Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 89
  1. #26
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jethro56 View Post
    This morning is the beginning of day three of the new inefficient Jethro. Something is different. I slept better than I have in quite some time. I feel like I've already done my morning workout. This is far from what I expected. I expected to be sore and stiff. I feel energetic. It usually takes me awhile to get going in the morning. I'm ready to go right now.If this is a placebo effect, so be it. I like it. That's all that matters.
    I like the idea of inefficiency. I just changed locations and was on my rear for two days traveling. I am going to make a point of jumping up and down being "inefficient" at putting things away and straightening the condo up for fall. Plus, the busier I am the less I think about eating.

    Quote Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
    No, this isn't right. He has a higher base metabolic rate and is more energetic - possibly expending more energy in his normal activities but not necessarily inefficiently. It does take more calories to maintain the greater bulk, but I think the doctor is wrong if he said it means that large people have a higher metabolic rate.
    The inefficiency he is talking about is where you don't plan ahead to minimize the work you need to do, but instead you just jump up if you need something. Run here, run there. Don't conserve your energy.

  2. #27
    rugged individualist wphamilton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    My Bikes
    Nashbar Road
    Posts
    6,570
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by goldfinch View Post
    The inefficiency he is talking about is where you don't plan ahead to minimize the work you need to do, but instead you just jump up if you need something. Run here, run there. Don't conserve your energy.
    I understand. I just don't think that this difference in style can account for that many calories, and I also disagree with the supporting idea that the metabolic rates are reversed (smaller low, larger high). Although, I wasn't there and the co-worker could be much more peripatetic than I'm imagining.

  3. #28
    Travelling hopefully chasm54's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    7,090
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The idea that people with a tendency to be fat have a lower base metabolic rate than others is probably a myth, yes. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic component to obesity. Here is a report of a study which seems to indicate that the so-called "fat gene" influences your weight not by making you burn fewer calories, but by giving you a greater appetite. So "calories in, calories out" still works, it is just that some are genetically predisposed to put more calories in.

    And if you read further, you'll see that while the genetic component exists, it doesn't account for all that much. Those with the "fat gene" were on average only 3kg heavier than those without. So we're not talking about the difference between 150 and 300 pounds, here...
    There have been many days when I haven't felt like riding, but there has never been a day when I was sorry I rode.

  4. #29
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
    I understand. I just don't think that this difference in style can account for that many calories, and I also disagree with the supporting idea that the metabolic rates are reversed (smaller low, larger high). Although, I wasn't there and the co-worker could be much more peripatetic than I'm imagining.
    The larger person can have a higher basal metabolic rate simply because they have more body to maintain. At 4'11" and 116 pounds I burn a lot less calories than a person who is 5'11" and 200 pounds and who has a similar body fat to muscle ratio. A morbidly obese person who weighs 400 pounds is going to burn more calories than me, even if I exercise all the time. I just don't need as much fuel as they need.

    A muscular person can have a higher basal metabolic rate because muscle burns more fuel than fat.

    Unless you have a disorder your metabolic rate is primarily dependent on your weight, your muscle mass, your physical activity, your age, and the thermic effect of food (proteins take more energy to process than fat).

    You can slow your metabolism down with a starvation diet, because the body is conserving energy. You may feel cold, you may feel that you have little energy so you don't exercise. You are forced to conserve energy. This can lead to a vicious circle because you will lose muscle mass which will lower your metabolic rate even more. So, if you start eating like you did before you can overshoot your initial weight because your metabolic rate has slowed.

    Drugs can effect your metabolism, some antidepressants for example. Diabetes can effect your metabolism. Genetics effect you metabolism. Environment effects your metabolism. Metabolic disorders can effect metabolism, but they aren't common.
    Last edited by goldfinch; 09-29-11 at 12:24 PM.

  5. #30
    rugged individualist wphamilton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    My Bikes
    Nashbar Road
    Posts
    6,570
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    An interesting read showing possibly a counterpoint to the above http://www.ajcn.org/content/82/5/941.full

    Summarizing as best as I can (anyone wanting the whole picture should evaluate it themselves), the greatest cause of variation in basal metabolic rate between individuals is fat free mass, which they said is consistent with previous studies. Fat mass played a much smaller role.

    The apparent implication is that lean mass takes more energy than fat mass. Five times as much. However the researchers also caution that it is a statistical model not a physiological one and there are many possible factors at play.

    The researchers found an enormous variation which is not explained by differences in body composition (lean vs fat), age or sex. It was 26% of the variation. I gather that's a fairly standard result, and although this residual variation isn't explained by current studies (according to the authors) I'd guess this is where the idea of genetic factors come from.

    Like I said, the interested reader should evaluate it himself since I may have mashed the study thoroughly.

  6. #31
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sounds like the skinny guy "naturally" has a higher activity level. IE, he kept climbing up to get different tools, while you tried to think out the most efficient path... I would suspect this is a pattern of behavior for both of you.

    I suspect that his pattern is what gives him a higher metabolism rate. BTW, nothing wrong with your approach, but it is likely why your bodies metabolic rate is lower than his.

  7. #32
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
    An interesting read showing possibly a counterpoint to the above http://www.ajcn.org/content/82/5/941.full

    Summarizing as best as I can (anyone wanting the whole picture should evaluate it themselves), the greatest cause of variation in basal metabolic rate between individuals is fat free mass, which they said is consistent with previous studies. Fat mass played a much smaller role.

    The apparent implication is that lean mass takes more energy than fat mass. Five times as much. However the researchers also caution that it is a statistical model not a physiological one and there are many possible factors at play.

    The researchers found an enormous variation which is not explained by differences in body composition (lean vs fat), age or sex. It was 26% of the variation. I gather that's a fairly standard result, and although this residual variation isn't explained by current studies (according to the authors) I'd guess this is where the idea of genetic factors come from.

    Like I said, the interested reader should evaluate it himself since I may have mashed the study thoroughly.
    Pretty good summary! Though I wouldn't attribute the unexplained variations to genes as it is still unexplained.

  8. #33
    Keepin it Wheel RubeRad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    My Bikes
    Surly CrossCheck, etc
    Posts
    2,593
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    It boils down to (Pardon the pun) the amount of energy to raise a cubic centimeter of water by 1 degree Celsius.
    When I was in undergraduate Physics, my prof told this story that he used this theory to design a diet whereby you drink large quantities of ice-cold water, because all that water gets raised from 0-->37 deg Celsius in your body, which means you've burned calories -- 37 per cc=ml, so drinking a liter of ice-water causes you to burn 37,000 calories. Boom! Weight-loss here I come!

    But the punchline of his story was that he forgot that dietary calories are actually KiloCalories, so 1L of ice water burns only 37 kCal, and you'd have to drink hundreds of liters of ice water to have any significant effect! Oopx!
    Last edited by RubeRad; 09-29-11 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
    When I was in undergraduate Physics, my prof told this story that he used this theory to design a diet whereby you drink large quantities of ice-cold water, because all that water gets raised from 0-->37 deg Celsius in your body, which means you've burned calories -- 37 per cc=ml, so drinking a liter of ice-water causes you to burn 37,000 calories. Boom! Weight-loss here I come!

    But the punchline of his story was that he forgot that dietary calories are actually KiloCalories, so 1L of ice water burns only 37 kCal, and you'd have to drink hundreds of liters of ice water to have any significant effect! Oopx!
    What's really pathetic is that I did that same calculation - albeit correctly - while sitting in traffic once drinking a can of Diet Coke...

    KeS

  10. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Potashville
    My Bikes
    Reynolds 531P road bike, Rocky Mountain Metropolis, Rocky Mountain Sherpa 10, Look 566
    Posts
    1,080
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    It is simple calories in - calories burned = net weight gain.

    His Basal Metabolic rate happens to be higher than yours, is all. And, you have no idea what he/she does outside of work. He might be one of those people that runs 15 miles in the morning, and another 15 at night.
    Not a chance! His idea of exercise is walking from the car to the front door of the office. He thinks I'm nuts because I bike a whole 4 km to work, in fact he thinks exercise in general is for suckers.
    In Thomas Bouchard's twin studies, groups of identical twin men were fed 1000 fewer calories than the supposed amount that was needed to maintain their starting weight. Some lost as much as 20 pounds in a month, some as little as 4. The only constant was that whatever one twin lost, his identical twin lost about the same amount.

  11. #36
    Senior Member Mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    My Bikes
    2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
    Posts
    2,287
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodabike View Post
    Not a chance! His idea of exercise is walking from the car to the front door of the office. He thinks I'm nuts because I bike a whole 4 km to work, in fact he thinks exercise in general is for suckers.
    In Thomas Bouchard's twin studies, groups of identical twin men were fed 1000 fewer calories than the supposed amount that was needed to maintain their starting weight. Some lost as much as 20 pounds in a month, some as little as 4. The only constant was that whatever one twin lost, his identical twin lost about the same amount.
    There's a guy I work with. Skinny as a rail. I'd say about 160lbs. He does not exercise. He works an office job like myself. He also eats like a madman. We go out to eat pizza, 2 slices will fill me up to the point where I feel sick. He'll eat 4 and leave complaining he's not full yet. I've seen him devour a dozen garlic knots in one sitting. He thinks 1 pound burgers are too small.

    He makes me hate life sometimes.

  12. #37
    Bridge Burner RollCNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Central NY
    My Bikes
    Felt Rejected
    Posts
    7,163
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There was an article in the last week, that I think I saw linked in BF somewhere, where new studies are saying that the 3500 KCal = 1 lb of weight loss is not true, and the more accustomed to exercise one becomes, and the lighter one becomes, the 3500 starts to climb dramatically. It was interesting, and described causes for many of the weight plateauing things that people experience in trying to shed pounds (I have been stuck in one for 10 months).

    And there is the discussions of digestion that say lots of small meals beat out fewer large ones. If all input - output then frequency of input should mean nothing.

    No one knows the real, 100% answer, and we should all embrace an inefficient life style. Go Jethro!!!!

  13. #38
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RollCNY View Post
    There was an article in the last week, that I think I saw linked in BF somewhere, where new studies are saying that the 3500 KCal = 1 lb of weight loss is not true, and the more accustomed to exercise one becomes, and the lighter one becomes, the 3500 starts to climb dramatically. It was interesting, and described causes for many of the weight plateauing things that people experience in trying to shed pounds (I have been stuck in one for 10 months).

    And there is the discussions of digestion that say lots of small meals beat out fewer large ones. If all input - output then frequency of input should mean nothing.

    No one knows the real, 100% answer, and we should all embrace an inefficient life style. Go Jethro!!!!
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...812-X/abstract

    The problem is partly one of a changing baseline. The more weight you lose the less calories you need because you are not maintaining as big a body.
    Last edited by goldfinch; 09-29-11 at 10:03 PM.

  14. #39
    attacking the streets!
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    My Bikes
    Jamis Coda Elite
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithrandir View Post
    There's a guy I work with. Skinny as a rail. I'd say about 160lbs. He does not exercise. He works an office job like myself. He also eats like a madman. We go out to eat pizza, 2 slices will fill me up to the point where I feel sick. He'll eat 4 and leave complaining he's not full yet. I've seen him devour a dozen garlic knots in one sitting. He thinks 1 pound burgers are too small.

    He makes me hate life sometimes.
    I use to work with a guy who was approximately 5'7" and about 140lbs. I've watched him at lunch eat about as much food as I did the whole day and this is when I was still gaining weight. The guy never gained an ounce. I knew him pretty well and he wasn't a crazy exerciser. It just baffles my mind.
    Last edited by jimnolimit; 09-30-11 at 04:35 AM.

  15. #40
    Watching and waiting. jethro56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mattoon,Ill
    My Bikes
    Trek 7300 Giant Sedona E-Bike Trek Madone 4.5 Surly Cross Check
    Posts
    1,977
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was confined to the cab of my combine harvesting soybeans yesterday. Rather difficult to be inefficent. I will say a couple years ago and 200 lbs heavier this would have wore me out. For the naysayers out there, What's the harm in this inefficent lifestyle? I'm not saying this is some magic cure. If anything it keeps one focused to be more active.

  16. #41
    Runaway Breadtruck
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Merrimack, nh
    My Bikes
    TT Cruiser, GT Zaskar, Diggler scooter
    Posts
    175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A couple weeks back I had a day off and was bringing the laundry upstairs to be put away. I decided to do it two pieces of laundry at a time. Going up and down stairs for 30 minutes is pretty inefficient.

    I havent been thinking of it as being inefficient (though I probably will now). but i have been trying to find the harder way to do things lately.
    -Bring the 50 lb bag of dog food back and forth from the garage every time I feed the pups instead of bringing the bowl back and forth
    -When cleaning, move EVERYTHING (counch, TV, tables, curtains, etc)
    -get an exercise ball instead of a chair for the dinner table (and no base)
    -shovel/rake something outside. Find an excuse
    -throw the kid on my shoulders anytime we go anywhere
    -etc.
    -etc.

  17. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)
    Posts
    1,117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodabike View Post
    Not a chance! His idea of exercise is walking from the car to the front door of the office. He thinks I'm nuts because I bike a whole 4 km to work, in fact he thinks exercise in general is for suckers.
    In Thomas Bouchard's twin studies, groups of identical twin men were fed 1000 fewer calories than the supposed amount that was needed to maintain their starting weight. Some lost as much as 20 pounds in a month, some as little as 4. The only constant was that whatever one twin lost, his identical twin lost about the same amount.
    You'd be surprised at what some consider exercise, and what they don't. They might not consider playing mud football on Saturdays for 4 hours on end to be exercise (When I was 10 I didn't, I called it fun).

    I'll bet each pair of twins had different BMRs and RMR's...

    Quote Originally Posted by RollCNY View Post
    There was an article in the last week, that I think I saw linked in BF somewhere, where new studies are saying that the 3500 KCal = 1 lb of weight loss is not true, and the more accustomed to exercise one becomes, and the lighter one becomes, the 3500 starts to climb dramatically. It was interesting, and described causes for many of the weight plateauing things that people experience in trying to shed pounds (I have been stuck in one for 10 months).

    And there is the discussions of digestion that say lots of small meals beat out fewer large ones. If all input - output then frequency of input should mean nothing.

    No one knows the real, 100% answer, and we should all embrace an inefficient life style. Go Jethro!!!!
    That's because the more regularly you do a particular exercise, the better your body gets at doing it, hence, burning fewer calories to perform the same task.

    And, the lighter one gets, of course they'd have different BMRs and RMRs... It only take X calories to move a person from point A to point B if they weigh 160lbs. It takes X+300 to move a person from A to B if they weight 250lbs...

    Nothing there changes the simple math:

    Calories in - calories burned = net weight gain

  18. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Potashville
    My Bikes
    Reynolds 531P road bike, Rocky Mountain Metropolis, Rocky Mountain Sherpa 10, Look 566
    Posts
    1,080
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    You'd be surprised at what some consider exercise, and what they don't. They might not consider playing mud football on Saturdays for 4 hours on end to be exercise...
    How many different ways do I have to say it? THE GUY DOES NOT EXERCISE AT ALL!!! He's about 60, smokes like a chimney, watches other people play soccer on t.v.. Believe me, this fellow is NOT playing 4 hours of mud football on a Saturday. He doesn't even walk to the nearest McDonalds (10 minutes walk, at most) to get his breakfast.
    Believe it or not, not every thin person is fit.
    And what exactly is BMR and RMR if not "low" or "high" metabolism.

  19. #44
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    Nothing there changes the simple math:

    Calories in - calories burned = net weight gain
    The simple math isn't all that interesting or helpful alone. After all, people don't have the ability to tell exactly how many calories they are burning. Metabolism is all about the calories out. What is interesting is the individual variability in metabolism, how changes in your body changes your metabolism, and how appetite is an important factor in how much you eat, how what you eat regardless of calorie content effects how hungry you are, how you adapt to exercise, how you lose muscle as you age, how fat tissue burns the least amount of calories, how eating too few calories will slow your metabolic rate, how if you return to normal eating habits you will gain weight fast because your metabolism has slowed, and on and on. Knowledge about these factors can help when you are losing weight and with maintenance of weight loss.

  20. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by goldfinch View Post
    The simple math isn't all that interesting or helpful alone.
    No, but it has to be constantly reiterated because people constantly reject it. Someone who has been "plateaued" for six months while trying to lose weight is not going through some magic metabolic reorganization dictated by Cthulhu. They're eating too many calories.

    KeS

  21. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Haff View Post
    -throw the kid on my shoulders anytime we go anywhere
    And that'll work even better for you as the kid gets fatter!

    KeS

  22. #47
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,922
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jethro56 View Post

    So to sum up. I'm going to try to be more inefficient in everyday tasks. I'm going to have a "high metabolism".
    Quote Originally Posted by jethro56 View Post
    I was confined to the cab of my combine harvesting soybeans yesterday. Rather difficult to be inefficent. I will say a couple years ago and 200 lbs heavier this would have wore me out. For the naysayers out there, What's the harm in this inefficent lifestyle? I'm not saying this is some magic cure. If anything it keeps one focused to be more active.
    I remembered this thread today when I was reading an article about a study that looked at metabolic differences between people who had lost weight and were maintaining for at least a year and those that did not lose weight. The researchers were working on puzzling out some of the reasons so many people regain weight.

    They discovered that there is in fact a decrease in metabolism, resulting in about a 150 calorie a day difference. But the real big difference is that people are less active and thus burn less calories. They become too efficient:

    This doesn’t mean we exercise less, either, as exercise is a conscious choice. It means we unconsciously reduce our NEAT [non-exercise activity thermogenesis] and spontaneous activity. It also means we become more efficient in the activity we do; we expend less calories for the same movement. In fact, 35% of the decrease in activity energy expenditure can be attributed to an increase in efficiency. Overall, we move around less, and we become more efficient at the movements we perform. Combined with a decrease in resting metabolic rate, we end up burning over 400 calories per day less than you would expect for someone of our same height, weight, gender, and body composition. This is not only why weight loss eventually plateaus, but also why weight is so easily regained.



    The solution is activity. Maybe, as Jethro suggest, to adopt a somewhat inefficient lifestyle.

    The article goes on to state:

    Remember that physical activity doesn’t have to include formal exercise. NEAT makes up the majority of your activity energy expenditure, and thus has the greatest ability to impact it. In fact, walking at only 1 mile per hour will double your energy expenditure over sitting. Thus, anything that you can do to accumulate physical activity throughout the day will dramatically improve your chances of maintaining weight loss over the long haul. Even small things, like parking a car further away from a destination, or taking stairs rather than an elevator, can add up if accumulated throughout the day. But because activity can decrease on an almost unconscious level, you need to make a deliberate conscious effort to get as much activity as possible in throughout your day, every day


    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=415
    Last edited by goldfinch; 04-28-12 at 07:55 PM.

  23. #48
    Senior Member tony_merlino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It does come down to calories in/calories out. It's just that the standard formulas for Basal Metabolic Rate and Active Metabolic rate are gross approximations based on averages. The only way to know how your body converts food to weight is to track your calories in and your weight, along with an approximation of your average exercise, daily.

    I've found that my body actually loses weight more quickly than would be predicted by the simple rule of thumb, a deficit of 3500 calories = 1 pound lost, meaning that my metabolism is LESS efficient than normal - which is probably pretty rare for someone who's been obese several times in his life, and overweight more times. But, when I plug my age, weight, gender and activity level into the BMR and AMR formulas, my weight loss would be consistent either with a much lower calorie consumption, or a much higher activity level than I actually have.

    However - once this calibration has been done, you've got a formula that gives you calories in/calories out/weight that's pretty close to exact for YOU. (I did it by simply picking a multiplier for the AMR formula that minimized the mean squared error between the weights I measure over the course of a month and the weights predicted based on my calorie intake and average exercise amount).

    Using this, I've been able to predict my weight to within half a pound, 30 days in advance, with a mean squared error of less than a quarter of a pound. If that's not deterministic, I don't know what is.
    L'asino di Buridano...

  24. #49
    Just Keep Pedaling Beachgrad05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lakewood, CA
    My Bikes
    99 Schwinn Mesa GS MTB, 11 Trek 7.2 FX WSD, 12 Trek 4.5 Madone, 14 Bianchi Vigarelli
    Posts
    2,099
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Try being someone with hypothyroidism. Thyroid controls metabolism, and even on synthetic thyroid hormone...losing weight is a huge struggle.
    http://www.tofighthiv.org/site/TR/Events/AIDSLifeCycleCenter?px=2914622&pg=personal&fr_id=1770

  25. #50
    Bicycle Repair Man !!! Sixty Fiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    YEG
    My Bikes
    See my sig...
    Posts
    26,411
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    4 years ago I was a competitive cyclist who was laying down nearly 10,000 miles a year and was working in a machine shop where I spent my days tossing around and wrestling with steel, I hit the curb at 155 pounds, could dead lift twice my weight and had 20 inch legs on what is a five foot nine frame. Before I started working in such a physically intense job my weight for decades had been a very steady 140-142.

    My calorie intake to maintain my body weight while cycling and working at a desk was 4000 calories a day and I bumped that up to 5000 a day to gain weight when I started working in the machine shop and I gained 13 pounds of muscle.

    An injury forced me to quit that kind of work and has reduced my activities and my mileage in my best year since the accident was 6000 miles but another injury in December has really slowed me down and my weight has climbed from that 142 I had returned to, to 155 pounds and that extra 13 pounds isn't muscle.

    I have a high base metabolism and can experience hypoglycaemic episodes if I do not eat regularly but with a lack of activity and a reduced calorie intake, my body will gain weight it does not need.

    For many people the mere act of being sedentary for short periods will alter your body's metabolism and insulin levels and cause a sharp drop which will make your body store fat although some people are less affected by this.

    Our bodies are designed to move and in moving and matching our intake to our activity levels we should be able to maintain a balance and healthy weight but slow us down and take in more than you need and we will gain unwanted weight.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •