Myths and Misconceptions

[Bradaust]

Whilst in the heat of another weight loss argument, i was fronted with the calorie burning theory claiming a trained muscle can perform the exact same action while consuming less calories then an untrained muscle.

This then obviously follows on with a constant change in programing being required in order to continue burning calories and fat loss.

Now logically speaking in the phyisics governed world we live in, i struggled to belive that this was at all possible keeping in mind the energy that must be consumed would be equal to the work created.

I may be wrong tho, so i was hoping someone else may be able to shed some light on the subject.

Any ideas?

(On a side note, with the amount of BS that we are all constantly bombarded with, would there be any weight behind a forum or stickied thread regarding myths and misconceptions?) Just another idea...

[Scrofula]

Whilst in the heat of another weight loss argument, i was fronted with the calorie burning theory claiming a trained muscle can perform the exact same action while consuming less calories then an untrained muscle.
...
Now logically speaking in the phyisics governed world we live in, i struggled to belive that this was at all possible keeping in mind the energy that must be consumed would be equal to the work created.

The above claim is equivalent to saying that muscles become more efficient as they are trained -- in other words, they can perform the same amount of work at lower metabolic cost. I don't know if that's true or not, but there's nothing in the laws of physics prohibiting this. Energy consumed is equal to work done, but muscles are not very efficient. Most of the work done is the conversion of energy in your muscles into heat. If muscles do become more efficient, this would mean that a smaller fraction of the energy is wasted as heat. The mechanical work done on the bar would be the same, but the total work done would be lower.

[nisora33]

This then obviously follows on with a constant change in programing being required in order to continue burning calories and fat loss.

Doesn't matter whether it's true or not, if what you're concerned with is continued burning of calories and fat loss. Because the additional calories burned by increased muscle mass ain't enough to write home about to begin with. Increased calorie expenditure due to increased muscle mass leading to fat burning and increased metabolic rate has been WAAAYYYYY overestimated. I put a post up around here somewhere a while back that showed how many extra calories you burn per pound of extra muscle, or something like that, and it wasn't significant.

-Stacey

[Dastardly]

I think it is true but more to do with motor/Em efficiency.

Someone untrained cannot send efficient precise signals to recruit just the right muscles, in just the right way for the most efficient lift.

There is a chart in PP which shows the change in EMG activity over a 20 rep squat compared to force out put. In the last few reps the force out put goes down but the EMG activity is very high, but importantly very erretic and poorly coordinated.

I think this resembles what happens when an untrained person lifts. It is also the reason for "muscle memory" your brain stores the methods/pathways for efficient motor recruitment. And even if your muscle mass has deterioriated, this ability remains.

[gzt]

Well, yes. The "work" you do in the physics sense in a lift is very very little. Suppose you squat 200kg for a set of 5. It moves about 1m (you're pretty tall). Gravity is about 9.8m/s^2. Round it to 10. You've done 10,000J of work. That's about 2400 calories. Which is about 2.4 kilocalories, or 2.4 calories as you think of them in food. Now suppose your workout is doing 10 sets of those. Your workout consisted of doing 24 food calories of work. Now, only a fool would suggest that you only burned 24 calories during this workout. Your body is very inefficient. And as you adapt, you get more efficient.

[Scrofula]

The mechanical work done would actually be zero, since after each rep the barbell ends up where it started out. You are doing a negative amount of work each time you squat down to the bottom position. The sort of work that burns calories here is the thermodynamic work.

[banthafodder]

This then obviously follows on with a constant change in programing being required in order to continue burning calories and fat loss.

I think this is the most dangerous mythical piece to the whole discussion. So many people think that "confusing your muscles" and "hitting them from all angles" is useful, without realizing that simply lifting heavier is a change to which your body must adapt. For some reason, people tend to overlook that it's possible to actually program this intentionally--and that doing 8 sets of 10 20-lbs dumbbell curls 3 days per week isn't actually a program.

You don't need a constant change in programming, but a constant change in stress.

I know, preaching to the choir, etc...

[gzt]

Yes, constant change in stress. But part of the thing is that, if you're lifting 315, sure, you'll get more efficient at it, but no matter what, you're going to be expending more calories than when you were lifting 135. When you get stronger or more advanced in anything, you develop your capacity to do work and expend energy. Yes, if you run 4 miles at an 8:00 pace, as you get more experienced, you will eventually do it more efficiently and expend less energy. That's why you progress, do it at a 7:50 or 7:30 etc pace, which will probably burn more energy than you were capable of burning before. Or not. It's a purely empirical question with a lot of variables. But the point is that you become more efficient, but you also develop the ability to work harder for longer, so it's usually a net win. You don't have to continually jump between things to confuse yourself, you just have to have intelligent programming.

But, yeah, the context of this is fat loss and stuff, so the whole thing is likely being taken from nonsensical starting grounds with tons of assumptions that sound silly when actually discussed. Whatevs. You could jokingly refer to "broad time and modal domains", but I suppose the place that comes from would support a theory of "muscle confusion".