Can someone please explain this to me?

Options
2»

Replies

  • Erica_theRedhead
    Erica_theRedhead Posts: 724 Member
    Options
    What is an anaerobic calorie? In order to measure a calorie (amount of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius (yes I know food calories is measured in kilocalories) - food must be burned - to be burned it must be oxidized - to be oxidized the "food" must be in the presence of oxygen. anaerobic by definition means - with out oxygen.

    Hope I am not being too nitpicky (it is an industry term).

    Calories are burned during exercise. It is the type of workout/exercise that dictates whether you burn calories in an aerobic state, or in an anaerobic sat (i.e. using your oxygen energy pathways in your cells or not). A lot of your basic cardio uses aerobic pathways, which can be good for your heart and give you high calorie burns, yet the energy is from your increased oxygen demand. When doing anaerobic exercise, you exceed your ability to function on oxygen and start to use other metabolic pathways that do not use oxygen. The substrates for these pathways can be in fat and muscle stores. These pathways lead to lactic acid production and muscle fatigue and can generally not last for as long as aerobic exercise.

    This is why many advocate heavy lifting or resistance in their weight loss (exclusively, or in addition to cardio) because even if you generally burn less calories, you are burning directly from your stores, therefore losing weight easier. You can generally get the same "bang for your buck" with shorter anaerobic workouts when compared to their aerobic counterpart

    *edited to fix poor grammar. sorry, on my 2nd glass of wine!
  • ChaosMoosie
    ChaosMoosie Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    Technically your 1500 calories could me made up of any food without affecting your rate of weight loss. However in practice, it helps to eat more 'clean' foods as they are more hunger satisfying, helping you to stick to your goals, and are better for your general health.

    Strength training is recommended because it will help you maintain your muscle tone as you lose weight, which has benefits such as increasing your basal metabolic rate (amount of calories burned doing everyday tasks), helping you look better once you lose weight.

    I also find strength training is a lot more enjoyable, interesting and satisfying than cardio, but that's a matter of personal preference.

    I would add that you need a balance in strength training and cardio. I do mostly cardio because I walk like a maniac with what I do after my work, but strength training is needed because you need to maintain the large muscle groups - back, arms, chest - that don't get much workout in cardio as much as you need to maintain your legs and glutes (which get the major workout in cardio).
  • Determined518
    Determined518 Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    Fats and sugars from junk food mostly get stored for use later. (Hints why I got a big booty). But clean eating actually fuels your body! Your body draws from these nutrients to give you energy and work against bad cholesterol and diabetes exc. So I am sure you will lose weight either way. Whether you eat clean or eat junk as long as you have a deficit. However, it does not mean you will feel any better or actually be any healthier.
  • eileen0515
    eileen0515 Posts: 408 Member
    Options
    Strength training isn't "better" than cardio, just different. Cardio has it's purpose, as does strength training...depends on what your goals are. Strength training does more for body composition than just plain cardio and for a lot of people gives them more of the overall look they want when they reach their goals.

    Weight loss in general, well, that's just calories in vs calories out. How you reach your calorie deficit is going to be your personal choice, what works best for you, what you can sustain for life. For some people that's clean eating, for others it's more if it fits your macros, for some it vegan, for others they believe it's one fad diet or the next.

    Find what works for you and if you don't know, pick something and stick with it for a while...not just a couple weeks or just a month, give it an honest 6 months of truthful tracking or following the "rules" or plan, track your progress with a scale, clothes, tape measure, how you feel. If you're not seeing steady sustainable results, make some changes...not drastic, just a few minor changes and give it more time.

    If you can't find something that works for you and something that you can't follow for life, you have more trouble reaching any goals and trouble maintaining those goals when they are reached.


    /thread

    that's it. right there. all you need to know.

    Yep there it is folks.
  • Erica_theRedhead
    Erica_theRedhead Posts: 724 Member
    Options
    Food calories can be looked at at nutrient dense, or nutrient lacking. Can one lose weight on a diet of fast/processed/synthetic options? As long as you're at an overall deficit, yes. However your body needs to take in many things to function properly. You somehow need to find a way to provide your body with essential amino acids, vitamins, fiber, etc that may not be present in the processed foods. I suppose if one's so inclined, they could purchase supplements to provide these agents if they don't consume them in their diets. However it's not cost effective, and most likely not sustainable in the long term.

    Also, the make up of your food that you eat dictates how you metabolize and store the energy. A meal of high sugar/carbs leads to a fast energy reserve. It causes a peak in your insulin levels and is broken down pretty quickly. If you're just starting or completing a high energy exercise, this can be great. However, if your energy demand isn't heightened during this time frame, a lot of this will go unused and will get stored as fat. Having a meal of protein/fat gives you less energy per gram than carbs do, however they are metabolized slower, and therefore sustain your body longer. This is why when people complain about being hungry on a calorie deficit, many suggest eating more protein/fat dominant foods. This then leads to a less drastic insulin spike, which can be good for people with insulin diseases, or those wishing for sustenance for long exercise activities.
  • megsmom2
    megsmom2 Posts: 2,362 Member
    Options
    Weight loss is about calories in and calories out. Nutrition is about more than calories, though. Eating a variety of fresh healthy foods provides you with the macro and micro nutrients you need for optimal health. You can lose weight eating only twinkies, but your health would eventually suffer for it, and you wouldn't feel well or look well. I think that there is a place for everything in a healthy and interesting diet...even an occasional twinkie...but eating more "clean" (whatever that means to you) is better for you as well as giving you more to eat.
  • SrJoben
    SrJoben Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    So most people on here seem to agree that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (ex: if you were to eat 1500 calories of Twinkies, VS 1500 calories of vegetables it wouldn't matter-a calorie is a calorie.

    On the contrary, a lot of you seem to also believe that weight loss is achieved best by clean eating. I've seen a lot of "90% of my weight loss came from clean eating" type comments. These two statements don't jibe together. Why would clean eating have more gravity than exercise if the equation is really that simple?

    I don't think anyone has a proposed mechanism for how 'clean eating' makes a difference. They just say they think it did...somehow. On the other hand calories in vs calories out is based on well understood scientific principles and gives predictable results.

    Basically what we have are anecdotes vs evidence. Guess which one I put more faith in. :huh:


    Also a lot of people have trouble with fine distinctions and cause/effect relationships. If they eat 'clean' and lose weight while doing so they will say it was because of the clean eating. But they have not actually established that.
  • ddoeren84
    ddoeren84 Posts: 30
    Options
    Yes a calorie is a calorie but anybody can see why eating 1500 calories of fruits and vegetables is better than eating 1500 calories of Twinkies.
  • jhloves2knit
    jhloves2knit Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    People so happen to have different opinions. In my point of view, none are exactly right or wrong. All that matters is that you handle your weight loss journey in a healthy manner.

    But that's just an opinion.


    That's a great starting post for a touchy subject.
  • kimbtaylor1
    kimbtaylor1 Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    So most people on here seem to agree that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (ex: if you were to eat 1500 calories of Twinkies, VS 1500 calories of vegetables it wouldn't matter-a calorie is a calorie.

    On the contrary, a lot of you seem to also believe that weight loss is achieved best by clean eating. I've seen a lot of "90% of my weight loss came from clean eating" type comments. These two statements don't jibe together. Why would clean eating have more gravity than exercise if the equation is really that simple?

    Also, why is strength training more effective than cardio? Is it because you burn more anaerobic calories when you're resting if you strength train?

    Can someone explain?

    As far as calories and weight loss you can loose weight by just cutting calories. Even if what you are eating is junk, as long as you burn more than you eat. My sister is a great example of this. As a teenager she would eat a candy bar for breakfast and lunch and maybe a salad for dinner. She lost weight, now was she healthy? The answer to that is a resounding no! Non-processed foods are healthier for you simply because they have less additives that our bodies just don't need. However, as long as you are mindful of what you eat you don't have to cut out all processed foods.

    For the cardio vs. strengh part I don't believe one is better than the other. You need both to reach your goal. Cardio is excellent for weight loss especially for those who have not been working out. I think of cardio as my heart exercise....it is a muscle after all!! However, to maximize the weight loss you need muscle to do that. You will see a lot of people say you must lift heavy to get the benefits of stregth training but that isn't true either. The idea behind strength training as part of a weight loss routine is to build muscle. If you are one who has never done a push up or lunge doing these to start with will build muscle. The more muscle you have the more calories your body burns because they require more calories to work.

    I know my comments are all very unscientific but I hope that answered your question.
  • Dollfun1
    Dollfun1 Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    So most people on here seem to agree that weight loss is as simple as calories in, calories out (ex: if you were to eat 1500 calories of Twinkies, VS 1500 calories of vegetables it wouldn't matter-a calorie is a calorie.

    On the contrary, a lot of you seem to also believe that weight loss is achieved best by clean eating. I've seen a lot of "90% of my weight loss came from clean eating" type comments. These two statements don't jibe together. Why would clean eating have more gravity than exercise if the equation is really that simple?

    Also, why is strength training more effective than cardio? Is it because you burn more anaerobic calories when you're resting if you strength train?

    Can someone explain?

    You are right, there are many different opinions. From what I have learned in a nutrition class I took (by a certified nutritionist) and what I have researched thus far here is my thought (just mine). To me a calorie is NOT just a calorie when talking about foods. The way your body uses and stores the calories from an apple will not be the same as with the consumption of candy. I have seen people state that they will not eat bananas because of the sugar or an avocado because of the fat. The one thing people neglect to see is that the healthier choice of say an apple vs. the choice of a candy bar are two totally different calories because what you body does with those sugars or fats. Two big things: eating say the apple contains many more health benefits than that of the candy bar AND your body will maintain healthier blood sugar levels whereas the processed sugar from the candy bar will spike your blood sugar and then it will drop drastically and then there is another issue with how our bodies stores the unused sugars from fruit vs. the candy. To sum this up: you get more food for calories when you eat healthier and there is a plethora of benefits for you body and the candy bar or French fries will be just empty calories with a lot less food.

    When it comes to cardio vs. strength training (my thoughts are):
    Cardio: we need the cardio to get our hearts pumping which is a big plus, to burn calories, to burn fat, and to keep your heart healthy (the list can go on from limiting the chance of different dieses to mental health benefits).

    Strength training: many benefits here also, building muscle helps burn fat, tones your body, it is good for your bones, (this list can go on also).

    Should you hear someone say they are limiting their cardio or cutting it out to build muscle it could be because they do not want to expel too much energy on cardio so their weight training will not be jeopardized due to the energy expelled during cardio workouts. Not to mention they are still working their bodies and getting their hearts pumping lifting, so they are still from what I see getting the benefits of a cardio workout, like burning calories.

    I hope this helps a little.

    Good luck to you!
  • babyluthi
    babyluthi Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    You can lose weight on a calorie deficit eating anything. It doesn't mean your body will be healthy.

    _____________________________________________________

    1st GOAL: 100kg (set on 6JUN13)
    14kg lost / 21.4 to go
    _____________________________________________________
  • Ed98043
    Ed98043 Posts: 1,333 Member
    Options
    There is some evidence that the metabolic response to eating processed food versus unprocessed food is markedly different. This study showed that the calories burned digesting a whole wheat and cheddar sandwich are twice as high (20% of the total calories of the sandwich) as those used to digest a white bread and american cheese sandwich (10% of the sandwich calories): http://www.wphna.org/2011_mar_wn6_letters_upp.htm

    And those are both processed foods; one is just less processed than the other. So it seems like if you can burn twice as much (or more, if it's completely unprocessed) of your meal just digesting it, you would lose more weight even if you're eating the same number of calories.

Categories