I feel the body becomes efficient at eating when you feed it a lot of calories
Replies
-
penguinmama87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
My primary form of cardiovascular exercise is cycling and has been for pushing a decade now. I don't burn fewer and fewer calories just because my body gets used to cycling. Outside of a lab, cycling with a power meter is about as accurate as you can get in regards to work and calories expended. If anything, the more I cycle, the more calories I burn...because the more I cycle, the stronger I get and the stronger I get, the more power (watts) I can put out. That power is what dictates my energy expenditure.
There may be a bit of truth in the idea of your body "getting used to it" as one does the activity more, especially if skill is involved in the activity. Take swimming as an example All other things consistent, if I suck at swimming my stroke will be much less efficient and I will burn more calories flaying around to cover the distance than if I was an excellent swimmer covering the same distance in the same time. ,
Now what usually happens is the person covers the distance faster and/or does more distance as they "get used to it".
In the specific sense of the claims being made by OP and Jillian Michaels, I don't think they're talking about differences in form. It seems more like an actual claim that your body will get "used" to activity -- regardless of form differences -- and that your body will stop burning calories as a result.
When you lay it out like that, it's really such a weird claim! I feel like building efficiency is going to save really only a few calories max, even when you're doing some kind of activity for hours and hours. The perception of difficulty changes, sure, but that's probably more a psychological thing that anything. It *feels* stressful and hard because you don't know what's going on.
If being stressed out made me burn more calories, I would never have gained weight.
You've never seen me swim.6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
My primary form of cardiovascular exercise is cycling and has been for pushing a decade now. I don't burn fewer and fewer calories just because my body gets used to cycling. Outside of a lab, cycling with a power meter is about as accurate as you can get in regards to work and calories expended. If anything, the more I cycle, the more calories I burn...because the more I cycle, the stronger I get and the stronger I get, the more power (watts) I can put out. That power is what dictates my energy expenditure.
There may be a bit of truth in the idea of your body "getting used to it" as one does the activity more, especially if skill is involved in the activity. Take swimming as an example All other things consistent, if I suck at swimming my stroke will be much less efficient and I will burn more calories flaying around to cover the distance than if I was an excellent swimmer covering the same distance in the same time. ,
Now what usually happens is the person covers the distance faster and/or does more distance as they "get used to it".
For most common exercise activities, I think worrying about that efficiency difference - as it affects calorie burn - is *seriously* majoring in the minors.
But sure, as one gets technically better at a thing ("more efficient"), more of the effort gets funneled into useful movement (so increases speed or other objective measures of intensity, at the same calorie expenditure) vs. being wasted in kind of flopping about randomly while doing the activity. Most commonly-practiced fitness activities are not super technical; I admit I don't have data to support my supposition, but IMO it's generally going to be a fairly small fraction of the total calories that is "lost" when one becomes more efficient. And, as you say, as a practical matter, people tend toward more intensity gradually as they get fitter, such as running faster.
How efficiency and adaptation affects fitness progress is a whole different issue, and there IMO it's much more realistic to believe that a change in stimulus is needed in order to keep making fitness progress (progress in strength, speed, CV capability, whatever).3 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
My primary form of cardiovascular exercise is cycling and has been for pushing a decade now. I don't burn fewer and fewer calories just because my body gets used to cycling. Outside of a lab, cycling with a power meter is about as accurate as you can get in regards to work and calories expended. If anything, the more I cycle, the more calories I burn...because the more I cycle, the stronger I get and the stronger I get, the more power (watts) I can put out. That power is what dictates my energy expenditure.
There may be a bit of truth in the idea of your body "getting used to it" as one does the activity more, especially if skill is involved in the activity. Take swimming as an example All other things consistent, if I suck at swimming my stroke will be much less efficient and I will burn more calories flaying around to cover the distance than if I was an excellent swimmer covering the same distance in the same time. ,
Now what usually happens is the person covers the distance faster and/or does more distance as they "get used to it".
In the specific sense of the claims being made by OP and Jillian Michaels, I don't think they're talking about differences in form. It seems more like an actual claim that your body will get "used" to activity -- regardless of form differences -- and that your body will stop burning calories as a result.
