ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 3:32 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
I wasn't saying any laws were being broken. Just that these women do a sh*t load of exercise yet don't eat very much and don't get leaner (well, in one case so far, "didn't" get leaner, since she has lost some body fat now).


I find it hard to believe they're under reporting, and find it hard to believe that they would either do so intentionally or were just missing out things by accident. They're shamelessly honest with me. I make a point from day one of stating that I never "lecture" clients, too, and I never do. I have had clients where it's been kind of obvious they're not telling me everything. However, this is something that I'll never really know, and only the client will know for sure.

On the 1000 calorie per day one, she has lost 60lbs on her own, over about 5 years. She's 5 ft, and around 170lbs. However, the last year she hasn't lost anything, not of any significance anyway. Her log was pretty detailed, too, with lots of comments about how she felt, why she ate what she ate, and also filling out things that people tend to miss such as, "where did you get it" and, "where did you eat it".

1000 calories was actually being generous and from the info I have is an overestimation. However, lets just say it's 1500 per day - with 2 hours per day of exercise, I still don't think that makes any sense. With most people, they can get away with almost anything diet wise when they hit the 5 hours of exercise per week mark. Her 12 hours is a mixture of moderate cardio to intense cardio, most classes that involved resistance training use pretty light weights but are intense cardio focused classes (i.e kettlebells). All I've really done is add in some strength training.

She initially went on weight watchers which is pretty much just a case of cutting calories leaving you the option of "where" you get them from, as long as you don't go over your daily limit. They also do it in "points" not true calories so they can encourage and discourage certain foods (i.e. most veggies have zero points). Your daily limit also goes down as your weight goes down. She tried various other approaches when her progress stalled such as the Elimination Diet and actually has everything logged from everything she has tried - which was all on her own. When she ran out of ideas, she started adding more exercise, going to more classes, seen a couple of trainers, until such a point that she was at 12-ish hours per week. She's not stupid, either, and couldn't help but see gym buddies doing a third of the exercise she does, eat worse, and look better.

I'm pretty certain if I was getting that much exercise per week I would be able to eat whatever i wanted and still have abs. I have abs just now, eat far more, don't weight much more (180-ish), yet I do about 4 hours of exercise per week, on average.

I'm pretty sure no sacred laws are being broken and, I know, going to the extreme end of the spectrum, if we forced her to eat nothing then, eventually, she would lose weight and fade away to nothing. However, since the human body is slightly more complex than a heat engine, perhaps there are other things going on which mean that she does eat what she says she eats and does what she says she does, but doesn't lose any weight yet still remains with in the laws of thermodynamics....?

I know enough about nutrition to know that I don't know much about nutrition so, I have no idea what mechanisms come into play here. I just know that if I forget about thermodynamics and look at things from a common sense perspective, things get easier. I have lots of thoughts about this women and even more so about the first, who used to do about 16 hours of exercise per week and pretty much in the same situation. Would be happy, possibly keen for it to be broken into another thread to pick brains on it as it would side track this thread even more...

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:59 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
KPj wrote:
However, since the human body is slightly more complex than a heat engine, perhaps there are other things going on which mean that she does eat what she says she eats and does what she says she does, but doesn't lose any weight yet still remains with in the laws of thermodynamics....?
No way. The human body, like everything else in the known universe, is a heat machine.

Can she be doing what she is doing on 1000 cals a day? I don't think so. While I don't know the minimum theoretical value of energy consumption needed just to sustain life, every BMR/RMR calculator will show you how far away from normal she is on the scale. 1000 cals is more or less the minimum adult human measured BMR, so I think the chances of some error are on par with those of the Higgs particle being found.

Anyway, I guess I've said enough(*) about the matter.
_______
(*) some will say more than enough :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:44 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Do heat engines have Cortisol? Or a million other things that can affect the required input/calories in or the desired output/calories out?

Again, i'm not claiming the calories in vs calories out law is being broken.

This situation isn't even that uncommon, especially with women and especially with woman who have already lost a lot of weight, and even more especially with women who have already lost a lot of weight through lots of exercise and a big caloric deficit.

Maybe, something is going on to mean her energy requirements are abnormally low. And, maybe, after years of doing the same type of exercise, she has adapted in such a way that she doesn't expend as much energy as, say, a newbie to the gym would doing the same activity. Again, maybe calories in vs calories out isn't being breeched.

FWIW, I refer to this as having a "choked" metabolism. It just makes sense in my head. Not only do they not eat much but, most of the time, they don't have the appetite to eat much more even if you really try hard to convince them to.

Personally, if I train hard, within 60 minutes of the session, i'm STARVING. Like, if I don't eat food, I may eat pedestrians. It's that bad. However, this doesn't happen to some people, particularly after years of doing the same thing. This is very simplistic but, this is what led me to thinking people can have a choked metabolism. Normally the-lifting-of-heavy-things helps to trigger some sort of appetite (in other words, forcing your body to start adapt-ING again). So i'm completely equating "appetite" to "metabolism", not a measurement that would hold water in a lab but, I like a simple approach. It makes sense to me that if someone doesn't eat much and is never hungry, and they do a lot of exercise, then something isn't right. Both with what they eat (calories IN), and what they do (calories OUT). I think they need to throw some logs on the fire and get it roaring again.

Check the fat people who run marathons for more info....

There's a decent article here talking about this,
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... -loss.html

There's probably something in having high cortisol levels from a big deficit (stress) and lots of exercise (stress), coupled with high insulin (macros, anyone?). It probably screws things up without breaking the laws of the universe....

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:57 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Something else I think is some how relevant to all of this is "G-Flux".

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-g-flux

Thinking it's relevant is about all i've got... In my mind, someone eating and burning in the region of 3000 calories compared to someone eating and burning in the region of 1000 calories is like comparing a finely tuned sports car to an old beat up, sluggish, rusty car that can only operate in a couple of gears. I reckon there's a drastic difference between the 2 in terms of what goes on under the bonnet. However, i'm sure they still both conform to energy in vs energy out.

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:05 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
that cortisol shout is a good point. Saying it's all thermodynamics completely discounts the role of hormones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:51 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Yeh, I think Cortisol, Stress, Inflammation, and all that entails these things have a lot to answer for.

Again, my knowledge in this is in it's infancy at best just now.

The first girl I mentioned is actually a more extreme example. Great candidate for exercise addiction, history of anorexia, also very obsessed with eating clean foods (she's a dentist - she HATES sugar). The trainers before her were convinced it was a thyroid problem because nothing would work (and, c'mon, she trained 16 hours per week!!). She eventually got them tested and all was good.

Coincidentally i've since came across this
http://chriskresser.com/5-ways-that-str ... d-symptoms

I have another women i've trained for almost 2 years who is another good example of this, and has a history of depression.

Also have a male right now who's a good example, one of those stress bombs with a lean body but large gut.

My sister, who I started a thread about on here, became a great example, too. Her weight loss stalled completely, I sent her to a gym in glasgow, they made her lift "heavier" things and take a few protein shakes a day. No other change. She dropped 8lbs in 4 weeks. I have a handful of example of doing this, actually ran 3 clients together the 4 weeks before xmas with a "less volume, more food" approach, and it worked (the older women I mentioned was one of them - she dropped 7lbs in 4 weeks, I added a mid morning meal, mid afternoon meal, and cut her training volume in half).

It's a specific kind of client, though. Almost always people that have lost a lot of weight already, and kept it off. Also will generally have quite highly stressful lifestyles and/or a history of some "stress" related condition. For people new to weight loss and exercise, asking them to do less and eat more will almost always give them the opposite of what they want lol.

Don't ask me the exact mechanism behind it, because I don't know. I'm trying my best to understand it more. I just know that things get much easier to "trial and error" when you forget about calories in vs calories out. I don't pretend to clients that I know everything, I'm 100% honest with them, especially about nutrition, and assure them that i'll work with them find what works for them. The 2 examples I mentioned up until now approached me because they had ran out of ideas and after seeing other Trainers. I was the only one who asked them to do less and eat more. It's worth mentioning i've only had results with one of them so far, but the other has only just started, really.

How can you ask someone who eats so little to eat even less? Or ask someone who does so much to do even more? If you forget calories in vs out, then this is common sense. How can you ask someone who eats so little and does so much, to eat even less and do even more? All I did was ignore calorie calculators on websites and followed my gut, excuse the pun.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Lapland, Finland
I think it's way too oversimplified to say the body's functions and development revolves around heat. It has a cernel of truth, but we are forgetting almost everything that's important in nutrition and exercise. If all we would do is eat to burn, everything would be easy.

I still believe Kpj. The human body is amazing, and can survive very well with some pretty poor conditions. You can go days without eating, and if we overlook the minor muscle destruction somewhere along the hours 12-72 (arguable, but muscle will be destruct after a two-three day fast.), after that, the ketones start to overcome the protein as fuel. Even vitamins and minerals have defiencies after several days, some last for weeks.

The human body can adapt and adjust to almost any calories. BUT, I would still bet that Kpj:s client has some defiencies in important minerals and vitamins. Unless she eats just the right things for the right amounts and NOTHING more. Or take the right supplements. I still think it can hurt her performance, body composition and well-being, especially in the long run.

_________________
Physical Preparedness Coach
Co-Owner of UniFit Oy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:45 pm
Posts: 196
I've read all 4 pages of this thread and trying to make sense of this to myself.
I'm 28 and 5'10. About 6 weeks ago I was 194lb and 16% BF, today 179lb 15%. Clearly a lot of work left to be done in terms of leanness. It's very hard to count calories, simply no time for it. Instead, I just try to eat small portions and clean food (low GI carbs, lean protein, healthy fats). Alternating lifting and cardio every other day probably inhibited weight loss, but I hope it accelerates body comp transformation.

Dub mentioned that carbs are only necessary pre and post workout. I've read that they should be a part of every meal (while fat, for example, is required only a few times during the day)... Also, wouldn't you get hungry faster if you don't eat carbs during your other meals? This plugs into timing as I simply try not to feel hungry and keep the metabolism on a slow burner.


As you see this is more intuition than anything and that's why I'm reading existing threads on this site. Carb cycling seems to mean different things to different people, can anyone link to a good outline?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6416
Location: Halifax, NS
Here's a link for carb cycling. There has been some new material in the last 5 years such as intermittent fasting and carb backloading but the principles haven't changed. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4179

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6416
Location: Halifax, NS
emil3m wrote:
...
Dub mentioned that carbs are only necessary pre and post workout. I've read that they should be a part of every meal (while fat, for example, is required only a few times during the day)... Also, wouldn't you get hungry faster if you don't eat carbs during your other meals? This plugs into timing as I simply try not to feel hungry and keep the metabolism on a slow burner...


You've been lied to up til now. Carbs are optional. Fat are protein are essential. Get Fat and protein every meal. Only eat carbs when you can benefit in the short term. Once you get used to not eating carbs, you break the addiction cycle and you no longer get hungry, except when you really are hungry. You become able to manage you blood sugar peaks and lows and you keep from developing diabetes. That's a pretty good deal.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:45 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:45 pm
Posts: 196
stuward wrote:
Here's a link for carb cycling. There has been some new material in the last 5 years such as intermittent fasting and carb backloading but the principles haven't changed. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4179


reading. thanks!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:45 pm
Posts: 196
stuward wrote:
emil3m wrote:
...
Dub mentioned that carbs are only necessary pre and post workout. I've read that they should be a part of every meal (while fat, for example, is required only a few times during the day)... Also, wouldn't you get hungry faster if you don't eat carbs during your other meals? This plugs into timing as I simply try not to feel hungry and keep the metabolism on a slow burner...


You've been lied to up til now. Carbs are optional. Fat are protein are essential. Get Fat and protein every meal. Only eat carbs when you can benefit in the short term. Once you get used to not eating carbs, you break the addiction cycle and you no longer get hungry, except when you really are hungry. You become able to manage you blood sugar peaks and lows and you keep from developing diabetes. That's a pretty good deal.


hmm.. so avocados, peanut butter, almonds, olives, (olive oil for eggwhite omelet?) are some of the things I eat for fat. Does the fat in salmon and tuna count? any other ideas for good fats every meal?

what is your take on carbs in the morning? you mentioned controlling insulin and this is one of the primary reasons people give for low GI carbs as part of every meal.. As a note, even though I eat carbs every meal, it's a very small amount (20-30 grams) unless it is pre or post workout. Even that is not necessary? Due to diabetes in family history I keep a close eye on GI. even post workout I stay away from the 90s and stay within the banana range for shakes.

btw, we are talking small meals every 3-4 hours tops, right?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6416
Location: Halifax, NS
I usually only eat 2-3 times a day. Usually not until lunch, then supper and a snack before bed. I usually don't get hungry between meals, then I eat huge portions. That's just me. As other here say, your mileage may vary.

The fat in fish certainly counts, it's what you're looking for. Prioritize any animal fat from wild or natural sources. The fat you mention is all OK but some people are concerned about peanuts. I'm undecided on peanut butter but I prefer to err on the side of caution so I don't eat it.

I never eat egg whites without the yolks. That's just wrong, since all the nutrients are in the yolk. That goes back to the "being lied to" thing.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:14 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:45 pm
Posts: 196
stuward wrote:
Prioritize any animal fat from wild or natural sources.

What else other than fish? Surely not fatty red meat.. Unless I've been lied to again :)

I'll read up about peanut butter--thanks!

stuward wrote:
I never eat egg whites without the yolks. That's just wrong, since all the nutrients are in the yolk. That goes back to the "being lied to" thing.

Hmm.. You're not concerned about cholesterol? pretty high numbers in one jumbo egg.. Cholesterol is unavoidable if one wants high protein intake. Just when it comes to eggs all the protein is in the white and all the cholesterol and saturated fat is in the yolk.
Not arguing here, just reading the label from nutritiondata.com

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6416
Location: Halifax, NS
There goes that lying again.

This article explains why you`ve been lied to: http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpr ... -it-works/

The saturated fat and cholesterol are what you want from the eggs. That`s why nature put it there.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group