The myth about "burning muscle"

Cooking foil sadly is a completely myth, you might manage to lose some water from the area via the sweating but you wouldn't get spot fat removal.

Thermoregulation does actually lead to increased calorie expenditure. So being in a hot environment or in a cold one, would help you burn more calories, that's why people who trek up mountains and across the Arctic circle have to eat like 6000 calories a day and yet still lose vast amounts of weight, when doing the same in a moderate environment might only burn 5000 calories a day. But we are talking extremes here, wearing 3 jumpers everywhere won't do it....

No when I said about thermoregulation I meant where you life and if you spend a lot of time in that temperature. 30-40 minutes of exercise probably would be affected by thermoregulation and you would burn more calories because of it, obviously not 1000kcal more but possibly 100kcal+ but I'm not an expert so I'm only guessing here. Yeah when I said about 3 jumpers I was saying NOT to do it lol, that would be very stupid.

You most definitely would lose muscles from a "crash" diet or through really bad nutrition.

Right crash diet is a diet where basically you starve yourself. If you need 2000kcal a day just for normal bodily functions like breathing and digesting food and what not but your only eating 1000kcal, half that, then that would be considered a crash diet. Crash diets would basically restrict your eating severely and leave you deficient in something, usually fat or carbohydrate neither of which is good for the body. Ideally you should only eat 500kcal less than what you need a day as this will give you enough calroies to give your body everything it needs such as protein, carbs, fat, fibre etc.

If your only eating 1000kcal just from fish then that is bad, really bad, you need carbs and fibre and depending on what fish, fat. It's really bad to eat the same thing each and every day for every meal. No food has everything the body needs which is why we need a big variety to provide with everything.

Also I'll mention it although I don't want to scaremonger before people flame. It is widely conceived (however true it is or isn't is debatable0 that in order to gain muscle you need a calorie excess in your diet i.e. eating more than your body needs to maintain itself. However lots of people would disagree and say that you can gain muscle mass without a calorie excess just slower.

Hi, I'm 16, 154 pounds and 12 percent body fat.. I'm going on a cruise and want a six pack by June 25th and I used Scooby's calculator and found i can achieve this by losing 2lbs a week by eating 2000 calories, compared to the 3000 recommended to maintain my weight.  I was wondering, in relation to the muscle burning myth that was debunked by Goldie, if the same idea (that I won't lose muscle as long as I eat enough protein) would apply to me because im doing a 1/3 calorie deficit.

Awex, I understand how cold environment would lead to burn more calories to maintain your body temperature (by increasing). However, could you explain the biophysics or biochemistry regarding expending more energy in a hot environment. Regulating temperature in a hotter climate means cooling down yourself and this could only mean burning lesser calories/slowing down your metabolism.

I am not sure about this, can you or anyone shed more light on the hot environment needing more calories?

Scooby, you are a smart dude - I'm 58yrs old followed bodybuilding for years - went resently to a P90X coaches meeting the other night with a hollywood actor who wanted me to join - I really do not want to give their name but what a bunch of B.S. - All they talked about was Shakeology - It cost $120 per month - my wife & I spend $240 a month on food bill not to bring it up another 50% percent - you are right on to keep ones workouts simple - Train like a Spartan - Eat like a Spartan - Look Like a Spartan!!!

I'M SO GLAD I READ THIS. I'VE BEEN HOLDING BACK WITH MY MUAY THAI TRAINING FOR WEEKS! So now I could do more than an 2 hours and it doesn't burn muscle. Damn I've been bothered by this a lot, and kept measuring my body parts everytime after training :| oh yeah hello 4 hours traditional muay thai training! :>
P.S. I eat. a lot.. not overweight nor obese though. Damn 10.4% BF )

Personally I don't think there is enough proof one way or another. I have heard of hundreds of people losing weight without losing fat, while also losing strength. There hasn't been enough research to disprove muscle loss from cardio. I posted these links on another thread but they are relevant here-

Here is an interesting article on training for astronauts. While obviously the research is a little different when gravity is missing but the research showed that aerobic exercise did little to maintain muscle or prevent it's loss while in space.
http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/general_info/pumpingiron.html

Here is a good article on why traditional cardio isn't the best choice for fat loss. No research is cited but the article makes perfect sense-
http://www.fitness-nutrition-weightloss.com/is-your-cardio-a-waste-of-time.html

Here is an article that talks about hormone manipulation from aerobics which could obviously lead to muscle loss-
http://imbodybuilding.com/articles/run-away-muscle/

The question that comes to my mind- even if LSD cardio doesn't cause muscle loss why would anyone spend so much time performing traditional cardio workouts when there are obviously better options for burning fat and improving cardio health? The research into interval training has shown that the benefits far outweigh those from LSD cardio, especially per percentage of time. At some point the constant effort takes a person into the point of diminishing returns. We also should consider the SAID principle here. LSD cardio just makes a person better at LSD cardio. Great for those who want or need these adaptations but not necessary for fat loss or improved cardio health.


Steve