing a loaded carry with a 24KG all day.
Click to expand...
Yes, for them to just walk will build a lot of muscle which will in turn enable them to get into weights and stuff too. They're eating too much though and this has to be trimmed.
 
What I have found pretty effective for F Loss using bells is Al Ciampa simple to serious endurance protocol. Single arm swings with s 32kg pushing beyond 20 minutes does it for me. If you have time have a look at it. It’s excellent
 
Honestly, don't worry too much about it. Do what you're up to. As you are already doing a fair amount of swings, I'd choose the walk. Plus: walking does not tax you at all and is in fact very enjoyable.
 
Pavel Macek said:
Why not both? For fat loss, I would personally add few other key elements:

- fast food push-off
- sets of steak & vegetables
- enough sleep
Click to expand...
Thanks! But I'm also trying to save the planet, so I don't eat that much steak. Boiled potatoes, lentils, vegetables and cottage cheese for me. A little meat, mostly chicken, on the weekends. ;)

But seriously, you don't think someone risk losing their motivation from training and walking everyday?
...
Next week, I'll try to "do both", evening walks and some swings one day, S/S the next etc.

But seeing this is more about opinions and personal preference and no science that clearly says that only weight lifting(the swings in this example) for a shorter amount of time is better for fat loss than weight lifting and long walks I'm going to focus on the walking on my "off days" and just pick up the bell and do "something fun" after my evening walks. Perhaps things like the spring weather and walking is better for me right now and focusing on swings everyday and sleeping more during the winter is best in the long term.

DIET is obviously the biggest part.

And to clarify, "fat loss" was the word I used because I have to much fat on my body and would like to have less of it. But "maximum health benefits" might have been a better term to use. Building muscle, getting stronger, getting healthier and loosing fat isn't necessarily something people do at the same time. I don't want to go on an insane crash diet just to loose weight (meaning fat, fibre, glycogen, water and muscles) and feeling awful.
"Maximum health"...:rolleyes:
 
Kozushi said:
A nurse explained to me that eating less while exercising more can be dangerous as it can weaken your immune system.
Click to expand...
I guess eating more and exercising less is the key to a long and healthy life then.

EDIT: If that wasn't ironic, I've read that every kg of fat on your body can release 69kcal of energy a day.
A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. - PubMed - NCBIA

If I use a measuring tape and a bodyfat-index I have currently 48kg of fat on my body at 35% body fat.
48kg x 69kcal/day = 3 312 kcal/day

I could be lost at sea for months and not starve...
 
Last edited:
Dekapon said:
I guess eating more and exercising less is the key to a long and healthy life then.

EDIT: If that wasn't ironic, I've read that every kg of fat on your body can release 69kcal of energy a day.
A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. - PubMed - NCBIA

If I use a measuring tape and a bodyfat-index I have currently 48kg of fat on my body at 35% body fat.
48kg x 69kcal/day = 3 312 kcal/day

I could be lost at sea for months and not starve...
Click to expand...
The double irony is that I think everything you wrote there is correct.

The only problem with living off of fat reserves alone for a month is that we start to lack nutrition and vitamins etc. But the trick is to get some kind of minimal nutrition even if you're depending on your fat reserves and you can live for a long time. I take it that the problem with exercising more and eating less is that people like me who are ignorant cut out important nutritive elements from their diet and end up sick. The last time I tried an "eat less" diet, I caught pneumonia and got very ill.

I'll also add that I suspect the problem with exercising more and eating less is that your body gets sore from the exercise which compromises your immune system.

I don't know though, maybe the nurse was wrong.
 
ali said:
Makes you wonder why it isn't considered more often v surgery and removal of body parts.
Click to expand...

Because it is extremely tough and compliance is almost impossible to achieve. People say they want to lose fat, but not that much. Even if you tell them they will die if they don't stop eating massive amounts of crap, they still do. Most of my family is obese, so I know. At 6 feet tall and 200 pounds, I am by far leaner than most of my cousins, aunts and uncles, and I could lose 15-20 pounds without. I would say that you would have to physically restrain access to food for most people to lose weight by fasting for any period of time.
 
Of course. My wife's friend who was very obese took it upon herself to have surgery to remove 80% of her stomach. Never even attempted to diet, nor exercise and still doesn't. She's a neighbour. I've seen her get in her car to drive to a neighbours house, literally less than 100m. Extreme fasting is extreme and no doubt difficult but it's an option rarely explored by medical intervention. A quick fix is though, perhaps a win-win patient/surgeon decision and profit/loss consideration for public health. Extreme solutions are not necessarily simple ones dealing with the complexity of obesity.

Back to walking, some good positive data on the benefits of walking for the Op to consider further:

The power of a good walk. | Bill Lagakos on Patreon
 
That Snopes article is incredible. I thought that you needed minimal amounts of carbs to produce glucose for the brain, which cannot metabolize ketones, but apparently the glycerol released from fat can be converted to glucose. One for the record books.

Snopes said:
After two or three days of fasting … the majority of your energy comes from breaking down fat. The fat molecules break down into two separate chemicals — glycerol (which can be converted into glucose) and free fatty acids (which can be converted into other chemicals called ketones). Your body, including your brain, can run on this glucose and ketones until you finally run out of fat.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom