Exercise and metabolism

[jkjsooner]

Someone sent me this link today.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dieting-vs-exercise-for-weight-loss/

I want your input on the study. I'll admit bias as I'm a big fan of exercise. Exercise lasts an hour or so. Dieting is a 24 hour a day struggle. (That being said I agree we should all watch our caloric intake and the nutritional value of our food.)

Anyway, this study seems flawed to me. The study asserted that the Hadza tribe were burning the same calories per day as Westerners despite the fact that they were much more active. (Was this really true or was the study only comparing rest metabolic rate?)

In either case, this study seem to me to be a strong endorsement for physical activity despite the assertion otherwise. Members of the Hadza tribe weigh considerable less than the average Westerner. Assuming that both the Westerners and Hadza were in equilibrium (and I think we are all close to equilibrium except during the periods of beginning and ending a diet and exercise routine), the fact that the Hadza were able to burn the same amount of energy at such a lower weight indicates that exercise must have contributed significantly to their metabolic rate.

One thing that confuses me is that the article states that the Hadza were burning the same calories as Westerners. However, based on the "calorie in and calorie out" theory, this would imply one of the following:


The Hadza were not in equilibrium (i.e. gaining or losing weight).
The Hadza were eating as many calories as Westerners otherwise their input would not match output and they would not be in equilibrium.
The article was incorrect and they were merely measuring the rest metabolism.

[jkjsooner]

Long post so maybe it's better to summarize. In the long run the amount of calories you burn is going to equal the amount of calories you consume. If this isn't true you're not in equilibrium and your body will change until this becomes true.

If you want to burn 3000 calories per day you can:


Do nothing. Allow your body to amass fat until you reach a new state of equilibrium where the the extra caloric input now maintains the additional fat.
Exercise to make up the difference.



In either case, you're burning 3000 calories per day. To say one is not advantageous to the other is absurd.

[olevetonahill]

So not talking what I eat
Just sittin on my fat *** doing nothing How Much I burn a day? Well I type on this thing some

[8timechamps]

It seemed like a strange way to conduct a study. To me, it seemed like there were too many variables that went unaccounted. Some of which jk listed in his first post.

From my personal experience, doing one and not the other (only exercise with no limits on caloric intake, or limiting caloric intake with no exercise) doesn't work in the long run. The finding of this study showed that you can lose weight by limiting calories consumed faster than exercising, but it doesn't really account for muscle mass gained, long term rebound weight gain, long term health, etc. Almost seems silly.

The bottom line (and we all know it), the best plan is eating healthy AND exercising. There really isn't a healthy short cut.

[landrun]

I can lose 30 lbs a month without a second of exercise. I've done it more than once! This is fact.

At the same time I've ran a few miles a day and not lost that much weight when I 'eat what I want, when I want.'

The fact is, you can't exercise fat away if you keep eating. Just do the math. It is NOT POSSIBLE. That is why every single exercise gimmick you see on TV is accompanied with a 'diet plan'.

If I remember right, you have to burn 3500 calories to lose a single pound. That is a TON of exercise if you want to lose a pound a day. I'd probably say it is literally impossible for me to burn 3500 calories a day by exercising. But, you can do that easily if you diet right.

On top of that, why would you want to exercise that hard when all you have to do is stop cramming food down your throat?

Any diet works. But the right diet works FAST. A Low calorie / NO carb diet and the weight falls right off!

That's why I laugh at the people on those fat shows working so hard! It is all in vain. I can lose as much as they do just by being disciplined in what I eat.

[jkjsooner]

If I remember right, you have to burn 3500 calories to lose a single pound. That is a TON of exercise if you want to lose a pound a day. I'd probably say it is literally impossible for me to burn 3500 calories a day by exercising. But, you can do that easily if you diet right.

Any diet works. But the right diet works FAST. A Low calorie / NO carb diet and the weight falls right off!

Losing a pound of day is way too fast. It's not healthy, screws up your metabolism, and it's almost impossible to keep the weight off. That's probably why you've lost 30 a month multiple times.

[landrun]

Losing a pound of day is way too fast. It's not healthy, screws up your metabolism, and it's almost impossible to keep the weight off. That's probably why you've lost 30 a month multiple times.

Well, I sorta disagree. It can't be any more unhealthy than being obese.
And the reason I gain my weight back isn't because I lost the weight so fast. It's because I keep shoving cake in my mouth! :highly_amused:

[BajaOklahoma]

One of my sons consumes 3000 calories a day - all healthy food, no alcohol. He uses an app to track his food intake.
He also does one of the P90X workouts before going to work. After work, he goes to the gym, a judo class or team sport. He usually takes one day off a week.

I wish I had his drive.

[oudanny]

One thing they fail to mention is that a 120 pound Hadza walking a mile will burn fewer calories than the average western male walking a mile if they walk at the same rate. But I think the primary conclusion is that weight gain/loss is governed by calories in/out and that isn't a new idea. Beyond that, there are benefits to be gained from exercise beyond weight control.

[yermom]

not to mention the average industrialized sedentary lifestyle vs. the constant movement all day

they also probably are constantly eating to get the caloric intake they have vs. binging a couple times a day and eat lots of whole raw and/or simple foods instead of processed food loaded with additives, hydrogenated oils and HFCS

[Boomer.....]

I definitely think that exercise is an important part of losing weight.

[deweydw]

I am 49 yrs old. And I have weighed apx. 168 lbs for at least the last 4-5 yrs. I do P90X 6 days a week. But I haven't been able to nail down a diet plan to shead the fat. I have made gains in muscle definition. But still have pockets of fat that will not go away. My weight has not changed at all over the years. I do eat clean, for the most part. A few years ago I tried 2,400 cal a day intake. And ended up staying in a hospital in Dallas over a weekend. Thinking I was having a heart attack. Turned out to be acid reflux. During this time, my weight changed maybe by +2 lbs.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I just ate 25 packs of 100 calories snacks..Did I lose weight?

[8timechamps]

I am 49 yrs old. And I have weighed apx. 168 lbs for at least the last 4-5 yrs. I do P90X 6 days a week. But I haven't been able to nail down a diet plan to shead the fat. I have made gains in muscle definition. But still have pockets of fat that will not go away. My weight has not changed at all over the years. I do eat clean, for the most part. A few years ago I tried 2,400 cal a day intake. And ended up staying in a hospital in Dallas over a weekend. Thinking I was having a heart attack. Turned out to be acid reflux. During this time, my weight changed maybe by +2 lbs.

When I finally got serious about changing my eating habits, I saw a dietitian. I wasn't obese, but probably 15-20 pounds overweight. The first thing she told me was any diet that drastically limits your caloric intake is bad. Without going into a long diatribe, the bottom line message is that your body needs constant fuel, clean fuel. Limiting your caloric intake (to an unusually low amount) starves your body. Your body reacts by keeping the fat it has stored. It will burn through muscle tissue before it burns the "emergency" fat stored.

She introduced me to a plan that had me eating 6 or 7 times a day. Now I wasn't sitting down to a four course meal every couple of hours, more like a chicken breast and cup of steamed broccoli, then a couple of hours later a protein shake, and so on.

I was amazed at how quick the pounds came off, because I never felt hungry. I've made some changes to my diet in the past few months (I started a thread a few months ago about it), and I am in the best shape of my life. I contribute a lot of that to combining exercise with eating clean.

If you're serious about getting rid of the pockets of fat, I recommend seeing a nutritional specialist or dietitian. Since it sounds like you already have the exercise plan that works best for you, once you learn exactly what your body needs to perform at it's maximum calorie burning efficiency, you'll have the body of a Greek God in no time.

[jkjsooner]

Here's a little way that I look at it. It's a little simplistic because your resting metabolism is not only dependent on your body mass (fat, muscle, bone, etc.) but can also vary due to other factors (starvation mode, etc).

I saw one page that said that a pound of weight burns 17.5 calories per day. So let's say you don't change your caloric intake. If you burn an average of 300 calories per day exercising and even taking the conservative assumption that this does not have a positive impact on your rest metabolism, that means you will reach equilibrium at 17 fewer pounds. It may take a long time to reach this equilibrium but we're talking about a lifestyle change not a quick fix.

If you're losing mostly fat it could be significantly more since it takes fewer calories to maintain a pound of fat. If you happen to swap some fat for muscle you could lose even more as muscle requires more than 17.5 calories per day to maintain (at least so some believe).

Of course we have to consider the increase caloric intake that is common for someone on an exercise routine.


I think where people go wrong is that they see a 30 minute workout (and 300 calories is not an intense 30 minute workout) is only equivalent to one donut but the equivalent of one donut difference per day can be significant. It's not going to get you to your destination as fast a crash diet (say consuming 1000 calories less per day) but the goal is sustainability.

You also have to consider that we do reach a caloric equilibrium. If we consume an additional 300 calories per day we will not gain weight indefinitely. We will put on just enough fat until we reach a state where our body consumes those 300 calories just to maintain that extra weight. The opposite happens when we diet or exercise. Anyone who has had calculus knows that this can be modeled by a pretty simple differential equation.


At least this is how I look at it. It's only a simplistic model of a very complex system but I think it is appropriate at least for demonstration purposes.

[deweydw]

I recommend seeing a nutritional specialist or dietitian.

Here lately I have been seriously thinking about this. P90X does come with a diet guide. But my simple mind had difficulty understanding. When I did follow the guide. That's when I had the acid reflux. I was eating way too much. However, I do eat 5 times a day. I would say my calorie intake is some where around 1,500. I need to check that again. My work outs were in the evening after work. But I have switched to first thing in the morning. (Get up at 4:30 a.m.) I will have to check out your thread. :smile:

[yermom]

Here's a little way that I look at it. It's a little simplistic because your resting metabolism is not only dependent on your body mass (fat, muscle, bone, etc.) but can also vary due to other factors (starvation mode, etc).

I saw one page that said that a pound of weight burns 17.5 calories per day. So let's say you don't change your caloric intake. If you burn an average of 300 calories per day exercising and even taking the conservative assumption that this does not have a positive impact on your rest metabolism, that means you will reach equilibrium at 17 fewer pounds. It may take a long time to reach this equilibrium but we're talking about a lifestyle change not a quick fix.

If you're losing mostly fat it could be significantly more since it takes fewer calories to maintain a pound of fat. If you happen to swap some fat for muscle you could lose even more as muscle requires more than 17.5 calories per day to maintain (at least so some believe).

Of course we have to consider the increase caloric intake that is common for someone on an exercise routine.


I think where people go wrong is that they see a 30 minute workout (and 300 calories is not an intense 30 minute workout) is only equivalent to one donut but the equivalent of one donut difference per day can be significant. It's not going to get you to your destination as fast a crash diet (say consuming 1000 calories less per day) but the goal is sustainability.

You also have to consider that we do reach a caloric equilibrium. If we consume an additional 300 calories per day we will not gain weight indefinitely. We will put on just enough fat until we reach a state where our body consumes those 300 calories just to maintain that extra weight. The opposite happens when we diet or exercise. Anyone who has had calculus knows that this can be modeled by a pretty simple differential equation.


At least this is how I look at it. It's only a simplistic model of a very complex system but I think it is appropriate at least for demonstration purposes.

and people say that math isn't useful :D

[jkjsooner]

and people say that math isn't useful :D

Not to sound like a nerd but it is useful even if you never again write an equation down on paper. Just being able to spot where negative feedback exists and how this ultimately influences your outcome is a great asset IMO.

It tells you why (or at least one reason why) you lose weight faster at the beginning and slows down as you go along. You can be terrible at calculus but if you can kind of see these relationships in your head then you've taken a lot away from it.


Here's an example I just found.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/1lb-does-not-equal-3500-calories/

This author completely misses the mark. She makes a big deal about the estimate of 3500 calories needed to build a pound of fat. Her quick estimate is 3555 and she goes off stating how a 55 calorie difference per day can make a huge difference.

But the problem is that she is completely wrong and someone with just a little knowledge of mathematics can spot the reasons why:


The 3500 calories per pound is an estimate to create a pound of fat. "Per day" is not even in its units so it makes no sense to discuss this when discussing daily caloric intake. The estimate to maintain a pound of fat (which is "per day") is much less. If you're trying to maintain some weight you are interested in the amount of calories used up to maintain the fat. That is a much much smaller number. The 3500 tells you nothing about how fat or skinny you will end up being. It just tells you how fast you will get there.


She also fails to recognize that there is a negative feedback loop. If by chance you miscalculate and eat 200 extra calories per day, you are not going to gain 20 or so pounds per year every year. You will reach a new point of equilibrium.



I see people make this second mistake all the time. They think if they eat that extra cookie per day they'll continue to gain weight year after year. It's just not true.


Anyway, sorry, I have a little obsessive personality at times. Tomorrow I'll be back thinking about the girl at the gym rather than the equation that represents my weight...