high intensity exercise mixed with recovery is the established view

That isn’t true with regard to your statement about “burn more fat”.   HIT is a quicker way to weight loss because is consume the 500g of Glycogen we carry around very quickly, but can also metabolise muscle at the same time as it consumes fat for recovery.   Its also a poor method for recovery if you don’t replace carbs for recovery as because of that muscle metabolism.    Burning more fat efficiency is the endurance zone/high volume method, but people defer to HIT for a quick fix because they are time poor.   HIT can literally be hit & miss – excuse the pun – because you need to maximise your effort AND you carb ingestion to support the effort and the recovery.

No doubt you’ll want to argue with me but just look at the training profile of any T Rex armed Pro cyclist which will tell you they eat more, yet perform less HIT even than your average STW average bike racer yet “light bulb moment” have a very low fat %.

This is a very good article on calories and thermodynamics by professor Richard Feinman
A calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics

Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true “miraculous metabolic effect” – but it is subject to many exceptions.The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law.

T

he second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

Of course they are

How can they be? There are multiple ways to create ATP to make your muscles move, and they start with different things. And they have very different effects on your body and your brain.

I can easily eat a packet of chocolate biscuits, but I cannot eat a pack of butter. Why? Because they are different kinds of calories! You really are flying in the face of modern science here, I have no idea why you persist. We’ve already said that moderate calorie restriction is one way to lose weight, but there are many ways to get your body to reduce fat stores and that does not necessarily work for everyone in all circumstances.

What’s more interesting is why you insist that the first thing you learned on the subject is the absolute truth and you will never accept any more information on the topic. Scientists shouldn’t do this. There will always be more science.

Of course they are, that like asking if all m are equal.

Well that just shows your incorrect assumptions on how the human metabolism and thermodynamics actually works.

The metabolic pathways in the body are different for different types of calories.

Net result is the same number of ATP’s

As said up there. If gluconeogenesis is involved then this process is very costly (around 6 ATP) to turn a molecule of protein molecule a molecule of carbhydrate.

Lip bitten.

Looks reasonable but is just nonsense

Indeed. If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!

I thought that the second law of thermodynamics was best summarized as ‘things **** up’ – and that applies universally.

Indeed. If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!

Because you’re choosing to ignore one of the body’s energy outputs?

Your energy input is what you eat and drink. Your output energy is what you burn (CO2 in your breath and heat) PLUS what you excrete. if your total output is greater than your input you lose weight otherwise you gain weight and the laws of thermodynamics are preserved either way.

I thought the second law of thermodynamics was ‘things **** up’ – and it has universal application.

I love a good calories/metabolism/weight loss/exercise intensity thread. Just disappointed nobody’s tried the “drink green tea to speed up your metabolism” one yet.

I love a good calories/metabolism/weight loss/exercise intensity thread.

Me too! <pulls up chair and opens a pack of biscuits />

Your energy input is what you eat and drink. Your output energy is what you burn (CO2 in your breath and heat) PLUS what you excrete. if your total output is greater than your input you lose weight otherwise you gain weight and the laws of thermodynamics are preserved either way.

Quite. Your energy output is not just your exercise output. In the case of grass, it’ll come out of your mouth as you puke it back up. So yes, you have highlighted my point that the TOTAL energy output in all forms follows the first law, but this is not in any way practical information in the case of exercise for weight loss.

Well at least I’ve learned I can’t eat grass to support my intervals, everyday a school day…

Last time I wnet keto I ate in excess of 2400 calories most days. Lots of cheese, cream and fatty meat, I lost a stone a month for 4 months.
Then beer and chips came back into my life..

Hmm yes.. when I was doing the low carb thing well (first time around) I hit a plateau, then I started eating more Twixes and I lost more weight. Clearly that enabled me to burn more calories, but it enabled me to burn MORE than the extra consumed. But I was already eating an absolute ton of low GI food.

And when I tried to get back onto the same diet, it was far harder and less effective on subsequent times. It’s almost as if there are a lot of complex mechanisms and adaptations going on…

I think you’re missing the point AA, eliminating carbs in the keto diet stabilises your blood sugar/insulin levels so when you restrict calories you don’t get the severe hunger pangs so it is a lot easier to maintain reduced calories and therefore lose weight.

fat is digested slower thus keeping your stomach “full” for longer. Sugar speeds up digestion making your feel hungry in a quicker time.

fill up on sweets and sugary drinks you’ll feel hungry again a lot quicker than if you have a fry up. A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.

I can easily eat a packet of chocolate biscuits, but I cannot eat a pack of butter. Why?

because you’d be sick from eating all that butter.

fat is digested slower thus keeping your stomach “full” for longer. Sugar speeds up digestion making your feel hungry in a quicker time.

fill up on sweets and sugary drinks you’ll feel hungry again a lot quicker than if you have a fry up. A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.

Not true. Fat and protein ingestion release more of the hormones PYY and grehlin which make you feel full.

I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day. Whats your diet – pure lard?

If you burn grass you get quite a bit of heat, if a cow eats it it gets a fair bit of that energy; if a rabbit eats it it gets less, and if we eat it we get nothing at all. How is this possible if a calorie is just a calorie and first law of thermodynamics?!

Its only possible if you dont understand the concept.

A good fry up will keep you going till dinner time.

Is that southern poncy dinner or proper midlands dinner?

I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day. Whats your diet – pure lard?

I dont think many people understand that veg other than potato has carbs in.

And I don’t think that some people understand that’s possible to eat very low carb.

so did you eat pure lard or only lean meats or did you have some veg to make the diet slightly healthier? a pure meat diet is very unhealthy

Edit – i’d be fascinated to know what you ate in a day to only have 16g of carbs and how unhealthy that diet would be

And I don’t think that some people understand that’s possible to eat very low carb.

I’m sure it is possible, I just dont want to do it!

Can i ask a slightly simpler but similar question to the OP?

I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour

Which one is better for fat loss???

I just dont want to do it!

Then don’t, but stop attacking people who do.

@tjagain still being a dick so…

you can eff off.

All I know is I’m getting heavier and my fat% according to our scales is on the rise after being unwise to do sweaty exercise while my drained abscess heals from the inside out since last Tuesday. 🙁

Might put some of you off food and reduce Calorie intake! 😆

because you’d be sick from eating all that butter.

Exactly. Why? Is it that your body handles different forms of food differently?

I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour

Which one is better for fat loss???

Depends. If you smash it for an hour you will deplete your glycogen stores and get hungry, and if you deny that urge you may just end up feeling shit and jack it in after a few days.

If you ride slowly for an hour this isn’t ideal (slow rides need to be 2-3hrs or more), but if you do it every day you will find it much easier to restrict your calories, so you might well lose more weight, as long as you don’t just eat to compensate. But not doing this is far easier when you’re not smashing it.

I’m calling bullshit on 16g of carbs in a day?

Eh?  Thats low to the extremes, yesterday I had 304g of carbs with my recent daily averages around 300.   Lowest was last Tuesday – a non workout day, which was 194g carbs.

Then don’t, but stop attacking people who do.

I havent attacked anyone, you seem to be the one getting angry because others have questioned what you wrote

That’s not even low carb, never mind Keto!

Be aware, I stay under 22g of net carbs daily. That doesn’t include fibre or low/zero GI sugar alcohols like Erythritol. I avoid maltitol where possible as it has a GI of 36.
I do a lot of baking and have come up with a recipe for a mean choc chip and pecan cookie that’s under 1g of net carbs per cookie.

I ride my bike hard for an hour or I ride my bike at a lower aerobic pace for an hour

Which one is better for fat loss???

Depends. If you smash it for an hour you will deplete your glycogen stores and get hungry, and if you deny that urge you may just end up feeling shit and jack it in after a few days.

If you ride slowly for an hour this isn’t ideal (slow rides need to be 2-3hrs or more), but if you do it every day you will find it much easier to restrict your calories, so you might well lose more weight, as long as you don’t just eat to compensate. But not doing this is far easier when you’re not smashing it.

Bravo you wrote a lot and failed to answer the question.

The simple answer is, the first one ride hard for a hour. Your proportion of fat burnt might be lower but the total amount will be greater.

I havent attacked anyone, you seem to be the one getting angry because others have questioned what you wrote

More exasperated than angry at your pig headed inability to look at other evidence.

You may not consider what you are doing as an attack, but I’ve been called a liar by @tjagain and then had that quoted by you.

If I post up what I ate yesterday, or any other day, I already know it’ll be attacked because you, and others, are too blinkered to accept that your way isn’t the only way. The pictures speak for themselves; I have lost more weight by following the Keto diet than any other method I’ve tried. Once I reach my target weight I’ll start adjusting my diet to allow me to sustain that weight.
I eat low GI fruit and veg pretty much every day, but I also eat eggs, bacon, cheese, olives, steak, chicken, sausages, pork chops, fish. I don’t eat sweets, cakes, bread, cereal, pasta, potatoes or rice.

I read the first few posts but then tuned out when it got all closed minded.

Some of you might find this interesting.

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/science-of-ultra/id1042673386?l=en&i=1000485802972

Plenty of examples of studies where eating more calories resulted in weight loss so shouting 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t particularly useful when it comes to the complexity of the human body.

All Calories are not equal but even with the depth of study done so far we don’t really understand all the effects. n=1 studies on the most important subject you can think of are more valuable than woo, thank you very much.

So, maybe I’m missing something but what exactly are “net carbs” vs “just carbs”?

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/net-carbs

The term “net carbs” simply refers to carbs that are absorbed by the body. To calculate the net carbs in whole foods, subtract the fiber from the total number of carbs. To calculate the net carbs in processed foods, subtract the fiber and a portion of the sugar alcohols.

EU nutrition panels already show net carbs.

Plenty of examples of studies where eating more calories resulted in weight loss so shouting 1st law of thermodynamics isn’t particularly useful when it comes to the complexity of the human body.

That only looks at half the issue.

All Calories are not equal

What about all cm or all °C

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/science-of-ultra/id1042673386?l=en&i=1000485802972

Will have a listen later, got to walk the dog now!