Oh crap. Hope this study is wrong
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Oh crap. Hope this study is wrong
Why you exercise so much -- and still can't lose weight - CNN.com
Essentially it says when you exercise you hit a plateau with regards to calories burnt and no matter how much more you work out you won't burn more calories.
Essentially it says when you exercise you hit a plateau with regards to calories burnt and no matter how much more you work out you won't burn more calories.
#2
Senior Member
Utter crap. How can there be a point at which you're exercising and not burning calories? It defies the laws of thermodynamics.
Then I read the article and saw "Fitbit" and realized we're not dealing with actual science here.
Then I read the article and saw "Fitbit" and realized we're not dealing with actual science here.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yeah what a load of garbage. SO I guess at some point your body just starts running on magic? And people wonder why obesity is such a problem in America
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,375
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
There is a plateau point, but it doesn't work like what the article is describing.
As you gain fitness, your body increases efficiency, so there comes a point where your current caloric intake versus your current level of exercise will balance out and you will stop losing weight.
If that point is not your current goal weight, you need to either decrease caloric intake or increase the level of exercise to continue losing weight.
As you gain fitness, your body increases efficiency, so there comes a point where your current caloric intake versus your current level of exercise will balance out and you will stop losing weight.
If that point is not your current goal weight, you need to either decrease caloric intake or increase the level of exercise to continue losing weight.
__________________
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
"I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
- Mandi M.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
Posts: 5,390
Bikes: Too many to list
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,121 Times
in
744 Posts
Your body becomes very efficient at steady state aerobic exercise like cycling as well . So they (who's they?-- i dont know). say that you need to shake things up with periodic shorter bursts of anaerobic activity (intervals) , and strength training along with tryin to figure out what you need to put in your cake hole besides cake. Meal frequency, lots of small meals, eating more essential fats - it can all drive a sane person bananas
i've heard this advice before many times and still have a hard time implementing it.
i've heard this advice before many times and still have a hard time implementing it.
#6
Senior Member
Be aware of course that news articles talking about science often completely misinterpret what the scientists are saying. I've written plenty of press releases and have been interviewed about my research, and the results got completely mangled when they ended up in print. Journalists never ask the scientists involved to read what they have written before publication. It's all very frustrating.
#7
Senior Member
You mean, no matter how little you eat or how much you exercise you can't get your body into a caloric deficit because it knows you're trying to lean it out and starts shutting down normal bodily functions and even if you kick the pedals of a bike around a few times your metabolic rate slows to almost nothing to conserve mass and you just slowly turn into a cold lump of fat giving off fetid gas? I think that's a myth.
#8
Senior Member
There is a plateau point, but it doesn't work like what the article is describing.
As you gain fitness, your body increases efficiency, so there comes a point where your current caloric intake versus your current level of exercise will balance out and you will stop losing weight.
If that point is not your current goal weight, you need to either decrease caloric intake or increase the level of exercise to continue losing weight.
As you gain fitness, your body increases efficiency, so there comes a point where your current caloric intake versus your current level of exercise will balance out and you will stop losing weight.
If that point is not your current goal weight, you need to either decrease caloric intake or increase the level of exercise to continue losing weight.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,545
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 139 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5703 Post(s)
Liked 2,432 Times
in
1,345 Posts
Utter nonsense.
However, you do get more efficient over time, so the ratio of calories burnt to the effort made decreases. However it never goes to where you don't burn more with more exercise.
However, you do get more efficient over time, so the ratio of calories burnt to the effort made decreases. However it never goes to where you don't burn more with more exercise.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think the real problem with "why am I still gaining weight when I am exercising" is Americas addiction to junk food. Everyone is looking for an easy way out or a short cut so they can continue eating massive amounts of garbage, but somehow still be slim and healthy.
People put way to much emphasis on exercise when diet plays a much bigger role.
People put way to much emphasis on exercise when diet plays a much bigger role.
#11
Old bikes, Older guy
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Fiscal Conservative on the Lefty Coast - Oregon
Posts: 872
Bikes: A few modern, Several vintage, All ridden when weather allows.
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked 159 Times
in
111 Posts
I think the real problem with "why am I still gaining weight when I am exercising" is Americas addiction to junk food. Everyone is looking for an easy way out or a short cut so they can continue eating massive amounts of garbage, but somehow still be slim and healthy.
People put way to much emphasis on exercise when diet plays a much bigger role.
People put way to much emphasis on exercise when diet plays a much bigger role.
__________________
Remember: Real bikes have pedals.
...and never put a yellow tail on a Red, White and Blue kite!
Remember: Real bikes have pedals.
...and never put a yellow tail on a Red, White and Blue kite!
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,059
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 15,299 Times
in
7,231 Posts
"And if you think you can necessarily rely on your Fitbit or other device to tell you how many calories you burned, think again: We probably burn proportionally fewer calories as we exercise above a certain level of intensity.
"'Activity monitors are going to be wrong at predicting energy expenditure because they aren't incorporating this adaptation,' Pontzer said."
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,059
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 15,299 Times
in
7,231 Posts
With that said, it is arguably poorly worded in at least one place:
"The most active people hit a plateau and did not burn any more calories than their less-active peers."
I guess I can see how, in this quick scroll and read era we live it, someone could take that to mean that at some point you stop burning calories when you exercise. But reading the article as a whole, that is not what is being suggested.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Rural Minnesota
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Poor study with very limited parameters. To exert force requires energy which in terms of human nutrition is measured in calories burned. It is true that your basal metabolism (the amount of energy you need just to stay alive) is fairly constant and for individuals with low to moderate activity levels accounts for a very significant portion of their daily caloric burn. It is also true that nutrition (including calories consumed) has a huge impact on body composition. On the flip side, the greater the volume of work performed (physical activity) the greater the caloric expenditure. There may be some efficiency issues between individuals, but for a given individual, the more work you do, the more calories you burn, period.
Study be damned, if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight, it is physiologically impossible to do otherwise as energy cannot be created, it can only change form. If the potential energy from your food = the kinetic energy of work performed, your fat stores will remain constant (notice I didn't say weight as weight can also include water/electrolyte issues). If our potential energy < the kinetic energy then additional potential energy from your glycogen and fat stores will be tapped and your fat stores will be depleted. The inverse is also true, that if your potential energy > the kinetic energy exerted, your body will store the excess as glycogen and fat.
Study be damned, if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight, it is physiologically impossible to do otherwise as energy cannot be created, it can only change form. If the potential energy from your food = the kinetic energy of work performed, your fat stores will remain constant (notice I didn't say weight as weight can also include water/electrolyte issues). If our potential energy < the kinetic energy then additional potential energy from your glycogen and fat stores will be tapped and your fat stores will be depleted. The inverse is also true, that if your potential energy > the kinetic energy exerted, your body will store the excess as glycogen and fat.
#15
Senior Member
+1. And comprehend it this time.
With that said, it is arguably poorly worded in at least one place:
"The most active people hit a plateau and did not burn any more calories than their less-active peers."
I guess I can see how, in this quick scroll and read era we live it, someone could take that to mean that at some point you stop burning calories when you exercise. But reading the article as a whole, that is not what is being suggested.
With that said, it is arguably poorly worded in at least one place:
"The most active people hit a plateau and did not burn any more calories than their less-active peers."
I guess I can see how, in this quick scroll and read era we live it, someone could take that to mean that at some point you stop burning calories when you exercise. But reading the article as a whole, that is not what is being suggested.
But as I said after, I take any report on scientific research in the mainstream media as being either grossly misinterpreted or wrong. These articles don't really deserve my attention, nor can I be bothered to try to read between the lines to figure out what they really mean.
If I was really bothered about this research, I'd read whatever paper they had published.
The science may be great. Science reporting on the whole, sucks.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I ran into this last year. I was riding like a mofo, but my weight stagnated over the whole year on the same diet. I had lost 152 lbs. doing riding the bike and counting calories, but it suddenly stopped and plateaued. I tried to compensate by riding harder and more frequently, which just wore my body down but had no effect on my weight. I was stumped until I started doing some reading into the ideas like this.
This year I changed it up a bit. Cleaned up the diet, started lifting more weights and riding a whole lot less and the weight is starting to come off again.
At this point, I'm of the mind that successful weight loss is:
80% (or more) Diet
15% Resistance Training
5% Cardio Exercise
In the process of losing weight, I fell in love with cycling thinking that it allowed me to become health AND lose weight at the same time. I feel that is no longer true. Its great for health benefits and its also fun to do, so I will keep doing it for fun, just at a moderate pace now. But I'm no longer going to attempt to use it for weight loss by going harder, faster, further on the bike as that is a waste of time, imo.
This year I changed it up a bit. Cleaned up the diet, started lifting more weights and riding a whole lot less and the weight is starting to come off again.
At this point, I'm of the mind that successful weight loss is:
80% (or more) Diet
15% Resistance Training
5% Cardio Exercise
In the process of losing weight, I fell in love with cycling thinking that it allowed me to become health AND lose weight at the same time. I feel that is no longer true. Its great for health benefits and its also fun to do, so I will keep doing it for fun, just at a moderate pace now. But I'm no longer going to attempt to use it for weight loss by going harder, faster, further on the bike as that is a waste of time, imo.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
5 Posts
It might be time to shift that standard public health message: To lose weight, simply exercise more.
"We would say that 'If you want to lose weight, you probably ought to focus on changing your diet and watching how much you eat.'
"We would say that 'If you want to lose weight, you probably ought to focus on changing your diet and watching how much you eat.'
The average person cannot burn up enough calories at the typical low intensity level they choose to burn off any significant amount of excess weight. And then they "reward" themselves for exercising with a snack that get you back to no deficit for the day.
The EXERCISE MORE to lose weight campaign is largely driven by the food industry that does NOT want you to eat less or spend less on food.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,059
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 15,299 Times
in
7,231 Posts
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
5 Posts
Study be damned, if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight, it is physiologically impossible to do otherwise as energy cannot be created, it can only change form. If the potential energy from your food = the kinetic energy of work performed, your fat stores will remain constant (notice I didn't say weight as weight can also include water/electrolyte issues). If our potential energy < the kinetic energy then additional potential energy from your glycogen and fat stores will be tapped and your fat stores will be depleted. The inverse is also true, that if your potential energy > the kinetic energy exerted, your body will store the excess as glycogen and fat.
To lose fat, you must burn off your glycogen in your liver and muscles and not replenish it. When it doesn't have easy sugar to burn, your body will eventually start to burn fat. Your body will hate this and make you hungry, hungry, hungry for sugar. After a week or so of eating protein and green vegetables, the cravings will stop and you will start to lose fat. Very few people are willing to really cut sugar and starchy carbs for any length of times. Add to that the fact that people are told to replenish carbs when exercising and they stay fat forever.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Instead, what we find is you ride hard and your body burns off all of its glycogen in an attempt to maintain the energy level. Either you replenish the glycogen as you go or you bonk once you've emptied your glycogen stores. Anyone that's ridden or attempted a century knows this process.
Piling on more and more glycogen via carbs tells your body to continue storing fat as glycogen is the active fuel preference to maintain the high intensity fuel demands. So you feel as if you need copious amounts of carbs to keep the cycle going, which you do.
Alternatively, if you ride slow and easy and keep your heart rate down, your body opts to burn fat before diving into the glycogen stores. At that point, you can start to lower your carb intake in your diet while slow transitioning to fat as the primary fuel preference and begin losing weight in the process.
Which basically breaks out to:
Rider harder/faster, eat tons of carbs, don't lose weight
Ride slower/easier, eat fewer carbs, lose weight
Last edited by Jarrett2; 01-29-16 at 01:19 PM.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,341
Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
226 Posts
So they (who's they?-- i dont know). say that you need to shake things up with periodic shorter bursts of anaerobic activity (intervals) , and strength training along with tryin to figure out what you need to put in your cake hole besides cake.
With cycling at a recreational pace only good for 25 Calories / mile that can be a lot.
I think 6 hours a week of riding is a minimum to be in OK shape, 10 to be in good shape. Greg LeMond and Connie Carpenter agree on the 10 hours a week.
Meal frequency, lots of small meals, eating more essential fats - it can all drive a sane person bananas
More protein provides longer lasting satiety so the calorie count which goes with that is lower. I cook a few pounds of boneless skinless chicken thighs at the beginning of each week and package 4-6oz portions in cling wrap so that's convenient.
Simple.
Add extra food when you get too thin, noting that medical doctors' definition is far past where co-workers tell you to eat a donut.
Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 01-29-16 at 01:35 PM.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,522
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
5 Posts
I don't think that's accurate. If it were true, there would be no bonking. People would just do high intensity exercise for a long enough duration to get passed burning glycogen and into fat burning. So riding longer and harder would be better for weight loss. But we've shown that doesn't work.
Instead, what we find is you ride hard and your body burns off all of its glycogen in an attempt to maintain the energy level. Either you replenish the glycogen as you go or you bonk once you've emptied your glycogen stores. Piling on more and more glycogen via carbs tells your body to continue storing fat as glycogen because it is the active fuel preference. So you feel as if you need copious amounts of carbs to keep the cycle going, which you do.
Alternatively, if you ride slow and easy and keep your heart rate down, your body opts to burn fat before diving into the glycogen stores. At that point, you can start to lower your carb intake in your diet while slow transitioning to fat as the primary fuel preference and begin losing weight in the process.
Which basically breaks out to:
Rider harder/faster, eat tons of carbs, don't lose weight
Ride slower/easier, eat fewer carbs, lose weight
Instead, what we find is you ride hard and your body burns off all of its glycogen in an attempt to maintain the energy level. Either you replenish the glycogen as you go or you bonk once you've emptied your glycogen stores. Piling on more and more glycogen via carbs tells your body to continue storing fat as glycogen because it is the active fuel preference. So you feel as if you need copious amounts of carbs to keep the cycle going, which you do.
Alternatively, if you ride slow and easy and keep your heart rate down, your body opts to burn fat before diving into the glycogen stores. At that point, you can start to lower your carb intake in your diet while slow transitioning to fat as the primary fuel preference and begin losing weight in the process.
Which basically breaks out to:
Rider harder/faster, eat tons of carbs, don't lose weight
Ride slower/easier, eat fewer carbs, lose weight
Six Steps to Fat Adaptation for Athletes | Nourish Balance Thrive
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,892
Bikes: Fuji Sportif 1.3 C - 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This much is certainly true.
The average person cannot burn up enough calories at the typical low intensity level they choose to burn off any significant amount of excess weight. And then they "reward" themselves for exercising with a snack that get you back to no deficit for the day.
The EXERCISE MORE to lose weight campaign is largely driven by the food industry that does NOT want you to eat less or spend less on food.
The average person cannot burn up enough calories at the typical low intensity level they choose to burn off any significant amount of excess weight. And then they "reward" themselves for exercising with a snack that get you back to no deficit for the day.
The EXERCISE MORE to lose weight campaign is largely driven by the food industry that does NOT want you to eat less or spend less on food.
But wait, this article says that it can be hard to count your Calories, also.
GH
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,126
Bikes: Steel 1x's
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
You have to become fat adapted.
Six Steps to Fat Adaptation for Athletes | Nourish Balance Thrive
Six Steps to Fat Adaptation for Athletes | Nourish Balance Thrive
"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily"
Each Organ Has a Unique Metabolic Profile - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: SGV So Cal
Posts: 883
Bikes: 80's Schwinn High Plains, Motobecane Ti Cyclocross
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 30 Times
in
21 Posts
The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily"
Each Organ Has a Unique Metabolic Profile - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf
Each Organ Has a Unique Metabolic Profile - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf