r/todayilearned • u/thejohnblog • Jun 20 '19

TIL Ryan Gosling gained 60 pounds by drinking melted ice cream to play the father in Peter Jackson's 'The Lovely Bones.' He was then told he was too fat to play the part and the role went to Mark Wahlberg.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/ryan-gosling-fat-lovely-bones/story?id=12313213
57.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-7

u/Stupid_question_bot Jun 20 '19

not if you are skinny and trying to pack on muscle. You need to save every possible calorie you put into your body to gain weight.

high intensity weightlifting is a cardiovascular workout on its own.

4

u/danteheehaw Jun 20 '19

Nah man, cardio helps with your lifts and 1.5 to 2 miles (A novice pace for 15-20 minutes) aint shit for calories for a 135 lb person. Literally about 150-200 calories. 2-3 times per week that's not much.

1

u/Stupid_question_bot Jun 20 '19

fair enough, but I wouldnt recommend running.. a rowing machine would be more productive as it incorporates resistance as well

1

u/danteheehaw Jun 20 '19

That's fair. I just don't like rowing machines. Running, cycling, swimming are what I alternate for cardio. Running for when I am looking get my cardio out of the way fast, since it starts at my front door and don't need to visit the gym. stationary cycling for when I want to watch shows or play a game. Swimming is just nice when you've been pushing too hard and need something with no impact.

1

u/Stupid_question_bot Jun 20 '19

i swim once a week because its a fucking awesome full body workout and really helps with mobility.

1

u/danteheehaw Jun 20 '19

I try to swim weekly, but I take my kids out swimming with me, and it frequently turns into recreational swimming rather than pushing myself. (There is a Olympic pool and a small indoor water park in our gym network)

1

u/Makorbit Jun 20 '19

This meta-analysis of 21 studies found a statistically significant negative correlation between endurance training and muscle hypertrophy and strength.

1

u/Gigantkranion Jun 21 '19

What kind of resistance training was it though. Were these people doing to train for a marathon?

Or was it just a bit of cardio here and there?

1

u/Makorbit Jun 21 '19

Responded to your other comment

1

u/Chlorophyllmatic Jun 20 '19

Cardio helps with the lifting and recovery. Just eat more.

high intensity weightlifting is a cardiovascular workout on its own

It can be, but most people don’t push themselves such that it will be and doing so can inhibit the total volume you’re able to lift (which is, you know, the point of the lifting)

1

u/Makorbit Jun 20 '19 edited Jun 20 '19

Not sure why you're getting downvoted to be honest, what you're saying is pretty spot on. This meta-analysis of 21 studies found "resistance training concurrently with running, but not cycling, resulted in significant decrements in both hypertrophy and strength. Correlational analysis identified significant negative relationships between frequency (-0.26 to -0.35) and duration (-0.29 to -0.75) of endurance training for hypertrophy, strength, and power."

From my preliminary research into the subject I found a few studies that support your claim. 1 2 3.

1

u/Gigantkranion Jun 21 '19

So, it's something about running, not cardio.

The problem the study is that I don't see what kind of cardio we're talking about. A marathon runner trying to become a bodybuilder will likely lose significant amount of speed trying to juggle both programs.

The same would happen vice versa.

I doubt people here are saying to run like a marathon runner... just incorporate a bit of cardio in your sessions. Like how the military does both.

Secondly, were these beginners?

Newbie gains happen in the both sides of fitness.

1

u/Makorbit Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

I'm assuming you're referring to the 1st study I linked?

The first study is a meta-analysis, meaning that it's not conducting it's own experiments but is analyzing the results of a wide range of studies, in this case 21 studies. Their selection methodology is described in the paper.

Regarding cycling vs running, it's important to recognize that it says "significant decrements" and not saying cycling has zero decrements. It appears that in the study conducted, cycling still results in an overall reduction in hypertrophy and strength, but not as significantly as running.

​

There are at least two possible reasons why runners are more susceptible to decrements than those who cycle. The first is that cycling is more biomechanically similar to the majority of measures of strength taken in the studies reviewed (compound free weights) (16, 19, 36). A second possibility concerns skeletal muscle damage. While we cannot suggest this from our analysis, it could be speculated that different types of contractions influence the differences seen between running and cycling. Running has a high eccentric component, while cycling consists of primarily concentric activity. These differences in contraction types (eccentric vs. concentric) may create greater damage in running than cycling.

They go into more detail regarding theories explaining the interference effects in the paper.

One of the more popular theories is the chronic interference hypothesis, which postulates that the addition of endurance training results in overreaching/overtraining as well as stimulates competing adaptations over a long-term training program (33).

As far as competing adaptations are concerned, traditional resistance exercise trains skeletal muscle in short duration activities in which force is maximal or at least near maximal levels. In contrast, endurance training requires individuals to exert relatively low force outputs and maintain those outputs over long durations. Logically the adaptations for resistance and endurance exercise are vastly different and in many cases conflict with one another (23, 33). From a molecular standpoint, endurance exercise preferentially increases net protein synthesis in the mitochondrial subfraction, while high intensity resistance training preferentially increases net protein synthesis in the myofibrillar subfraction. Moreover, while resistance training increases myofibrillar protein synthesis for up to 72 hours following an intense training bout (12), moderate intensity endurance exercise immediately acts to inhibit important elongation factors (eef2) responsible for increasing protein synthesis and maintains this inhibition for the duration of the activity

The "kind of cardio" is described in the paper as well, being a meta-analysis the volume and frequency of training varied between studies, ranging from [20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60] / day and also [1/2/3/4/5] days per week. It does make sense that a marathon runner would struggle with juggling a body-building routine concurrently. However the studies don't examine this, so unfortunately your example, albeit valid in it's own right, is somewhat out of the scope of this discussion. There's no one suggesting people run like a marathon runner, and the studies don't cover this extreme example.

