ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:12 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:16 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Late on this and it's went a different direction, but would just like to state that the "strawman" was arguing you can't break the laws of thermodynamics - something I never claimed.

I'm not saying you can extract 1500 calories from 1000 calories - never did say that, either.

What i'm saying is I believe the food log and there must be more going on - is it not possible that there is an explanation to that other than the client is lying? How do you get "1500 calories"? That's kind of what i'm getting at. Is it not possible that she just isn't burning that much, even with 2 hours of exercise per day?

How many calories does someone burn at typical aerobic class? How is it measured? 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?

What i'm saying is it can still be true without breaking any sacred laws. However, I'm not knowledgeable enough to give you a mechanism for this. I can say i've had cases where i've reduced training and increased food and resulted in weight loss. Again, this doesn't need to mean i'm breaking sacred laws, maybe the reduction in "stress" allows a shift in hormones which somehow allows the metabolism to speed up, and therefore increase "energy out". Of course in these cases you could just say the client originally lied about what they ate, then in getting a solution, didn't take the advice to eat more and just done what was originally proposed, got the results, and lead me to believe that the latest modifications worked...... Trust No One...

We know that in many cases, when you eat more you get more hungry. Is hunger an indication of metabolism and "energy out"? 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".

On the rare occasion I sleep in and miss breakfast, I struggle to eat as many meals the rest of the day. I feel sluggish. If I get up at my usual early time and have a good meal I can eat much more the rest of the day, have a much better appetite. How is this explained? When I eat more I can eat more? What's going on with the metabolism?

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). Going back to this woman, i've seen her do a 60 minute classed based on timed sets and short rest with light weights. If it was me, i'd be lying on the floor afterwards waiting for my heart to re-enter my chest. However, I make her lift heavy things with a long rest and she doesn't get out of breath for most of the session. Then, the last 10 minutes she does "conditioning" - 3 rounds of 12, slams and push press. Should be easy for her but, after the heavy stuff (getting out of her comfort zone), she looks like she's going to pass out half way through the second round.

Honestly, if I started her with this, she would most likely do about 10 rounds and not be too bad. This is hell to some people but it's "cruise control" for her. However, take her out of cruise control and suddenly she looks like someone who doesn't eat much.

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.

I think claiming the food log is full of lies is a cop out, given that we know how complicated things are. Thermodynamics is simple if you have an accurate measurement of what goes in and what goes out, and even more so if we know what should go in. However, we just don't have this.

Also, I would say most, certainly a lot women are verging on eating disorder. Most have quite an unhealthy relationship with food. The first - and more extreme example I gave you was (or, is?) anorexic. She's also a very passionate dentist. Dentists kinda hate sugary things, and are kinda obsessed with teeth and gum health (another case for low carb? Certainly a case for whole foods). 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?

I'm not saying I have all the answers, i'm saying the exact opposite, actually. I just can't settle for, "they are lying to you, or themselves, or both". Not in these cases, anyway. I want to say I have an excellent ability to smell bullsh*t but, the trouble with that is you would expect me to say that in this thread anyway.

It's confusing...

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:27 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:45 pm
Posts: 196
KPj wrote:
We know that in many cases, when you eat more you get more hungry.


Personally, I feel more hungry and can eat more with the 3-meal split. Chewing on something healthy throughout the day makes me eat less and feel a lot lighter on my feet (never bloated). I do not believe in counting calories, but eating often helps me hit my protein goal better.

Isn't it funny how, no matter the wealth of knowledge on this board, so many things come down to "it's personal"? Well, perhaps to those of you who are doing this for a living it is more frustrating than funny.

Do you believe that feeling hungry means that your body enters the so called "starvation mode" and preserves fat as if your life depended on it? Many times I read people talk in very general terms about the historical evolutionary need for this process and how it triggered obesity, because humans (in the first world) began producing food with unimaginable efficiency.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:39 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Lapland, Finland
emil3m wrote:
Do you believe that feeling hungry means that your body enters the so called "starvation mode" and preserves fat as if your life depended on it?

I think that is just silly. On short term, the effects of hunger/lower meal frequency are quite the opposite.

_________________
Physical Preparedness Coach
Co-Owner of UniFit Oy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:45 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Halifax, NS
Kenny, I'm curious about this 1000 calorie women. It is certainly possible that she is ultra-efficient in her exercise. People experince fat loss when they do exercise that they are not efficient at and then stagnate once they become efficient. I can well imagine that doing the same type of exercise for that long would stop producing results. "Cruise control" doesn't burn fat.

How big is this person, and is she losing weight? What's your estimate of her BF%? By gut feel is that her metabolism is reduced and her exercise selection is wrong but I doubt that is the whole answer. If she's quite small and carrying very little muscle, it may be possible.

_________________
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: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Halifax, NS
Dub wrote:
emil3m wrote:
Do you believe that feeling hungry means that your body enters the so called "starvation mode" and preserves fat as if your life depended on it?

I think that is just silly. On short term, the effects of hunger/lower meal frequency are quite the opposite.


It's not silly, it just doesn't work that fast. It takes days of not eating (about 60 hours according to some sources) before your metabolism slows down.

Meal frequency can work in either direction. Some people are more satisfied with frequent small meals, grazing, in other words. Others are more satisfied eating fewer meals, for example, the Warrior Diet. Large numbers of meals a day are commonly recommended both for people wanting to gain weight and those wanting to lose weight.

Edit: There are different levels of "hunger". It may be a result of low blood sugar. This is what most people think of as hunger. Reducing carbs will encourage fat-burning and that type of hunger can completely disappear. Then there is "real hunger" that most in the developed world never expeience. This is the starvation experience. "Normal" hunger is simply needing to eat. Delaying that point is helpful in fat loss and, although it doesn't help if you're trying to gain weight, it's not harmful.

_________________
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


Last edited by stuward on Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:57 pm 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:45 pm
Posts: 196
stuward wrote:
Large numbers of meals a day are commonly recommended both for people wanting to gain weight and those wanting to lose weight.


Interesting. In more practical terms, it helps me with portion control. Also, I find it easier to eat healthy. When I'm hungry, all my ideas for lunch or dinner are more suitable for a cheat day :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Lapland, Finland
stuward wrote:
It's not silly, it just doesn't work that fast. It takes days of not eating (about 60 hours according to some sources) before your metabolism slows down.
Meal frequency can work in either direction. Some people are more satisfied with frequent small meals, grazing, in other words. Others are more satisfied eating fewer meals, for example, the Warrior Diet. Large numbers of meals a day are commonly recommended both for people wanting to gain weight and those wanting to lose weight.

Yup, that's why I specifically said "on short term".It's not like whenever you are hungry your body starves and starts killing muscle and save fat and lower metabolism. That was my main point. Not eating for a short while and on different situations have some nice anabolic effects. However, I'm still on the belief that metabolism can also slow down if you eat too little and exercise too much as well. Not just when fasting.

I'm not a fan of constant eating but I'm not too excited on 24h or more fasts either. I think the perfect match for everyone is found from the middle of those two extremes.

_________________
Physical Preparedness Coach
Co-Owner of UniFit Oy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:44 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
KPj wrote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
How is it measured?
Is this a trick question?VO2 consumption, as determined by CO2 measurements, aka "indirect calorimetry".
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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".
Quote:
Trust No One
Only when their claims are unreasonable. On food issues, suspect everyone.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline
Veteren Member
Veteren Member

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm
Posts: 2406
I like this thread.

now can we lock it, bag it, and tag it?

dead horses are dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
NightFaLL wrote:
Just to clarify, also - I don't think anyone needs to be eating more than 300-400g of carbs a day maximum unless you're a marathon runner.

I'm all for restricting carbs to reduce weight - I just think the idea that carbs are the REASON we get fat is a little off base. The reason we get fat is because we eat too much and move to little, it's not the fault of a single macronutrient.


Just a couple issues with that and the previous post. In the previous post you neglect to mention that carbs are used preferentially. So even if what gets stored came more from fat, it's getting displaced by all the carbs. There is also the shorter time you have to use carbs, which vary greatly depending on what it is. If it's not burned, it will be stored. Now if you're only eating 300g of slower digesting carbs spread out evenly throughout the day, except for when you get some exercise, then it can definitely work, it's just a lot more tricky. Your chicken and broccoli thing is much easier, for example.

Now as far as the reason people are fat....there is no single reason that is the same for everyone. Different people are fat for different reasons. Some people it's carbs, they eat junk food, and are predisposed to having metabolic issues. Some people it may just be that carbs increase their appetites, or a combination of these things. Then there are people who are compulsive eaters, and for them it really is as simple as they just eat way too much. I've known people like that. When they get that issue sorted, they stop eating so much a lose a lot of weight. There are some outliers that may require medical intervention in extreme cases.

Frequently, what I have noticed is that people will have multiple issues to a smaller extent in each instance. So they may need a therapist, as well as a sharp reduction in carbs in order to be able to eat less, and eat more cleanly, as in very little processed food. That's the main thing that is bad about carbs is we have created all this processed crap, whereas preexisting carb sources were not nearly so problematic. People could maybe hamper their weight loss with yams, turnips, fruits, and such, but I have never heard of a single person actually BECOMING fat just eating that.

Plus if you repeat the tag line of people who think macros don't matter, others will automatically attribute those same arguments to you, even though you do not hold those positions.


As for protein, I count that separate from carbs and fat. If you notice, eating too much protein gives you gas and diarrhea. So I would agree that protein fat storage is nearly zero.....the in/out thermodynamics-type balance is satisfied in a different, less pleasant way so to speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:35 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
stuward wrote:
Kenny, I'm curious about this 1000 calorie women. It is certainly possible that she is ultra-efficient in her exercise. People experince fat loss when they do exercise that they are not efficient at and then stagnate once they become efficient. I can well imagine that doing the same type of exercise for that long would stop producing results. "Cruise control" doesn't burn fat.

How big is this person, and is she losing weight? What's your estimate of her BF%? By gut feel is that her metabolism is reduced and her exercise selection is wrong but I doubt that is the whole answer. If she's quite small and carrying very little muscle, it may be possible.


She's 5ft and 165-170 lbs. She's not losing any weight. Body fat, I would estimate around 30%. She has lost a tonne of weight over about 4-5 years but the last year has seen a complete plateau.

Josh, I disagree with the adaptation issue, and don't want to go on anymore about the strawman. As an example on the adaptation issue, if say, we have a 100KG bencher, and a 60KG bencher. Then we ask both to bench 50KG, do you think both will expend the same amount of energy lifting 50KG? For both of those lifters it's probably 2 entirely different types of exercise. That's a max effort for one of them and not even enough to count as a working set for the other. I'm sure their bodys will respond differently to that.

I find it difficult to believe that if Lance Armstrong and I cycled side by side at a pace I found quite tough for the same amount of time, that we would expend the same amount of energy. I'm assuming a pace that would kill me would feel like nothing for Lance...

It was Alwyn Cosgrove I first heard talking about this years ago but, *elevating your metabolism is more about specific muscular demand than it is about the CV system. The example he gave that's always stuck with me is improving how far you can run, then trying to swim further and finding that despite the improvement in running distance, you can't swim any further. If the CV system was the main player, there, then improving "distance" would work across the board regardless of the activity. However, due to the differences in specific muscular demand of different activities, it doesn't carryover and, thus, to improve swimming distance, you need to swim.

I don't have time right now to dig around but I will try later, however there is quite a lot of info out there about adapting and becoming more efficient at specific types of exercise.

*"elevating the metabolism" - recently, as science attempts to find out why certain things work, we know that EPOC has been over estimated and can't account for the results. We do know that training at a higher intensity just works better. It was guessed EPOC was the reason but it seems it's not. Either, something "else" is going on that calories can't explain or, we're not measuring it properly. Either way, I doubt we need to call NASA just yet. At least until we know a little more.

I'm surprised this scenario seems so shocking, to be honest. I reckon I could find examples like this in most commercial gyms.

Also, my girlfriend went to a Ballet School, and lived there, too. You won't believe what these girls eat compared to what they do, training wise, and long before they are classed as having an eating disorder. Low calorie diets are more than common in this setting, despite training everyday. The schedule when she was there was 6 days per week, but most would practice on a Sunday anyway. Granted, you won't find an over weight ballet dancer, but these girls do a serious amount of exercise every week on very little. "Something" must be going on to allow that to happen without them dying - bare in mind a lot of them do become ill, though. Again, i'm not saying that "something" is to defy the laws of the universe. There must be another explanation.

Again you have a case where the same exercise has been repeated for years. My girlfriend will willingly admit she's very unfit. If she goes to a class in the gym she really struggles and when I train her even for 30 mins she's got nothing left by the end of it. Yet she'll go dance for hours, enjoy herself and doesn't feel tired. She doesn't even class it as exercise. I'm sure if I danced for hours, as graceful as I would be, I reckon I wouldn't find it quite as easy.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:52 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
KPj wrote:
She's 5ft and 165-170 lbs. She's not losing any weight.
Her BMR is 1400-1500 cal/day. Oscar asked to lock the thread, so I will say no more. Thanks for your time, I enjoyed the discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:53 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Halifax, NS
josh60 wrote:
KPj wrote:
She's 5ft and 165-170 lbs. She's not losing any weight.
Her BMR is 1400-1500 cal/day. Oscar asked to lock the thread, so I will say no more. Thanks for your time, I enjoyed the discussion.


The BMR calculation is for an average person with average metabolism. We can be fairly certain in this case, she has a damaged metabolism and is doing exercise that she has adapted to and is no longer challenging for her. Granted, most people under report their food consumption, usually by 20-40%. At a height of 5', she's probably not carrying much muscle. There's not enough information here to know if she's lean or fat but that would affect her calorie burn considerably, perhaps by 100-200 calories/day.

Anyway, I think we're all agreed on the basics. There's some fudging the numbers, her metabolism is low and she's not using as much effort as she thinks. She would probably start losing again if she addressed her metabolism issues, started taking accounts of hidden calories in her cappochino or whatever, and tries something new in her workouts.

_________________
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: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:02 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
stuward wrote:
Anyway, I think we're all agreed on the basics. There's some fudging the numbers, her metabolism is low and she's not using as much effort as she thinks. She would probably start losing again if she addressed her metabolism issues, started taking accounts of hidden calories in her cappochino or whatever, and tries something new in her workouts.


I agree. That's what I'm addressing, too. Strength training seems to call her out, I know if I pushed it hard enough she would probably pass out. I actually think she's in a state of chronic fatigue - I suspect this may be terminology for a medical condition but, I don't mean it as that. She just seems like she's in a state of burn-out all the time. Hard to describe, really - it's hard to get some fire from her, if that makes sense, and when you do, for example, via a new deadlift PB, it's short lived. Afterwards, she's spent.

You seem to be able to get away with more CV focused activities when you're in a state of fatigue. Dancers are a great example of this, they can go out and put on a great show for everyone yet, behind the scenes, they've probably semi-starved themselves to make sure they are in the best shape they think they can be in... However, attempt to lift ~90percent of your max on a poor supply of fuel and you'll definitely suffer.

I also noted from food log that any time she eats anything grain based she wrote that she felt "sluggish" and/or "tired" sometimes "bloated".

My plan for her is to eat better, eat more (more of "better"), and to change her exercise approach.

The main issue with these "types" is mindset, which stuck on "more is better" and "less is more". The other girl I mentioned who was more extreme, has cut her exercise from 16 hours per week to 10-12 hours. Not because I told her to (I never did and never have) but because I train her more times per week, had more control and actually purposely burnt her out with heavy weights (there is logic behind this). First phase, she used to do a spin class or similar BEFORE our sessions. A few weeks in and that stopped. Then a few more classes got dropped just because she had lost the notion (she also had other things I gave her to do like movement prep and foam rolling - therapeutic, other than stressful). At the same time, her appetite shot up, and she started eating more - "more" to be defined here as "more quantities of good food". I take a food log to get snapshot of someones life style. Afterwards, I don't count calories.

Again I don't know enough about it to describe exactly "why" that happened. I just go from a common sense perspective, i'm big on lifestyle and especially mindset.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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