MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2016/nov/02/why-dont-people-always-lose-weight-when-they-run?CMP=fb_gu ]Just putting this out there....[/url]
“It’s not a clear-cut relationship between calories and weight loss”- Glenn Gaesser, professor of exercise science at Arizona State University
Are you just trouble-causing?!
A bit of an unfortunate quote taken a bit out of context compared to the point being made through the article.
However, until someone finds a way around physics and can create energy from nothing then the relationship is indeed quite simple.
Anyone who think the way the human body works is "simple" must be a bit simple themselves 🙂
There are other factors too but the most measurable is a deficit in energy metabolism.
Well, it seems quite simple to me...
I've exercised, dieted and whatever sort of half-arsed for a while.
Recently i've more than doubled my cycling miles along with the Horizon 5-2 at the same time... in 4 weeks i've dropped 9lb of weight...
Whilst it's not as simple always as 'eat less move more'.... sometimes it is actually exactly that simple.
A bit of an unfortunate quote taken a bit out of context compared to the point being made through the article.
Really? How so?
However, until someone finds a way around physics and can create energy from nothing then the relationship is indeed quite simple.
Only if you assume everything going into your mouth is converted perfectly into a single form of energy, and the unused part of that energy is perfectly stored as fat. Except that's not the case.
Are you going to disagree with the professor?
Are you just trouble-causing?!
Partly, but I got the piss taken endlessly for saying calories in vs calories out wasn't the whole story - and yet here is a professor of exercise science saying the same thing. So come on then, take the piss out of him too. I'm sure he'd love to hear your expertise. Maybe you could write a paper, we'd love to read it.
Far too inflammatory for me, I'm off to TJ's poppy thread 🙂
Are you just trouble-causing?!
Who? [s]M[/s]Trolgrips?? 😆
[quote=molgrips ]
Are you going to disagree with the professor?
well he is a stamp collector...
So, professor whose entire existence is dependent on making these things as complex as possible publishes paper making out that these things are really really complicated.
What a surprise.
Partly, but I got the piss taken endlessly for saying calories in vs calories out wasn't the whole story - and yet here is a professor of exercise science saying the same thing. So come on then, take the piss out of him too. I'm sure he'd love to hear your expertise. Maybe you could write a paper, we'd love to read it.
*Hugs*
Really? How so?
If you read the article, what it is explaining is that performing exercise has various other impacts other than the calories burnt [i]during[/i] the exercise.
As pointed out in the article, you may be less active during the rest of the day after exercise, or you may crave (and consume) more calorie dense food.
So the quote should have been:
[i]It’s not a clear-cut relationship between calories burnt during exercise and weight loss[/i]
A subtle difference yes, but quite a different meaning.
Only if you assume everything going into your mouth is converted perfectly into a single form of energy, and the unused part of that energy is perfectly stored as fat. Except that's not the case.
No, we don't need to make that assumption at all.
We only need to say, if you put less energy in your mouth than you burn in a day, you WILL lose a corresponding amount of mass, be that from water/fat/glycogen/muscle tissue.
It is indeed very simple as there is no-where else for energy to come from, and you can't make energy from nothing.
From that same article:
But overall, science still indicates that if you want to lose weight, running is one of the better option as it uses a lot of big-muscle groups, key for calorie burning.
The details can get quite complex, but at the same time, as Weeksy up there points out, it's mostly pretty straight-forward.
We only need to say, if you put less energy in your mouth than you burn in a day, you WILL lose a corresponding amount of mass
That's not true.
How do you think fat actually gets laid down? It's the cells responing to certain hormones and stimuli in the blood. If those stimuli aren't there then the fat cells won't convert the glycogen into fat and store it.
It is indeed very simple as there is no-where else for energy to come from, and you can't make energy from nothing.
No, but you can eke out the same amount of energy, and you can also shit energy out of your arse or radiate it from your skin. It doesn't have to go into your fat cells.
I did read the article by the way, I also read some ofthe abstracts of the papers linked to in the text.
To me the article says that there are regulatory mechanisms that tend to maintain weight. Like this one:
Changes take place within the body’s tissue that reduce resting metabolic rate, especially during sleep, and as weight decreases, you burn calories less efficiently the next time you exercise. This seems to be particularly the case if a runner cuts their calorific intake at the same time as embarking on a new exercise regime.
Which backs up what I've learned. That *SOMETIMES*, if you eat less and move more, your body compensates through the mechanisms at its disposal and you don't actually lose much if any weight.
I'll re-iterate. It is calories in vs calories out. BUT - calories out is a compound term made up of many many different factors, not just how much work you do when you exercise. And it's affected by the nature and even timing of those calories in. So it's not simple.
as Weeksy up there points out, it's mostly pretty straight-forward.
YES BUT NOT ALWAYS!
Are you just trouble-causing?!
He was just jealous of all the attention TJ was getting on his poopy thread. 😛
That article says, losing weight is hard as you're body resists it (homoeostasis), but one of the [u]best[/u] ways to do it is running.
You can argue over the details, but that's the message.
Needs to clarify his understanding of efficiency, or use of the language. You are technically burning them [i]more[/i] efficiently. You use less to do the same work.you burn calories less efficiently the next time you exercise.
I'm not a professor...however
When I sit on my arse eating pies and cake I get fat.
When I exercise more and eat better food I loose weight.
Who'd of thought it ?!? 😯
That's not true.
It is calories in vs calories out
You just contradicted yourself and claimed you have a magical way to create energy. You should harness it and form an electricity company, you could become a rich man.
How do you think fat actually gets laid down? It's the cells responing to certain hormones and stimuli in the blood. If those stimuli aren't there then the fat cells won't convert the glycogen into fat and store it.
No, but you can eke out the same amount of energy, and you can also shit energy out of your arse or radiate it from your skin. It doesn't have to go into your fat cells.
And whoever said weight loss was only about fat cells?
If you don't think the body (everything it does) is fuelled by turning mass into energy then go ahead and explain where the energy is going to come from to meet the shortfall.
Lets make it very simple - if the body requires Xkcal per day, even after various changes to metabolism to protect itself. If we then feed it X minus 250kcal, then we have a shortfall of 1046700 joules of energy for the day. If it doesn't come from a loss of body mass, where do you propose it comes from?
I'd say running was a terrible way to lose weight, based on the number of posts on here about people taking it up then getting injured!but one of the best ways to do it is running.
Running is good for losing weight.
It's terrible for injuries.
So you can lose a few kilos, then put them all back on when you knacker your ankle.
Running is good for losing weight.
It's terrible for injuries.
No, it is no worse than any other sport. What happens is that people who get in to it tend to push them self harder than they should and then get injured.
So, it's erm. Terrible for injuries then?
If you don't think the body (everything it does) is fuelled by turning mass into energy then go ahead and explain where the energy is going to come from to meet the shortfall.
Your body doesn't turn mass into energy, unless you've some nuclear reaction going on.
If you don't think the body (everything it does) is fuelled by turning mass into energy then go ahead and explain where the energy is going to come from to meet the shortfall.
One mechanism is in the article. Your body could lower it's BMR.
If it doesn't come from a loss of body mass, where do you propose it comes from?
From a lower BMR tomorrow.
Needs to clarify his understanding of efficiency, or use of the language. You are technically burning them more efficiently. You use less to do the same work.
I think he means you burn them less easily. In other words (another mechanism for retaining energy) your body makes less energy available to you. So you fatigue quicker, and you can't burn as much energy. You know how when your laptop battery gets down to 20% and it goes into energy saving mode? Like that.
You don't need to spell out the maths for your simple heat engine model. I have a degree in Physics.
What I'm saying (and so is the prof) is that your simple model is inadequate for the real world.
Your body doesn't turn mass into energy, unless you've some nuclear reaction going on.
i think you'll find it does. or have you also found a way to magically create energy?
From a lower BMR tomorrow.
You can't lower BMR indefinitely, and even if you could, you could still just go out and exercise beyond your intake.
No-one will argue that the body will adapt to try to preserve its weight - it still cant make energy though.
You can't lower BMR indefinitely, and even if you could, you could still just go out and exercise beyond your intake.
It gets harder and harder though, clearly. Otherwise you'd be able to keep exercising and eventually disappear altogether. So there's a point beyond which you won't be able to push yourself.
No-one will argue that the body will adapt to try to preserve its weight - it still cant make energy though
No, but it can preserve what it has, and force you to either eat more or stop working so hard. WHICH IS WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. And what I've been saying for years. You have actually agreed with me by saying the body adapts to preserve its weight. That's been and still is my point.
Well, it doesn't so much force you to eat more or stop, it just tries to steer you in that direction. That's where a bit of willpower is required. Calories in/out still applies, it just becomes progressively more difficult both physically and mentally to keep it in defecit. If the body was capable of breaking that relationship then people wouldn't starve to death.
So overall, fairly complicated underlying biology governed by a very simple rule.
All I know is that if, Monday to Friday, I avoid all cereal-based foods (bread, pasta, rice and, er, cereals), fruit and dairy then I don't feel hungry, I have plenty of energy and as a bonus I lose a bit of weight.
Of course I'm consuming fewer calories but the reason is that I don't get those irresistible urges to to have a kit-kat or a big lunch which seem to be consequences of eating stuff that gives you a blood-sugar hit. It doesn't make me feel like I'm missing stuff, but it's a lot harder than just grabbing a piece of toast or a sandwich.
I just checked on iDave's Facebook but he doesn't seem to have picked up on this research yet. He did mention this though:
"The word 'triathlon' comes from the ancient Greek ???????, meaning 'mid-life crisis'."
Running is good for losing weight.
It's terrible for injuries.
Rubbish! It's great for picking up injuries - I've shagged my knees doing it 😆
Crashing bikes is also pretty decent for it too.
No, but it can preserve what it has, and force you to either [b]*eat more[/b] or [b]**stop working[/b] so hard. WHICH IS WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. And what I've been saying for years. You have actually agreed with me by saying the body adapts to preserve its weight. That's been and still is my point.
*Calories in.
**Calories out.
Shittest.
Troll.
Evar.
One can only assume it's your time of the month [i]and[/i] you were overtaken by a Tory.
Don't let your body adapt.
I'm off for 2 protein shakes.
I also have a gap of 400 kcal yay going to have 2 ice creams.
Dropped 25kg but still have 12kg to go.
Good sleep (leptin??) and keeping busy stops my pangs.
The important point is that calories in/calories out model for humans is entirely correct over a long period of time.
The body compensates by making it harder to lose weight but it cannot compensate against willpower.
If you stopped eating, in time you would die. Why? Because the body can't compensate to that level.
Extrapolate that to cutting your calories to a level less than your body needs to maintain weight and you will lose weight.
It may take time, but it will work.
Anyone who think the way the human body works is "simple" must be a bit simple themselves
+1
Also, anyone who thinks it is an open loop system is also a bit simple....
Two summers ago I was eating nothing for breakfast, meat and veg for lunch and low gi for dinner. On the way to work I rode a brisk 40 mins and on the way back it was 90 mins of smashed singletrack at Swindle, as hard as I could. I remained 91kg, but my legs ached badly and I didn't recover.
Now I do less and eat more, including more junk, I'm 87kg.
That summer I didn't eat enough, so my body didn't rebuild and recover much. It cut back on expenditure, it became too efficient.
Our bodies are complex feedback systems, and different stimuli affect the system and make it do different things. And there are constraints placed upon us by our daily lives and the fact we want to be cyclists.
I think that the more of a shock something is, the further from the norm it is, the less your body can adapt so you lose weight. I've been trying to diet for years and falling off the wagon a lot, and I've been riding my whole adult life. The only time it's worked well is when I've done something very different. But crucially, each time I get back on the wagon it's less and less effective. 17pc body fat by the way before you accuse me of being a lazy porker.
You are deluding yourself
Sorry
You've been dieting Moly? I thought you knew better than that.
There'es only one real diet. The Yo-Yo Diet. Guaranteed to give you an extra 3Kg a year.
Diets make you fat.
17%! Do you actually ride a bike sometimes?! 😛
You are deluding yourself
You've really got no way of knowing that!
MOlgrips - in the scenario you outlined above how much cola / maltodestrin were you taking? In a previous discussion on this you fessed up to around 4000 calories a week in refined sugars?
and yes - it is a simple as calories in v calories out. Various factor effect both sides of this but you cannot destroy or create energy ( unless you have a nuclear reactor in your guts) Basic physics
Two summers ago I was eating nothing for breakfast, meat and veg for lunch and low gi for dinner. On the way to work I rode a brisk 40 mins and on the way back it was 90 mins of smashed singletrack at Swindle, as hard as I could. I remained 91kg, but my legs ached badly and I didn't recover.
I suspect you weren't "smashing" it as hard as you thought or you were eating more than you admit. When I'm training hard for an event I [b]always[/b] lose weight.
MOlgrips - in the scenario you outlined above how much cola / maltodestrin were you taking?
None.
you cannot destroy or create energy
Are you even listening?
If you don't gain weight, it's not being destroyed, it's being shat out.
How else do you explain people who eat loads and never get fat?
Actually, you know what, this is futile. I posted this because it's more evidence that human bodies are complex systems with many systems and effects all operating on different stimuli, and that has different effects on how we ride, how we eat, what happens between the riding.
But you lot simply don't ****ing listen do you? To me or anyone else who agrees with me. So it's futile. What would it take for you to listen? Nobel prize winning scientists? What?
No matter how much evidence and science I post up you just go 'no'.
Nope. You are seeing what you want to see.
If you stopped eating & drank only water while continuing to exercise you would lose weight. I think I can pretty much guarantee it.
It is almost certainly the case that different people will lose or gain weight in a complex way dependent on their metabolism & how they react to certain foods. However. For each individual, that won't vary. You should be able to work out how much food/exercise causes stasis and then decrease one and increase the otther. Bingo! you will lose weight.
Everybody I know who fails to lose weight lies (often to themselves) about how much they eat or how much exercise they take.
and yes - it is a simple as calories in v calories out. Various factor effect both sides of this but you cannot destroy or create energy ( unless you have a nuclear reactor in your guts) Basic physics
Big Bang Theory scripts is not Basic Physics - 2/10 🙂
Humans are not closed systems and have different efficiencies thanks to us all being different.
Take a room of people of the same size and feed them the same food and make them do the same exercise for a week and then tell me the weights at the end of it.
If the weights are all the same then I'll admit you may be right.
I have a doctor friend who tells me The Two Foods You Must Avoid (No 2 Will Amaze You) are lettuce and low calorie drinks.
Because all the chubsters who waddle into her surgery swear that all they eat is salad and all they drink is Diet Coke.
No matter how much evidence and science I post up you just go 'no'.
stop posting article about weight loss then?
For each individual, that won't vary.
Wrong. Training in different ways changes your body's responses. Ask someone who's tried fasted training. Like say, me.
Everybody I know who fails to lose weight lies (often to themselves) about how much they eat or how much exercise they take.
I lose weight. But I put it back on again as circumstances change. I seek to understand the system as best I can so that I can do the right thing more consistently. But the biggest factor is my own state of mind, which varies. But I'm under no illusion as to why it goes back on. That is very clear - too much much junk food.
But what interests me is why if I eat little enough it gets harder to lose weight. I've found this many times. It interests me so I posted the link. But you all know better of course.
I now have a pretty good idea of what works well for me.
Now I do less and eat more, including more junk, I'm 87kg.
I now have a pretty good idea of what works well for me.
Or Not
which is it ? or neither unless you are 7ft tall then 87kg would be ok
Actualy thats abit harsh
If I am right you work behind a desk , away from home doing IT / motorcar stuff.
So not the best environment for menu planning , long duration bike rides and burning calories whilst at work.
The fittest man I know - Bjorn Dunkerbeck, windsurfing champion - is 6'4" and 93Kg.
Point is that eating more junk has resulted in lower weight.
I've lost more weight since June than I have trying the eat even less concept outlined above. This was my original point.
Longer rides of 3 hours to be done fasted
Short rides to be high intensity and drinking carbs from the start.
Carbs taken after riding as per iDave instructions
Protein breakfast of eggs and bacon
Lunch of carbs including brown bread if activity level high
Snack afternoon of bread acceptable only if activity level high
Strict iDave compliant meals in the evening
One long ride per week at least three hours pref more
One or two short intense rides per week
One or two runs - one long and gentle one intervals
KBs on non riding days.
The tactical brown bread makes this easy to follow and importantly feel good on, not starving and knackered.
This works for me, where I am now.
If you are thinking I'm in denial, I'm not. I gain weight when I eat junk food. But that seems to be when I try to eat too little. This always results in me pigging put again. Eating too little has negative effects on me. So I will not try and repeat my dramatic losses of the initial iDave attempt, because I don't think that works the third or fourth time onwards.
Allen - slight crossed purposes. If an individual is gaining weight then they have a calorie surplus, if loosing weight they have a calorie deficit is what I meant - ie talking about individuals. Of course some folk have more efficient metabolisms than others but you cannot gain weight without a calorie excess and you cannot lose it without a calorie deficit.
to suggest as molgrips does that you can change this is bunkum.
Longer rides of 3 hours to be done fasted
Short rides to be high intensity and drinking carbs from the start.
Carbs taken after riding as per iDave instructions
Protein breakfast of eggs and bacon
Lunch of carbs including brown bread if activity level high
Snack afternoon of bread acceptable only if activity level high
Strict iDave compliant meals in the evening
One long ride per week at least three hours pref more
One or two short intense rides per week
One or two runs - one long and gentle one intervals
KBs on non riding days.The tactical brown bread makes this easy to follow and importantly feel good on, not starving and knackered.
So basically you're eating loads and not doing that much exercise?
So basically you're eating loads and not doing that much exercise?
Yes, and losing weight! Amazing isn't it? Not been under 88kg since 2011.
Anyway, thread's not meant to be about me. Just the article talking about some of the effects.
I reiterate that diets make you fat.
You need to find a way of eating that keeps you lean but satisfies you for the rest of your life. And most importantly, suits you.
The iDave/Paleo/Low GI/Low Insulin approach suits me but doesn't fit most peoples'lifestyle.
i think you'll find it does. or have you also found a way to magically create energy?
There have been some very odd things said on both sides of this argument about energy and mass. The human body is a bag of chemical reactions. In chemical (as opposed to nuclear) reactions mass is conserved. If you ingest a kilo of chemicals by eating, drinking and breathing in, and you excrete a kilo of chemicals, by the standard excretion methods and sweating and breathing out, your mass will not change. Your mass will only increase if your body retains some of those chemicals and uses them to build new tissue. What the argument is about is under what circumstances the body will do that, and what kind of tissue it will build.
Exactly my point. Yes it's a chemical reaction, and yes mass is conserved, but to do so we have to expel the waste product causing us to lose mass.
You certainly did a better job of explaining it, but at the end of the day the body sacrifices mass to create energy and there's really no way around that.
No, there isn't.
So either you are eating less now that you did or exercising more. There is no other way that what you observe can be true
Or you're shitting more...
So either you are eating less now that you did or exercising more. There is no other way that what you observe can be true
I could be shitting more energy out. I could be burning more energy whilst not riding. I could be mildly gluten intolerant and my but not absorbing energy properly, due to the extra bread. I could be warmer at night and sticking my leg furher out from under the blanket.
Also - define 'exercising more'. Do you mean longer? Or more intensely? if I ride up a hill at maximal effort, am I using the same amount of actual energy as I was two years ago? Am I exercising at the same percentage of max?
So many variables. So many other ways to affect fat deposition.
No you couldn't be shitting more energy out unless you are seriously ill.
Exercising more - burning more calories thru movement.
I for example have lost 20 kg over 3 years with no change in diet and cycling less. why? 'cos the job I do now is much physically harder
Really Molgrips - you have a serious blind spot on this and you are inventing a whole new biology.
There is a third option of more eaten allowing an even greater quantity and quality of exercise.
If you try to restrict intake too much and cut carbs too far then it hugely compromises both how hard you can exercise and how soon you recover to go again. You in effect cause yourself to be 'bonked' 24/7.
That's what I said earlier fifeandy.
And tj I'm not inventing it, it's in the article I linked to.