I'm not saying you can extract 1500 calories from 1000 calories - never did say that, either.
You don't say it in so many words, but there is always an "however..." clause that indirectly amounts to just that.
Is it not possible that she just isn't burning that much, even with 2 hours of exercise per day?
I doubt it for the reasons I already gave. I don't have a proof, though, since I wasn't able to find the bare minimum energy requirements of life.
How many calories does someone burn at typical aerobic class?
Depending on her weight and on the "typical" part, I would say no less than 300 cals per hour (the stepper I'm using says "700 cals" after I do my one hour, but I know it's lying through its metal, rusted, teeth), and if she is well trained probably many more
because her "typical" workout will be more vigorous than a newbe's. And don't forget EPOC, although I don't know how to quantify the effect (I found some conflicting sources).
How is it measured?
Is this a trick question?VO2 consumption, as determined by CO2 measurements, aka "indirect calorimetry".
And how many calories does a person who has been doing the same class or type of exercise burn for 4 years vs a newbie?
Probably more than a newbe, as I mentioned earlier, but the effect is probably minor due to the better efficiency of the bodily functions with practice.
I can say i've had cases where i've reduced training and increased food and resulted in weight loss.
As a transient state - sure. As a steady state- possible but less likely. Anyway, there is no argument the body can burn more calories on "idle".
Trust No One
Only when their claims are unreasonable. On food issues, suspect everyone.
Seriously, how do you measure energy out? If it's via a website calculator then i'll call bullsh*t on it and say, "it's more complicated than that".
Well, if you don't trust the calculators because they are available online, I guess you can find some in dead wood books.
What's going on with the metabolism?
I will not comment on the hunger or metabolism issues , as they are beyond my point. I wish someone with more knowledge than I have will jump in.
I don't believe it's unknown that you adapt and become more efficient at an activity if you do it enough (i.e burn less calories as you get better at it).
I think you are wrong if you measure the energy expenditure per unit time of exercise, as previously discussed.
Again, how do you measure or determine "energy out?". How is this effected in long term exercisers i.e. how does it change? Especially with the same activity done over and over again.
Again, the "fitness state" does not enter as a factor in the tables, so I guess (sorry, couldn't find any sources so it's just a guess) it doesn't change much.
I find it extremely difficult to believe she's going away and binging on crap to somehow account for why she wasn't losing fat yet was eating well and doing 16+hours of exercise per week. Also find it hard to believe she would lie after being so open with me. BTW, she has now lost fat and does less exercise (about 3-5 hours less per week) and eats more, but I guess she's just stringing me along?
As a good friend of mine used to say: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (to which I replied:"Elementary, Sherlock. The fine point, however, is to determine what is "impossible" and what is "improbable", don't you think?").
OK, so we have not totally eliminated the possibility that we have a person 5 standard errors (or so. What is her weight?) off the charts, since I admitted several times of not knowing the minimum energy needed to sustain life. So maybe she lives on 400 calories a day plus the 600 of her training (NASA would have loved to learn her secret. Cutting the food weight for the astronauts is a great money saver). Occam razor is still on my side, and if we could bet I would have given you nice odds (1:10 good enough?).