development of tone and/or definition. I realize they are not synonymous.
I would like to hear opinions and research based fact. >>
*** Muscle definition tends to increase as bodyfat decreases – the less fat
there is over and within the muscle, the more ‘defined’ and obvious the
muscle appears. Muscle ‘tone ‘ (or tension) has to do with the regular
involvement of the muscles in adequately strenuous physical effort. To be
entirely accurate, one would refer to ‘resting tone’ (which has a lot to do
with the connective tissues in the muscle complex) and active tone or tension
that is generated by muscle contraction.
All too often, we have fitness fans wanting to ‘do weights’ to increase
muscle tone but not muscle bulk, but they are completely unaware of what
‘tone’ really is. What they are doing is confusing a toned look with an
increase in muscle tone (tension), so that they probably are more preoccupied
with improving muscle definition than tone. Ideally, an optimal combination
of both would be necessary for improving physical appearance, but not to the
extent that one loses too much essential bodyfat or gains too much muscle
bulk that, paradoxically, may decrease one’s relative strength and become a
type of ‘muscular adiposity’.
There is some research which shows that there seems to be an optimal level of
hypertrophy for any individual in terms of metabolic and mobility efficiency,
so that it may be that the belief that there may be such a thing as excessive
hypertrophy is supported by research (and theory, as can be confirmed by the
application of what is known as ‘dimensional analysis’ in physics). In other
words, one may refer to two types of overmass: excessive bodyfat and
excessive muscle.
Dr Mel C Siff
discovered this distinction of fatty tissue after reading Ann Louise
Gittleman’s book ‘Eat Fat, Lose Weight’ where she says that brown fat,
unlike white fat, has a high level of mitochondria and is supposed to
serve in energy and heat production. She claims that a deficiency of
essential fatty acids in one’s diet can lead to a reduction in this
activity of brown fat so people can have difficulty with their weight
despite other measure at weight control. >>
***Try these websites:
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/misc_topics/brownfat.html
http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/03encyclopedia/02terms/f/fat.html
Brown fat is involved in what is known as non-shivering thermogenesis (heat
production) and it has been noticed in some people that certain anaesthetic
agents (such as halothane) can suppress this process in brown fat. This
means that some patients can display dangerous life-threatening hypothermia
(decrease in body temperature) under anaesthesia. I learned about this
serious problem from my late father, who was a specialist aneasthetist – on
a few occasions during his long career, he had to cope with a few patients
like that.
Brown fat certainly is an interesting substance!
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
mcsiff@aol.com
Halothane selectively inhibits nonshivering thermogenesis. Possible
implications for thermoregulation during anesthesia of infants.
concerning fat loss. Here are a few short extracts from it. Read the entire
article and share any comments that you may have on it.
——————————
< REVEALED: The Great Weight Loss Lie!
The reason that so many people gain and lose so much weight is that they are
victims of The Great Weight Loss Lie: Thin is Happy.
By Dr Matthew Anderson
http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm?article_id=2558
Many weight-loss programs promise something they cannot deliver: You will be
happier — much happier — once you get to what you believe is your ‘ideal’
weight.” This is an exciting proposition… particularly if you hate being
overweight.
Here is the truth. You hate being overweight. It doesn’t matter if you are 10
or 100 pounds overweight — the issue is how you feel about it. If you hate
it, you are going to take the bait: ‘Lose weight and love yourself.’
Who could pass up such a wonderful promise? Exchanging fat for love… it’s the
deal of a lifetime!
So you almost kill yourself to lose that vile poundage. You starve yourself.
You deprive yourself. You torture yourself for a month… six months… a
year… even longer. When you finally reach your goal you are excited, proud,
even thrilled with yourself — for a while. Then something happens. It may be
subtle and slow or it may be explosive. You begin to gain weight all over
again. . . . . >
———————————–
Dr Mel C Siff
logically. What are the possible explanations?
1. The body slows down its metabolism so that it can function quite normally
without drawing on stored fat.
2. The reduction in calorie intake is insufficient to cause loss in excess
bodyfat.
3. The lower calorie intake makes the person feel lethargic, so she
decreases her expenditure of energy (either obviously or very subtly
throughout the day) to match the available fuel. There was a research
article which showed that thinner people tend to fidget and move around a lot
more than fatter people, so possibly the dieter tends to fidget or generally
move less, even while asleep.
4. The person is nibbling outside the diet or not taking account of
incidental snacks between meals that add to the overall calorie intake.
5. The body is creating more energy from nowhere.
Obviously, the last named item contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, so
this leaves the preceding items. In all probability, the answer lies not in
one factor, but in a combination of several.
Some folk even maintain that if they do not eat anything for a few days, they
do not lose adipose tissue. Scientifically, this is impossible – if you
starve the body, it has to draw on some form of stored fuel and this has to
cause a drop in weight. The problem here, as is well known, that dieting
with inactivity causes a pronounced loss of muscle mass – observe anyone who
has spent a prolonged period in a hospital bed.
This means that reduction in calorie intake must be balanced by adequate
physical stress, not just to “burn off” calories, but to ensure that the body
does not lose muscle bulk. Note the paradox created by many experts who
maintain that it is essential for a fatter person to do plenty of cardio
exercise to “burn off” excess fat. Research and experience show that this
sort of regime tends to DECREASE strength and muscle mass, or at best keeps
them constant. And that is not what a dieting fatter person wants!
On the other hand, progressively more demanding resistance training increases
muscle mass and strength, factors which are exactly what the fatter person
needs to handle greater body mass, prevent muscle wastage and to move a
heavier mass around. To me, that is simple logic, so why the great
overemphasis on cardio work?
If I were a fatter person, the last thing I would feel like is raising my
large mass from a chair and try to work up some enthusiasm to move around,
let alone jog for between 30-60 minutes a day, exposing my already wobbly
joints to some serious impact loading. Being very heavy means that it
requires a great deal of effort even to rise from a chair or bed – are the
cardio evangelists unable to empathise with fatter folk? I can certainly
imagine a fatter person doing 5-10 minutes of several sets of brief interval
work (or recreational sport) with adequate rest spread out in modular fashion
throughout the day, but to embark on what is tantamount to a military style
forced march, little else is so uninspiring.
Ah, but there are those who say that it just requires “willpower”. Indeed it
does, but to work up the enthusiasm day after day is far too daunting if one
has to jog a heavier body around on a calorie depleted diet. It is better to
develop the strength in small manageable modules which do not intimidate one
and which let the gain in strength help to make all movement a lot easier.
Motivating oneself under those conditions is much easier, so in this case,
the body may initially lead the mind until later when the mind can lead the
body.
Maybe far too many exercise physiologists tend to be “string-bean” ectomorphs
and cannot even vaguely role-play being an endomorph. Cardio certainly plays a
vital role in general health but nowhere near the extent implied by the “cardio
doctrine” prescription for all health and fitness.
Where did my insights into this problem come from? Nowhere else other than
the time that I spent recovering after quadruple bypass surgery following a
near fatal heart attack. Just as in the case of obesity management, the
cardio experts recommended cardio exercise and I worked on sheer willpower to
do even a little. I was so weak that even standing without feeling dizzy was
a major achievement – just like many obese folk.
To cut a long story short, I devised my own modular approach using small
episodes of quick exercise several times a day and that scheme was much
easier to adhere to, both physically and mentally. Now that I am back to
normal strength again, I use much the same approach (mixed with swimming and
walking on alternate days when I am not using weights), because it works very
well and requires far less mental effort and time to do a workout. If many
fatter people feel as overpowered as I was by the very thought of prolonged
exercise, then I am sure that they, too, would enjoy this interval modular
approach far more.
Mel Siff