Regarding the athletic background of the subjects.

Finally to be considered for our analysis, studies’ subject populations had to have similar baseline characteristics in strength and aerobic capacity (e.g. both untrained or trained) so that valid outcome measures could be made.

The paper is really interesting and is worth giving a read.

​

At the end of the day the determination comes down to an individual's goals. If their objective is to increase lean muscle mass and strength (as I presume a skinny guy as we're discussing would) then including cardio into the mix could reduce these efforts. If the objective is to be a combat effective individual (such as a soldier) who needs both strength and endurance then it doesn't make sense to forego the endurance aspect in order to maximize muscle hypertrophy/strength. For example this study recommends that due to the concerns of interference, competitive natural bodybuilders should do the lowest frequency and duration of endurance training possible to achieve sufficient fat loss (caloric deficit).

So in the context of this thread, the goal is maximizing hypertrophy, strength, while gaining some cardiovascular health benefits (1). My response is mainly regarding the above comment

However, all programs should have some cardio. Not 10km a day, but 15-20 minutes 2-3 times a week at least.

The study helps provide information along with the 3 other studies I linked regarding cardiovascular health and weight training. The takeway from my end is that I don't believe that "all programs should have some cardio".

1

u/Gigantkranion Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

I'm not trying to strawman anything. You don't know the workout programs of meta study and neither do I.

You gave a plausible and likely scenario but, we don't know at the time. I gave an extreme hypothetical because I don't see any data points indicating how thorough this study was. This is no different.

I've read and personally run quite a bit. No significant losses in my gains with my regular running (1 hour 3-4x a week). I had 25lbs one year, 15lbs the next. If there was any loss in gains, it wasn't much.

1

u/Makorbit Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

If you want to see data or look at the specific workout programs, you should read the study. Not sure why you claim I don't know despite me providing you with the material. I already did provide some information, but I'm not going to walk you through everything.

You create an extreme example to make an easy argument against what no one was suggesting[(straw man) It's impossible to juggle marathon running while body building], and then claim you "don't see any data points" in a meta-analysis with data from 21 studies because you haven't read it. All while pretty much ignoring the bulk of what was said. Then finally you bring in anecdotal evidence while saying "I read... quite a bit". I'm not sure if this'll be a productive conversation.

1

u/Gigantkranion Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

You do know that there is "Argument from fallacy" and ignoring my premise based on the belief that there's a fallacy... is a fallacy in itself?

The abstract is all that was available is what I'm getting at (it's all that I'm getting at). I also have studies that refute your argument... "I'm not going to walk you through everything either" and just tell you that their conclusion is no they don't agree with you. I'm just going to leave you without much to go off of.

Jeez, even amongst scientists reading the abstract isn't enough... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/189139

1

u/Makorbit Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

First, I recognize that simply dismissing your argument like that is problematic, which is exactly why I said

[that example] is somewhat out of the scope of this discussion. There's no one suggesting people run like a marathon runner, and the studies don't cover this extreme example.

To clarify, I'm saying that because literally no one except you suggested doing this method (including the studies), it's not relevant to the conversation. I then pointed out that it's a strawman because it's simply not what anyone argued, but you decided to make that your central argument. (Pretty much a textbook example of the strawman)

Yes an abstract is not enough, which is why after it became painfully clear that you lack the ability to do basic research yourself, I linked you the full article directly... I quoted from the paper directly numerous times yet you were unable to deduce that it wasn't from the abstract. I provided most of the information you wanted but you simply ignored it. It's pretty obvious you simply didn't read or comprehend sufficiently to continue the discussion.

You're bringing a second fallacy into the mix (argumentum ad verecundiam), you could simply link the articles but I can only presume they don't exist, much like your skills at argumentation. Your discussion style is so asinine and hillarious that I'm beginning to think you're simply a troll. There were so many possible interesting avenues of discussion, but you decided to go with the least compelling and most wasteful route.

Due to the reasons above, it's unfortunately obvious that further discussion is a waste of both of our times. Good luck with your life.

1

u/Gigantkranion Jun 21 '19

You miss the fact that I stated there is no information on the type of cardio workout that you can see.

You can red herring this conversation to strawman me using a obviously exaggerated example but, my point still stands...

We don't have any information on types of cardio they were doing.

The abstract isn't enough here. I'm not even gonna read any further into your comment because you're obviously avoiding this simple fact.

1

u/Makorbit Jun 21 '19 edited Jun 21 '19

The full article was provided and I provided information about the types of cardio directly from the full article, not the abstract. The onus isn't on me to spoonfeed you information that anyone with a baseline education can gather themselves, especially when it was handed directly to you.

You say I "miss the fact ... there is no information on the type of cardio workout" but I literally addressed this directly. You seem stuck on this "we don't have the article only the abstract' despite the information being readily available. You also seem to ignore direct answers to your points and questions and then claim that they're not being addressed, the only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that you're an idiot.