When you lay it out like that, it's really such a weird claim! I feel like building efficiency is going to save really only a few calories max, even when you're doing some kind of activity for hours and hours. The perception of difficulty changes, sure, but that's probably more a psychological thing that anything. It *feels* stressful and hard because you don't know what's going on.
If being stressed out made me burn more calories, I would never have gained weight.
Haha, no kidding!
I think part of it is that exercise can feel SO HARD when we're not yet in shape. As it becomes easier as we build fitness, it seems like "common sense" that we aren't burning as many calories. I just don't think it's supported by any evidence . . . like you said, any differences would be small enough to not be a factor for most people. That's why we don't adjust calorie burn for fitness level.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »penguinmama87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
My primary form of cardiovascular exercise is cycling and has been for pushing a decade now. I don't burn fewer and fewer calories just because my body gets used to cycling. Outside of a lab, cycling with a power meter is about as accurate as you can get in regards to work and calories expended. If anything, the more I cycle, the more calories I burn...because the more I cycle, the stronger I get and the stronger I get, the more power (watts) I can put out. That power is what dictates my energy expenditure.
There may be a bit of truth in the idea of your body "getting used to it" as one does the activity more, especially if skill is involved in the activity. Take swimming as an example All other things consistent, if I suck at swimming my stroke will be much less efficient and I will burn more calories flaying around to cover the distance than if I was an excellent swimmer covering the same distance in the same time. ,
Now what usually happens is the person covers the distance faster and/or does more distance as they "get used to it".
In the specific sense of the claims being made by OP and Jillian Michaels, I don't think they're talking about differences in form. It seems more like an actual claim that your body will get "used" to activity -- regardless of form differences -- and that your body will stop burning calories as a result.
When you lay it out like that, it's really such a weird claim! I feel like building efficiency is going to save really only a few calories max, even when you're doing some kind of activity for hours and hours. The perception of difficulty changes, sure, but that's probably more a psychological thing that anything. It *feels* stressful and hard because you don't know what's going on.
If being stressed out made me burn more calories, I would never have gained weight.
Haha, no kidding!
I think part of it is that exercise can feel SO HARD when we're not yet in shape. As it becomes easier as we build fitness, it seems like "common sense" that we aren't burning as many calories. I just don't think it's supported by any evidence . . . like you said, any differences would be small enough to not be a factor for most people. That's why we don't adjust calorie burn for fitness level.
Sometimes it's also supported by the "evidence" from a heart rate monitor saying fewer calories were burned, misinterpreted by people who assume that HRMs are infallible oracles, rather than being the indirect estimators of calorie expenditure that they actually are. Of course that magical technological device has the correct answer, and all of us idiots on the internet saying something different are Just Wrong. 😉😆
Some of the newer/better fitness trackers are getting more sophisticated (sometimes by ignoring heart rate when there's a better estimating method, as I understand it!).2 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.3 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.11 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.4 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.13 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
This is from Azdak, it's a good explanation from a multi-decades-long fitness professional:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view?id=the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-214724 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
And what evidence does she cite to support this claim?
Well, I admit Jillian Michals confuses me a little. Here in the video, she says that cardio isn't efficient for weight loss, but is only good for extreme weight loss. In other videos, I've seen Jillian say cardio is how you lose weight fast, but then in others, she says it's not efficient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-PtsNkrvY
Here at the 2-minute mark, Jillian says ''When we do the same thing over and over, your body adapts to the stress and we no longer progress. You gotta constantly change the stimulus.''
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTiEDc-Bf74
To give this lady the benefit of the doubt...
She’s saying, I think, that cardio burns more than weight lifting during the exercise session but the added benefit of weight training, with potential gains in muscle mass, the weight training results in a bigger “lifetime” calorie loss?
It’s an interesting idea... is it definitely wrong?
She’s right that the body adjusts to stimulus and so you need to keep increasing the intensity of the stimulus for further training gains, isn’t she? That’s the basis for progressive overload. I feel that her dialogue gets a little confused when she relates that to cardio training though.
She’s also right that the best exercise is the one that gets you to the gym too.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
And what evidence does she cite to support this claim?
Well, I admit Jillian Michals confuses me a little. Here in the video, she says that cardio isn't efficient for weight loss, but is only good for extreme weight loss. In other videos, I've seen Jillian say cardio is how you lose weight fast, but then in others, she says it's not efficient.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-PtsNkrvY
Here at the 2-minute mark, Jillian says ''When we do the same thing over and over, your body adapts to the stress and we no longer progress. You gotta constantly change the stimulus.''https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTiEDc-Bf74
To give this lady the benefit of the doubt...
She’s saying, I think, that cardio burns more than weight lifting during the exercise session but the added benefit of weight training, with potential gains in muscle mass, the weight training results in a bigger “lifetime” calorie loss?
It’s an interesting idea... is it definitely wrong?
She’s right that the body adjusts to stimulus and so you need to keep increasing the intensity of the stimulus for further training gains, isn’t she? That’s the basis for progressive overload. I feel that her dialogue gets a little confused when she relates that to cardio training though.
She’s also right that the best exercise is the one that gets you to the gym too.
I absolutely think that weight training is a great thing for fitness, but my cardio activities regularly add 300+ calories to my TDEE. I don't think I could add enough muscle to take my (sedentary) need from 1,460 to the 2,000ish that I actually regularly eat to maintain my weight.
If Jillian Michaels is addressing this to the average person, I don't think her advice is well-founded. I'll speak of women and shorter women in particular -- I think the odds of long term weight management are much better if one increases activity enough to eat more than the amount that sedentary women typically need. It just makes compliance easier, as you can do things like go out to dinner or have a glass of wine or eat dessert without it being a big deal.
Specific cardio activities aren't the ONLY way to increase one's TDEE, but they're certainly one way to do that. And you keep burning calories through activity even if you aren't making specific training "gains."
People who are engaged in specific activities and want to meet certain goals will likely be following training plans to meet those goals that go beyond just "daily activity." That's a whole different discussion. The point is that you can burn calories through activity without continually making training gains and for many people, that's also going to meet their fitness goals.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Because it takes more calories to maintain your weight, not because you're somehow immune to pizza calories.
People say all kinds of things. Your body doesn't get used to activity in that way and your body doesn't get used to burgers in that way. You're basing your beliefs on statements that aren't supported by evidence.
Well I don't know. Jullian Michaels says you have to switch up your cardio because your body is similar to when you get a callus on your hand from lifting weights but then your body gets used to it. She says that happens when you do cardio if you don't switch it up.
And what evidence does she cite to support this claim?
Well, I admit Jillian Michals confuses me a little. Here in the video, she says that cardio isn't efficient for weight loss, but is only good for extreme weight loss. In other videos, I've seen Jillian say cardio is how you lose weight fast, but then in others, she says it's not efficient.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY-PtsNkrvY
Here at the 2-minute mark, Jillian says ''When we do the same thing over and over, your body adapts to the stress and we no longer progress. You gotta constantly change the stimulus.''https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTiEDc-Bf74
To give this lady the benefit of the doubt...
She’s saying, I think, that cardio burns more than weight lifting during the exercise session but the added benefit of weight training, with potential gains in muscle mass, the weight training results in a bigger “lifetime” calorie loss?
It’s an interesting idea... is it definitely wrong?
Researchers seem to think that the difference in metabolic activity between muscle and fat is about 4 calories per pound per day, net, at rest. I'd bet stronger people move more, so burn more calories that way, but can't prove it. Probably there's some calorie expenditure in the "building" too, but I doubt we're talking huuuuuge numbers.
I think whether it's a bigger lifetime calorie loss depends on way too many individual factors to generalize. If I lift 3 times a week with a time-efficient program for basic strength, but do a boatload of cardio (in my case literally, boats, since I'm a rower), I probably burn more calories lifetime via cardio. If someone has a more robust strength routine, and only does a few minutes of cardio to warm up, probably the reverse.
For a person with a normal life (non-exercise job, home, etc.) all of that is likely much less than lifetime BMR and NEAT, so we're talking about small subsets of a minority share of lifetime calorie burn anyway.
She’s right that the body adjusts to stimulus and so you need to keep increasing the intensity of the stimulus for further training gains, isn’t she? That’s the basis for progressive overload. I feel that her dialogue gets a little confused when she relates that to cardio training though.
Yes. I think I said that earlier in the thread. To keep making fitness progress, a person has to keep challenging their current level of fitness, progressively; and there are different dimensions of fitness that require different types of challenge, besides (strength, flexibility, CV capabilities of varied types . . . .)
She’s also right that the best exercise is the one that gets you to the gym too.
Or wherever a person goes to exercise, like, say, rivers. But, yeah, as a practical matter, enjoyment - or at least tolerability matters. I'd be fitter if I lifted more, but I just don't find it fun. I row quite a lot, because I love it.2 -
Redordeadhead wrote: »No.
Just all no.
Well if you wanna make your body immune to gaining weight from fat, you gotta get it used to it.
No. Not how it works.
The "body gets used to cardio" thing is false, too. "Body confusion"/"muscle confusion" is a myth spread by Beach Body and their ilk to keep you buying new & different programs and equipment.
What? But everyone talks about body confusion.
Everyone?
Whoever you name are wrong.7 -
They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
Who is this nefarious "They"?
Are you aware your body is good at burning fat without cardio - mainly because upwards of 90% of your daily energy source is fat already.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
That's not how it works. You most likely hit a threshold of body fat and your body kicked in satiety mechanisms. You actually ate less than you realized due to lower hunger.
Maybe. But isn't that just a different way of saying the same thing? More or less? The result was I still wasn't obese but could not gain weight no matter how much I enjoyed my pizza and burgers. Worked out every day though.
As you gain weight, the calories you need to maintain your current weight increase. Unless you eat more than that,you won't gain weight. This has nothing to do with pizza. If you were not gaining weight, it comes down to calories consumed relative to how many your body is using.
Well, that's true. But one of my points is people say that your body gets used to cardio and so it burns less calories. What I'm also pointing out as you just said is when your weight increases, your calorie burn increases. So in a way, it's like getting used to the fat you're eating. You can now eat more of it without gaining weight.
Except it has nothing to do with WHAT your are eating, but HOW much of anything you are eating. Got some concepts wrong.
these "they" people are probably ignorant of the fact a workout same pace/speed/weight/intensity can become less of a workout for the cardiovascular system, and thereby HR can run lower to accomplish the same thing.
And that absolutely does NOT mean you are burning less in the workout if all those things stayed true - except for the 10-20 cal saved by the heart beating slower.2 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
3 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
Wondering this myself....1 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
Yes, heart rate and calorie burn have a relationship. It is not a direct, consistent correlation. Therefore, it can mislead. Some of the better fitness trackers - the ones that *do* know what a person is doing - have deprecated the role of heart rate in estimating calories for some types of exercise, in favor of things that correlate better for that type of exercise.
Read the Azdak blog Cmriverside linked earlier in the thread: It explains very clearly.
ETA: https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view?id=the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
Short form: For a certain range of cardiovascular exercises, oxygen demand, calorie burn, and heart rate are fairly well correlated. Calorie burn is more closely correlated with oxygen consumption. Heart rate is somewhat correlated with oxygen consumption. As a person gets fitter, the heart pumps more blood volume per beat, i.e., it requires fewer beats to deliver the same oxygen volume. Therefore, the correlation between heart rate and calorie burn is not as strong or invariant because the relationship between heart rate and oxygen consumption changes with fitness. (This can be a pretty big change, over time.)
Further, things other than oxygen consumption will also increase heart rate: Pressure/strain, high emotion, warmer ambient temperature, and more. To the extent that heart rate goes up for those reasons, heart rate is not correlated with oxygen consumption, so calorie estimates based simply on heart rate will be relatively inaccurate. Additionally, many trackers still assume an age-related maximum heart rate, an assumption that's frequently inaccurate. Since it's common to have a maximum heart rate that varies from standard age estimates, the calorie estimate can be inaccurate for that reason, too.
People are disagreeing with you because you are using a too-simple conceptual model. Outside the walls of MFP, you're right: Among those who know how this stuff works, it's not a debate point. Heart rate is an OK-ish way of estimating exercise calories for a certain range of cardiovascular activities, for people of sort-of-average fitness, and sort-of-average heart rate response. It can be the best available method, among the mostly-poor options available, beyond that narrow range. It's not the best method for every case.
I've been doing the same CV exercise for a very long time. In the Winter, it's a pretty well power-metered exercise. Watts do correlate with calorie requirements (with some caveats about efficiency, etc.). I absolutely have a lower heart rate at the same watt output, compared to when I was starting out. The implication is that my fitness has improved, not that my watt output now requires fewer calories of energy. A purely heart rate based estimate would suggest that I'm burning fewer calories, even if at the same bodyweight. That would be false.9 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.10 -
A faster beating heart does burn slightly more calories than a lower beating heart.
What once was 160 hr for an hour workout now is 150 hr due to cardio improvements - the body outside the heart could easily be burning the same calories because it's doing the exact same work load, muscles getting what it needs due to increased oxygen, ect.
So you have lost a calorie burn for the loss of 10 bpm for the heart.
Maybe a tad more calories lost due to not breathing as frequently and the few muscles used there to fill the lungs.
In the scheme of the calorie burn for the workout though - that is so minor as to just say the workout burned the same caloires.
It's like people who's resting HR has dropped due to CV improvements.
Obviously calculated BMR would remain the same if the body stats remain the same.
Measured RMR would likely be a tad lower, but how much due to HR lowering from say 70 to 50?
Body same size, same metabolic things to be done, only change is HR is 20 bpm lower.
Then again - what if the room temp was colder?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980962/
I think this can help clear up that the heart by itself, while it is 1 of the 4 metabolically active organs - in the scheme of a day and the others organs - differences in HR just isn't a huge change of calorie burn. The fact it's beating is.
ETA regarding HR being a great link between calorie burn and exertion are the manufacturers themselves:
https://www.polar.com/sites/default/files/static/science/white-papers/polar-smart-calories-white-paper.pdf
Section 2.3 - not a direct correlation if you see what the variables are, and when it absolutely doesn't apply.
https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
several sections discuss when and when HR is not totally valid.
In both cases you read enough you realize how many figures are needed to plug into the formula's they use, and how those figures are estimated, and how iffy that can be.8 -
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.
Agree with the above.
My heart rate triples when I stand on a vibration plate. So you are saying I am burning way more calories just by standing on a vibration plate because my HR is up? HR is not always a good estimate of caloric burn.5 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.
Agree with the above.
My heart rate triples when I stand on a vibration plate. So you are saying I am burning way more calories just by standing on a vibration plate because my HR is up? HR is not always a good estimate of caloric burn.
I am chronically dehydrated (get iv fluids) but last week was really bad. My hr during bad dehydration is 110+ while sitting/laying down. My hr was 150 when they took my vitals before my last infusion. I definitely wasn't burning more calories than usual.9 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.
Agree with the above.
My heart rate triples when I stand on a vibration plate. So you are saying I am burning way more calories just by standing on a vibration plate because my HR is up? HR is not always a good estimate of caloric burn.
I am chronically dehydrated (get iv fluids) but last week was really bad. My hr during bad dehydration is 110+ while sitting/laying down. My hr was 150 when they took my vitals before my last infusion. I definitely wasn't burning more calories than usual.
This is also an effect I've seen without any kind of chronic health condition: I do similar outdoor workouts relatively frequently (as an on-water rower), and use a Garmin to track them, so I have a good experiential knowledge of my heart rate response over standard distances at standard speeds. Not only does HR run a little higher on hot days vs. cold ones, but if I unintentionally let myself dehydrate, it will become somewhat higher still.
I'm not trying to deprecate your experience, @singingflutelady: I'm trying to support it, and say that in principle this effect will apply even to people without problematic health conditions, though the effect is unlikely to be quite as dramatic. (In my own case, for example, if I notice it happening, I simply drink more water! Unfortunately, for you, you don't have that simple a solution.) Thank you for pointing this out!0 -
Lol, tell that to people who tip scales at 300+ lbs and STILL KEEP GAINING.They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
It STILL comes down to math. CICO is much more accurate than people think it is.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
You're listening to the wrong people then.Redordeadhead wrote: »No.
Just all no.
Well if you wanna make your body immune to gaining weight from fat, you gotta get it used to it.
No. Not how it works.
The "body gets used to cardio" thing is false, too. "Body confusion"/"muscle confusion" is a myth spread by Beach Body and their ilk to keep you buying new & different programs and equipment.
What? But everyone talks about body confusion.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions