# Training & Nutrition - Can I possibly be shredding this many calories?

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.

Pages : [1] 2

jasandalb
01-14-09, 09:35 AM
Okay...so I have a heart monitor and have been training for a week with it.
One thing it measures during my workouts is Kcal's burned (kilocalories)
The KCal to Cal ratio is 1:1000

So....my monday night run... 5k
Time = 23:11
Max HR = 183
Avg HR = 171
KCal Burned = 817
Converted and that's 8170 calories burned

Then...did a recovery run last night and worked the weights...
Last nights stats:
Time = 48:36
Max HR = 185
Avg HR = 143
KCal burned = 693
Convert that and last night's workout I burned 6930 calories....

Surely my math is NOT right....can I really burn that? I'm 31, current weight is 202lbs.

Turt99
01-14-09, 10:13 AM
First if Kcal and cal was 1:1000 then your conversion is wrong, it would be 817 Kcal = 81,700 cals

But really the number you want is the Kcal value, there is no conversion. But not only that it is widely excepted that most HRMs will give you a calories burned value higher then it really should be in most cases.

StanSeven
01-14-09, 10:24 AM
First HRM monitors usually provide a highly inflated calorie burned value. My Garmin showed 4,000 calories on a long ride once. I then used some calculations that showed less than half is the actual.

Second, with your weight and that pace, you likely burn 150 calories per mile. That's a little over 450 for 5K.

KyleOndy
01-14-09, 10:30 AM
It does not seem right to burn >800 calories in a 5k run.

caelric
01-14-09, 10:32 AM
Heh. When you talk about calories in food, and calories burnt via exercising, you are allready talking in kilo calories (kcal's) Read the wikipedia article on calories, kilocaroies, and Calories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie) for a decent explanation.

Short version is that you burnt 817 Calories on your first run, and 693 Calories on your second run. A bacon cheeseburger has about 500 Calories. The Calories burnt do seem a little high; the average amount of Calories burnt during exercise is anywhere from 1000-1500 per hour. At 817 Calores in 23:11 minutes, you were burning over 2000 Calories per hour, which is rather high, even for your size. For refence, I'm 215 lbs and burn about 1000 Calories in a hour of cycling, about 15000 per hour running.

01-14-09, 10:37 AM
According to your heart monitor you're burning 35 calories per minute. That is a bit high.

aham23
01-14-09, 10:38 AM
a very basic guideline for moderate efforts is 40 cals per biking mile and 100 cals per running mile. most HR units give off high numbers. i guess they want you to feel good about working out and buy more of their stuff. later.

jasandalb
01-14-09, 10:44 AM
so...why in the heck do they put Kcal's on there?

I even cross checked my stuff at the gym... got on the treadmill and ran and it followed the same flow as my HR monitor, same increase in KCal burned....

Oh well... I kind of figured it was way off. But it would be nice to know what I am truly burning.
Anyone have any way of doing that???

StanSeven
01-14-09, 10:49 AM
Oh well... I kind of figured it was way off. But it would be nice to know what I am truly burning.
Anyone have any way of doing that???

Do a Google search. There are lots of charts that show calories burned per each type of exercising, speed, your weight, etc. It all varies. For example, someone mentioned running is 100 calories per mile. That's true for someone weighing 150 lbs. Since you weigh 202, your rate is closer to 150 calories. Your pace has an impact, but much smaller. The difference between 7:00/mile and 9:00/mile varies by 20%.

jasandalb
01-14-09, 10:53 AM
Okay..... think I might have figured this out....

1Kcal = 4184 Joules.
1 Joule = .000239 calories (nutritional)

SO......in my monday run:

817Kcal = 3,418,328 Joules
3,418,328 Joules x .000239 = calories burned

Calories burned = 816.9

That sounds a little more like it.....

Roody
01-14-09, 11:03 AM
so...why in the heck do they put Kcal's on there?

I even cross checked my stuff at the gym... got on the treadmill and ran and it followed the same flow as my HR monitor, same increase in KCal burned....

Oh well... I kind of figured it was way off. But it would be nice to know what I am truly burning.
Anyone have any way of doing that???

They put Kcals because that's what everybody uses--it's just that what we lay people (and the nutrition labels) commonly call "calories" are really "Calories", which are the same as what scientists call "kilocalories". Confusing, isn't it?

Your HRM probably gives the most accurate estimate of the calories you burn, as long as it's set up properly. For greater accuracy, you would probably have to go into a laboratory setting.

Why do you feel it's important to get any estimate of calories burned? If you're trying to lose weight, the scale is the best measuring instrument. Weigh yourself every week. If you weigh more this week, eat a little less next week. Repeat on a weekly basis for the rest of your life. Very simple, very effective, and very cheap.

Ride your bike for fun and fitness--not for weight loss. Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.

bcbcbc
01-14-09, 11:07 AM
wiki:

The unit calorie has historically been used in two major alternate definitions that differ by a factor of 1,000

The small calorie, gram calorie, or calorie (symbol: cal) is the amount of heat (energy) required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 °C.

The large calorie, kilogram calorie, kilocalorie (symbol: kcal), or Calorie (capital C) is the amount of heat (energy) needed to increase the temperature of one kg of water by 1 °C, exactly 1000 small calories, or about 4.184 kJ.

The second definition is the one commonly used to express food energy

bcbcbc
01-14-09, 11:10 AM
First if Kcal and cal was 1:1000 then your conversion is wrong, it would be 817 Kcal = 81,700 cals

.

er... 817,000 ???

jasandalb
01-14-09, 11:13 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I am trying to make sure that what I burn I am able to replace.
Its about staying fit and lean.

Its not as simple as stepping on the scale each week....if it was then there wouldn't be as big a weight problem as there is. What about when you keep exercising, sticking to the EXACT routine you've done... then 3 wks in a row you weigh the same? Would you not want to dig deeper to find out what's going on??

I bike and run because I enjoy it....but there is also a purpose to it. I am training for my first TRI and this is the best way....for me....to keep track of my goals.

gregf83
01-14-09, 11:19 AM
Ride your bike for fun and fitness--not for weight loss. Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.I think you've got that backwards. For me it is much easier to lose weight by exercising than by cutting out food. It's not too hard to burn an extra 3500 calories a week by riding a bike. On top of that you get the ancilliary benefits of being fit.

jasandalb
01-14-09, 11:28 AM
Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.

you are not serious are you:twitchy:

kylejack
01-14-09, 11:39 AM
Ride your bike for fun and fitness--not for weight loss. Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less.
Weight loss is about creating a calorie deficit. This is done by eating fewer calories, increasing physical activity, or both. Its not "mostly" about one or the other.

Roody
01-14-09, 01:11 PM
To lose one pound of fat, you have to ride roughly 87 miles. And you have to do that without eating even one additional bite of food. How many people can do this every week, or how many actually will do it?

127.0.0.1
01-14-09, 01:20 PM
OP

you original number are way off

expect to burn 1000-1200 calories per hour running at a good clip
your revised number in the 800's is probably quite correct

bcbcbc
01-14-09, 01:21 PM
I think you've got that backwards. For me it is much easier to lose weight by exercising than by cutting out food. It's not too hard to burn an extra 3500 calories a week by riding a bike. On top of that you get the ancilliary benefits of being fit.

I'm surprised at the negative reactions to this quote. It's becoming more and more accepted in the weight loss community that you cut calories taken in to lose weight. You exercise, preferably resistance exercise, to minimize the percentage of weight lost as muscle.

The more you need to lose weight the truer it is. A sedentay 300 pounder probably cant run aerobically. Any run is a gasping sprint. They cant bike or do anything else at running colorie expenditures. Unless they dedicate hours a day to walking at a strolling pace or some walking equivalent exercise they cant burn 3500 calories per week. One pound a week average is the absolute minimum to motivate someone to stay on a weight loss program. Counting on exercise also runs the risk of increasing appetite or just giving an excuse to eat more.

If you do the math then anecdotal stories of exercise based weight loss have to be explained by something beyond straight calorie deficit theory. Like LARGE increases in BMR or decreases in digestive efficiency.

dwilbur3
01-14-09, 02:08 PM
I think it's fair to say that using BOTH calorie restriction and exercise will improve the odds of success of any weight-loss plan.

spunky
01-14-09, 02:16 PM
The reason why it's most effective to exercise in order to achieve and maintain weight loss is because exercise increases the BMR. Just cutting out calories works to a certain extent. But eventually the body senses the caloric decrease and adjusts it's BMR to offset it....hence it lowers your actual caloric expenditure. Exercise combined with a reduction in caloric intake focuses on both sides of the equation.

Roody
01-14-09, 02:18 PM
It's not too hard to burn an extra 3500 calories a week by riding a bike.

I never said it was hard to burn the calories. I said it's hard to lose weight with exercise alone.

To burn the calories, you only have to ride about 12.5 miles a day on every day of the week. But to lose the weight, you must never eat any extra food because you're riding those miles. No Gatorade, no power bar, no banana or fig newton in the jersey pocket. Just remember, if you do eat only one energy bar (240 calories) in the entire week, you have to ride six more miles to burn it off. That's half a day's extra exercise for just energy bar!

Maybe not that easy after all?

StanSeven
01-14-09, 02:21 PM
OP

you original number are way off

expect to burn 1000-1200 calories per hour running at a good clip
your revised number in the 800's is probably quite correct

I don't think you meant that. His revised number didn't changed - just the caluculation worked out.

There's no way someone can burn 817 calories in 23 minutes unless they are 350 lbs and capable of six minute miles.

Roody
01-14-09, 02:30 PM
I think it's fair to say that using BOTH calorie restriction and exercise will improve the odds of success of any weight-loss plan.

I agree that exercise might help a bit with weight loss maintenence. But then again, I once gained 10 pounds in a couple months while I was riding 100 miles a week. That's because I wasn't paying attention to my portions and I wasn't paying attention to the scales.

Now I pay attention to both these things. On 10/30/08 I had a bad injury and had to go "cold turkey" from 130 miles/week to zero miles/week. I haven't gained any weight, even with drastically less exercise, because I weigh myself every week and adjust my food intake accordingly. Again, this method of weight control is both easier and more effective than the "calorie equation" that most unsuccessful dieters use: "If you gained weight this week, eat less next week."

dwilbur3
01-14-09, 02:35 PM
It's fair to say that if weight loss was easy we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't deny at all that watching your calorie intake is essential to successful weight loss. I just don't think that many people can do it without exercise too.

kylejack
01-14-09, 02:39 PM
To lose one pound of fat, you have to ride roughly 87 miles. And you have to do that without eating even one additional bite of food. How many people can do this every week, or how many actually will do it?
What the hell math are you using that allows you to oversimplify this much? Calorie burn will vary greatly depending on weight. I weigh 211 pounds, so I can burn 3500 calories in roughly 220 minutes (3 hours 40 minutes) of 14-16 MPH pedaling. You ask who can pedal 87 miles per WEEK? I pedal that far on Saturday alone, and I'm no health nut. I commute 5 miles per way so that's another 50 miles per week. Add in any recreational riding after work and I'm way way over 87 miles per week, and I don't even think I ride that much.

Roody
01-14-09, 02:40 PM
I don't think you meant that. His revised number didn't changed - just the caluculation worked out.

There's no way someone can burn 817 calories in 23 minutes unless they are 350 lbs and capable of six minute miles.

But look at this guy's numbers. An average HR of 171 for 23 minutes. A "recovery run" where he hits a 185 HR and averages 143 for 49 minutes. I don't know much about runners' hearts. Does this seem normal?

So....my monday night run... 5k
Time = 23:11
Max HR = 183
Avg HR = 171
KCal Burned = 817
Converted and that's 8170 calories burned

Then...did a recovery run last night and worked the weights...
Last nights stats:
Time = 48:36
Max HR = 185
Avg HR = 143
KCal burned = 693
Convert that and last night's workout I burned 6930 calories....

Surely my math is NOT right....can I really burn that? I'm 31, current weight is 202lbs.

Roody
01-14-09, 02:50 PM
What the hell math are you using that allows you to oversimplify this much? Calorie burn will vary greatly depending on weight. I weigh 211 pounds, so I can burn 3500 calories in roughly 220 minutes (3 hours 40 minutes) of 14-16 MPH pedaling. You ask who can pedal 87 miles per WEEK? I pedal that far on Saturday alone, and I'm no health nut. I commute 5 miles per way so that's another 50 miles per week. Add in any recreational riding after work and I'm way way over 87 miles per week, and I don't even think I ride that much.

I used the widely accepted figure of 40 calories per mile, and 3500 calories per pound of fat. I congratulate you on your mileage. I average as much as you do, but that really isn't the point. If either one of us is eating more because of the miles we put in, any weight loss is lessened or negated. This is a basic concept in weight loss, and really not controversial at all. Exercise is of little value when it comes to meaningful weight loss.

kylejack
01-14-09, 03:03 PM
I used the widely accepted figure of 40 calories per mile, and 3500 calories per pound of fat. I congratulate you on your mileage. I average as much as you do, but that really isn't the point. If either one of us is eating more because of the miles we put in, any weight loss is lessened or negated. This is a basic concept in weight loss, and really not controversial at all. Exercise is of little value when it comes to meaningful weight loss.
Lessened weight loss is not eliminated weight loss. Riding for 3 hours and 40 minutes does not create a 3500 calorie (!) hunger in me. I'm eating about 1800 calories a day and riding that long is not going to make me want to eat 3 days worth of food (1 regular day of 1800 calories plus 3500 calories more).

gregf83
01-14-09, 03:03 PM
I never said it was hard to burn the calories. I said it's hard to lose weight with exercise alone.

To burn the calories, you only have to ride about 12.5 miles a day on every day of the week. But to lose the weight, you must never eat any extra food because you're riding those miles. No Gatorade, no power bar, no banana or fig newton in the jersey pocket. Just remember, if you do eat only one energy bar (240 calories) in the entire week, you have to ride six more miles to burn it off. That's half a day's extra exercise for just energy bar!

Maybe not that easy after all?
You originally stated that "Exercise is largely ineffective for weight loss, which is mostly about eating less". I disagree and think that exercise is very important and effective in establishing a calorie deficit and that without exercise most people will not have long term success in weight management.

Personally, I lost approx 25lbs last year in 5 months riding between 100-200 miles/week and it was easy because I enjoyed the cycling. Restricting food alone is never fun.

01-14-09, 03:05 PM
I Exercise is of little value when it comes to meaningful weight loss.

This might be true for you, but I doubt it would apply to most people. There are plenty of studies that show those who have lost weight by controlling calories alone through things like meal replacement generally gain back the weight. Those who incorporate exercise are more likely to keep it off.

Roody
01-14-09, 03:33 PM
without exercise most people will not have long term success in weight management.

those who have lost weight by controlling calories alone through things like meal replacement generally gain back the weight. Those who incorporate exercise are more likely to keep it off.

I absolutely agree that exercise can be beneficial in keeping weight off. That's a very different matter than losing the weight in the first place. The simple math and biochemistry make it very difficult to lose weight primarily through exercise.

kylejack
01-14-09, 03:37 PM
I absolutely agree that exercise can be beneficial in keeping weight off. That's a very different matter than losing the weight in the first place. The simple math and biochemistry make it very difficult to lose weight primarily through exercise.
No, the simple math does not. Hunger problems is not simple math.

Roody
01-14-09, 03:37 PM
Lessened weight loss is not eliminated weight loss. Riding for 3 hours and 40 minutes does not create a 3500 calorie (!) hunger in me. I'm eating about 1800 calories a day and riding that long is not going to make me want to eat 3 days worth of food (1 regular day of 1800 calories plus 3500 calories more).

Over time, calories expended tend to match calories consumed. If this were not so, people's weights would fluctuate wildly.

127.0.0.1
01-14-09, 03:45 PM
I don't think you meant that. His revised number didn't changed - just the caluculation worked out.

There's no way someone can burn 817 calories in 23 minutes unless they are 350 lbs and capable of six minute miles.

I meant 800 in an hour. if the time is less than nope...numbers wrong.

FYI I once burned over 10,000 calories in one day. big effort big ride. consumed 7000 cals.

felt really crappy afterward (tired)
and had 1/8th inch salt crust all over my face and neck. worth it though

kylejack
01-14-09, 03:47 PM
Over time, calories expended tend to match calories consumed. If this were not so, people's weights would fluctuate wildly.
"Tend"? That's what diet and exercise is for, to break up the program and make calories consumed lower than calories expended. To lose weight, make calories consumed lower than calories expended any way you can. Some people find diet easiest. Some people find exercise easiest. Some people find a combination of the two easiest. Don't assume that the way that works for you is the best way for everyone, or the way that's successful for most people, especially not without some clinical evidence.

jasandalb
01-14-09, 04:12 PM
I don't think you meant that. His revised number didn't changed - just the caluculation worked out.

There's no way someone can burn 817 calories in 23 minutes unless they are 350 lbs and capable of six minute miles.

Why not? follow my mathematical/and scientifc method...... did it not work out?
and if the calculation worked out.......then it holds true.

kylejack
01-14-09, 04:18 PM
Why not? follow my mathematical/and scientifc method...... did it not work out?
and if the calculation worked out.......then it holds true.
Yeah, but your source data is questionable as we don't know the accuracy of a heart meter. Indeed it seems to be about double what should be expected for running 8 MPH for 23 minutes.

HoustonB
01-14-09, 05:39 PM
Over time, calories expended tend to match calories consumed.

This might be the case for normal people that never eat in fast-food restaurants where loud music is used to make you eat faster, and most items have excessive calories. Or it might be the case for normal people that have never been exposed to nearly 24 hour food advertisements, some of them no doubt subliminal. Or it might be the case for normal people that were taught as children, that you should stop eating when you are full, and not 'empty your plate'.

Alas, those kinds of normal people are pretty rare in the USA and the first world in general.

If this were not so, people's weights would fluctuate wildly.

Exactly and most people in the USA are consuming more calories than they need, resulting in obesity over a protracted period.

Most people that try to lose weight with exercise alone, are not starting from a 'steady state'. If you have been gaining weight for many months and then introduce moderate exercise, then the exercise may halt the increase in weight, but not result in weight loss.

If ones body, is in a steady state to start with then the introduction of exercise without any significant increase in calorific intake, will invariably lead to weight loss.

If one is losing weight already due to insufficient calories and then one starts to exercise, accelerated weight loss ought to be the result, assuming that the diet is balanced and neither the diet nor exercise is so extreme as to result in injury or illness.

There are three critical aspects to weight loss:

Calories consumed.
Exercise.
Metabolism.

It doesn't matter whether you are male or female, low calorie dieting slows your metabolism, making it progressively more difficult to lose weight and keep it off. The failure rate of most diets is astronomical, yet people continue to try one after another, always hoping that each new scheme will provide the solution. If you're a veteran of the diet wars, the one word answer to your dilemma should be muscle. Let's take a look at why diets often fail and how strength training (exercise) can rev up your metabolism.

The effect of exercise on metabolism. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=effect+of+exercise+on+metabolism&aq=0&oq=effect+of+exercise+on+metabolis)
The effect of diet on metabolism. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=effect+of+diet+on+metabolism&aq=0&oq=effect+of+diet+on+meta)

Something as simple as not eating within three hours of sleeping and reducing the room temperature can result in weight loss for some lucky people.

jamorgan3777
01-14-09, 08:34 PM
This is my first post here, but I had to jump in. A lot of the things people are saying here are only partially true.

First off the kcalorie vs Calorie vs calorie thing. I think that was covered correctly. 1kcalorie=1000calories=1Calorie (common notation for a kcal)

Second, formula for weight loss is simple Calories in (A) - Calories out (B) = Weight loss, gain or maintenance (C). Calories in are what you eat. Calories out are what you use. Use more than you eat and you will lose weight...period. If you can find a way to make a body work with less calories than it consumes, patent it quick, you will rule the world. It is in every way shape and form like a car. Say your car gets exactly 20mph and you drive exactly 20 miles per day and put in 1.1 gallons of gas on your way home each night. After a while, your tank is going to spill over when you try to fillup. The exact opposite is also true. put in 0.9 gallons each night and you eventually will run out of gas. Sure you can take all the plastic out of the car, distill it into gasoline and bur that for a while, but eventually you will stop moving.

Hate to break it to you all, but the laws of thermodynamics are just that, laws.

With that out of the way, Hi nice to meet you all. Occasional MTBer here looking to get into road cycling. I dont even have a road bike yet. I am a seasoned veteran of the diet game though (and I happen to have a Ph.D. in biophysical chemisty...but who's counting);)

Roody
01-14-09, 09:32 PM
This might be the case for normal people that never eat in fast-food restaurants where loud music is used to make you eat faster, and most items have excessive calories. Or it might be the case for normal people that have never been exposed to nearly 24 hour food advertisements, some of them no doubt subliminal. Or it might be the case for normal people that were taught as children, that you should stop eating when you are full, and not 'empty your plate'.

Alas, those kinds of normal people are pretty rare in the USA and the first world in general.

no. The weight of most people does not fluctuate. Fat people stay fat and skinny people stay skinny, unless they deliberately do something to change their weight.

StanSeven
01-14-09, 09:39 PM
Why not? follow my mathematical/and scientifc method...... did it not work out?
and if the calculation worked out.......then it holds true.

What scientific method? You have some formula with no basis. Why don't you do some real research instead of playing around with calculations? If you do, you'll find numerous studies showing how many calories runners by differing weights burn at various paces.

StanSeven
01-14-09, 09:43 PM
Why not? follow my mathematical/and scientifc method...... did it not work out?
and if the calculation worked out.......then it holds true.

Oh yeah. You burned 8,000 calories in 23 minutes by your initial calculation :):thumb:

spunky
01-14-09, 10:24 PM
no. The weight of most people does not fluctuate. Fat people stay fat and skinny people stay skinny, unless they deliberately do something to change their weight.

Dude....you are way over simplifying things. "Deliberate" has nothing to do with it. My own weight does fluctuate between seasons based upon training intensity, volume and diet. Go take a few physiology classes and then come back and reevaluate your arguments. However, one can tailor their fitness based upon concious decisions.

Roody
01-14-09, 10:53 PM
Dude....you are way over simplifying things. "Deliberate" has nothing to do with it. My own weight does fluctuate between seasons based upon training intensity, volume and diet. Go take a few physiology classes and then come back and reevaluate your arguments. However, one can tailor their fitness based upon concious decisions.

Dude.....I said weight doesn't usually change unless people do something deliberately to change it. These things that you mention--"training intensity, volume and diet"--are all things that people do to deliberately change their weight. So it seems that "deliberate" does have something to do with it. I guess you were absent from class the day they taught that?

bcbcbc
01-14-09, 11:07 PM
This is my first post here, but I had to jump in. A lot of the things people are saying here are only partially true.

First off the kcalorie vs Calorie vs calorie thing. I think that was covered correctly. 1kcalorie=1000calories=1Calorie (common notation for a kcal)

Second, formula for weight loss is simple Calories in (A) - Calories out (B) = Weight loss, gain or maintenance (C). Calories in are what you eat. Calories out are what you use. Use more than you eat and you will lose weight...period. If you can find a way to make a body work with less calories than it consumes, patent it quick, you will rule the world. It is in every way shape and form like a car. Say your car gets exactly 20mph and you drive exactly 20 miles per day and put in 1.1 gallons of gas on your way home each night. After a while, your tank is going to spill over when you try to fillup. The exact opposite is also true. put in 0.9 gallons each night and you eventually will run out of gas. Sure you can take all the plastic out of the car, distill it into gasoline and bur that for a while, but eventually you will stop moving.

Hate to break it to you all, but the laws of thermodynamics are just that, laws.

With that out of the way, Hi nice to meet you all. Occasional MTBer here looking to get into road cycling. I dont even have a road bike yet. I am a seasoned veteran of the diet game though (and I happen to have a Ph.D. in biophysical chemisty...but who's counting);)

You present the common error perfectly. You create a simple mathematical model of an awesomely complicated biochemical system. Then you forget the extremely complicated system exists and treat the simple model as reality. The model is not the system!

Take an ordinary person who fits the model quite well. Burn out his beta cells so he produces no insulin. He will waste away while eating greater and greater quantities of food. One biochemical change blows the simple thermodynamic model to hell. Yes that's an extreme change but the point is there are factors, actually an immense number of factors(you should know), that prevent an A + B = C model from being anything other than a crude first approximation.

Straight calorie theory says with total confidence: eat 500 less calories per day and you will lose a pound a week. When it doesn't turn out that way fudge factors are dragged in. Supporters say : well bmr changed? How? Why? Do they add factors to the equation? NO. They go straight back to telling the next guy: Eat 500 cal /day less and you WILL lose a pound.

Thermodynamic laws are never violated they just need to be applied in a much more complicated way than a + b = c.

youcoming
01-15-09, 12:48 AM
I'm surprised at the negative reactions to this quote. It's becoming more and more accepted in the weight loss community that you cut calories taken in to lose weight. You exercise, preferably resistance exercise, to minimize the percentage of weight lost as muscle.

The more you need to lose weight the truer it is. A sedentay 300 pounder probably cant run aerobically. Any run is a gasping sprint. They cant bike or do anything else at running colorie expenditures. Unless they dedicate hours a day to walking at a strolling pace or some walking equivalent exercise they cant burn 3500 calories per week. One pound a week average is the absolute minimum to motivate someone to stay on a weight loss program. Counting on exercise also runs the risk of increasing appetite or just giving an excuse to eat more.

If you do the math then anecdotal stories of exercise based weight loss have to be explained by something beyond straight calorie deficit theory. Like LARGE increases in BMR or decreases in digestive efficiency.

The part were you talk about increasing appetite or excuse to eat more rings so true. I was recently at the gym in th epool actually, after doing some laps I got in the whirlpool and overheard a couple who really should have been doing cardio not floating in the pool, telling their kids to hurry up and get out of pool so they could all go for ice cream to reward themselves:wtf:I actually find the more I train the better I eat. I still have 30lbs to drop myself tho so I'm no expert.

spunky
01-15-09, 12:59 AM
Dude.....I said weight doesn't usually change unless people do something deliberately to change it. These things that you mention--"training intensity, volume and diet"--are all things that people do to deliberately change their weight. So it seems that "deliberate" does have something to do with it. I guess you were absent from class the day they taught that?

Not necessarily....one's weight can change whether or not they're conciously/deliberately making a choice to change it or not.

jamorgan3777
01-15-09, 07:58 AM
First off let me say you are right in that it is an overwhelmingly complex system with many many variables. There are always certain circumstances that will, over a short period of time not follow A+B=C, but lest look at your 500 Calorie example.

If you take that person and put them in a lexan cube and only allow 500 Calories per day to enter into that cube, their mass will, without exception, decrease. At the end of the day you cannot get around energy in=energy out in a closed system. All your body does is make heat. If you supply that heat at a rate less than it is being generated, eventually, it will stop.

Now we can argue semantics all day, but for normal, relatively healthy people, if you consume more Calories than you use, you will, over the long haul, gain weight. If you use more calories than you consume, you will over the long haul, lose weight. It really is that simple. I was more arguing with the idea that to lose weight you have to cut intake as opposed to increase exercise.