Does the body adapt to cardio?
xxzenabxx
Posts: 948 Member
I’ve been reading a lot of articles online which say that LISS/steady state cardio isn’t good for fat loss because your body eventually adapts to it after a few weeks and stops burning calories?! Is this true? I’ve been going on morning walks for one, hour 3/4 times a week and found this information disheartening. I thought with the walking I could burn extra calories on top of my strength training workouts in the evening.
5
Replies
-
I’ve been reading a lot of articles online which say that LISS/steady state cardio isn’t good for fat loss because your body eventually adapts to it after a few weeks and stops burning calories? ! Is this true?
Of course it isn't - that's ridiculous! That would be like your car adapting to your daily commute and moving across town without burning fuel.
Cardio exercise is moving your body mass over distance and that requires energy,
I’ve been going on morning walks for one, hour 3/4 times a week and found this information disheartening. I thought with the walking I could burn extra calories on top of my strength training workouts in the evening.
Suggest you review your choice of reading material.
The adaption you get is increased CV fitness which gives you the ability to go faster and further - hence burn more not less calories. If you walk further in your hour walks your burns increase.
18 -
It's kind of a moot point, since you should be walking often for health anyway.
4 -
The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive!
), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
17 -
I wish it was true that you can get something for nothing. They would just build cars tuned to be able to drive without burning gas, if the body could do it.1
-
If you do it progressively, yes. The body is efficient & adapts to just about anything physically if you do enough of the activity on a regular basis.
That doesn't mean you will burn a substantial amount of calories less. It just means you will have the ability to do more at near the same intensity because your fitness has improved.
If you are losing weight on average, well then you will burn less calories because you weigh less than before. Your body needs less energy to move it. Once again, nothing to really worry about.
Any article that states you will stop burning calories as you do a activity is wrong.8 -
There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.22
-
The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
Thank you for clearing the confusion. I did think it didn’t make sense but wanted to clarify with you guys.2 -
jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.18 -
jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who gain unexpected weight are eating too much. It is easy to do as appetite can be all over the place.
I burned 3200 calories yesterday at an event. There's no way I'd eat that on the day, and even the following day, so it takes some discipline to avoid overdoing it.
There is a degree of exercise efficiency, but it has a negligible effect compared to the gross calories expended by the run itself.12 -
TavistockToad wrote: »jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.
A few years ago when I was running 20+ mpw, I lost a lot for a while until I started giving myself permission to have a calorie dense snack or two because of all the extra calories I burned. It's amazingly easy to make up for all the extra burn. Those oversized fudge brownies at the checkout counter, which was one of my favorite "refuelers", are often 600+ calories. "Poof" - six miles erased.13 -
CarvedTones wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.
A few years ago when I was running 20+ mpw, I lost a lot for a while until I started giving myself permission to have a calorie dense snack or two because of all the extra calories I burned. It's amazingly easy to make up for all the extra burn. Those oversized fudge brownies at the checkout counter, which was one of my favorite "refuelers", are often 600+ calories. "Poof" - six miles erased.
And you're lucky you get 600 cals from 6 miles.... :laugh:9 -
Your heart muscle is strengthened, your lungs more efficient, and you get muscles overall. Greater cardiovascular health. If that’s not worth it, what is?5
-
TavistockToad wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.
A few years ago when I was running 20+ mpw, I lost a lot for a while until I started giving myself permission to have a calorie dense snack or two because of all the extra calories I burned. It's amazingly easy to make up for all the extra burn. Those oversized fudge brownies at the checkout counter, which was one of my favorite "refuelers", are often 600+ calories. "Poof" - six miles erased.
And you're lucky you get 600 cals from 6 miles.... :laugh:
As a road cyclist, it takes ~15 miles to burn 600 calories. Depending on the miles, of course. So don't feel too bad.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.
A few years ago when I was running 20+ mpw, I lost a lot for a while until I started giving myself permission to have a calorie dense snack or two because of all the extra calories I burned. It's amazingly easy to make up for all the extra burn. Those oversized fudge brownies at the checkout counter, which was one of my favorite "refuelers", are often 600+ calories. "Poof" - six miles erased.
And you're lucky you get 600 cals from 6 miles.... :laugh:
After you eat a few of those brownies you will have no problem.
4 -
I have been rowing 10k meters/day at a relatively constant rate of about 500 meters in 2.5 mins, which burns about 550 cals/day for about a year now and have eaten back almost all of those cals each day. This is ALL of the "extra" exercise that I have done in the past year. No long distance hiking, spin biking or lifting as I have done in the past.
If I wasn't burning any cals/fat doing this, I wouldn't have lost an extra 10# over the past year (because I was still eating at a slight deficit) and my BF would not have dropped to below 10% and my VAT to nil as measured by hydro and DEXA. I would have just gained weight and gotten fatter by eating about an extra 550 cals/day.4 -
The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.
A few years ago when I was running 20+ mpw, I lost a lot for a while until I started giving myself permission to have a calorie dense snack or two because of all the extra calories I burned. It's amazingly easy to make up for all the extra burn. Those oversized fudge brownies at the checkout counter, which was one of my favorite "refuelers", are often 600+ calories. "Poof" - six miles erased.
And you're lucky you get 600 cals from 6 miles.... :laugh:
bwahaha...That was my main thought to that post as well. (~8.3 miles erased over here).
but seriously... a lot of long group runs end at a pub around here... A burger & fry plate + 1-2 beers very quickly wipes out 2000 calories (full marathon-level calories). (And yes, it is really, really easy to gobble down that whole plate super fast before you have a chance to feel full when 'under the influence of runger').0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »jesselee10 wrote: »There is some truth to this, known to many long distance runners as marathoner’s no weight loss conundrum. If you train at the same intensity day in day out your muscles will adapt and you will burn less calories than when first starting. If you factor that in and adjust calories as needed you can still lose weight. Adding in the strength training is good and will help with calorie burn but add intensity if it gets too easy either with more reps or more weight.
Runners who don't lose weight struggle with runger (in my experience) not that they are burning less calories.
A few years ago when I was running 20+ mpw, I lost a lot for a while until I started giving myself permission to have a calorie dense snack or two because of all the extra calories I burned. It's amazingly easy to make up for all the extra burn. Those oversized fudge brownies at the checkout counter, which was one of my favorite "refuelers", are often 600+ calories. "Poof" - six miles erased.
And you're lucky you get 600 cals from 6 miles.... :laugh:
bwahaha...That was my main thought to that post as well. (~8.3 miles erased over here).
but seriously... a lot of long group runs end at a pub around here... A burger & fry plate + 1-2 beers very quickly wipes out 2000 calories (full marathon-level calories). (And yes, it is really, really easy to gobble down that whole plate super fast before you have a chance to feel full when 'under the influence of runger').
According to this:
https://www.livestrong.com/article/314404-how-many-calories-do-you-lose-per-mile/
Net Running Calories
As with walking, your total calories burned from running includes calories from your basal metabolic rate. To calculate your net calories per mile of running, simply multiply your weight by 0.63. At this rate you'll burn an extra 126 calories per mile of running compared to what you'd burn doing nothing if you weigh 200 pounds. For a 175-pound person the net burn is 110 calories, while a 125-pound person burns an extra 79 calories per mile.
At the time, I weighed about 175, which i thought was healthy. I weigh 157 now, just a smidge under a BMI of 24.0 -
mom23mangos wrote: »The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.
Still not a large enough effect in the context of the OP to be concerned about, I'm pretty darned certain (probably mainly relevant in the context of endurance fueling strategies). Regular people who exercise (non-elites) don't have to switch up their cardio to keep burning calories, as @sgt1372 's n=1 neatly illustrates. That's a myth, encouraged by exercise product marketers, and fed by the fact that most HRM exercise calorie estimates tend to drop as one gets fitter, if one keeps doing the same exercise (due to algorithmic limitations, not biological facts).
Though my RMR hasn't been tested, my TDEE is materially higher (like 25-30% higher) than calculations and any rational observation of my lifestyle would suggest. Probably some of that is RMR differences; dunno. Regardless, the only relevance of that I see to the OP is that estimates are always estimates when human bodies are involved.
Edited: Autocorrect ick.5 -
mom23mangos wrote: »The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.
Good job I'm not a highly trained athlete!2 -
What does "way less" calories mean?
There is only 5% variation in how efficient people are at turning carbs and fats into mechanical work on a road bike. Among all people, from TDF champions to overweight people who just got off the couch.7 -
TavistockToad wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.
Good job I'm not a highly trained athlete!
I know, me too!NorthCascades wrote: »What does "way less" calories mean?
There is only 5% variation in how efficient people are at turning carbs and fats into mechanical work on a road bike. Among all people, from TDF champions to overweight people who just got off the couch.
I have no clue. It was just a passing conversation about his research findings as he was measuring me. His tone implied a significant amount, but who knows. I'm sure it is also because of mechanical efficiencies as well as posted by someone earlier.0 -
mom23mangos wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.
Good job I'm not a highly trained athlete!
I know, me too!NorthCascades wrote: »What does "way less" calories mean?
There is only 5% variation in how efficient people are at turning carbs and fats into mechanical work on a road bike. Among all people, from TDF champions to overweight people who just got off the couch.
I have no clue. It was just a passing conversation about his research findings as he was measuring me. His tone implied a significant amount, but who knows. I'm sure it is also because of mechanical efficiencies as well as posted by someone earlier.
If he literally said "it was surprising . . . that they burn way less", it wouldn't surprise (heh) me if the effect is still of a fairly moderate absolute magnitude, because finding a statistically signficant difference might be surprising in itself.
The few elite endurance athletes I've known, and some I've read about, still eat massive amounts of food to fuel their activity level, and they have that increased-muscle-mass thing going on with their RMR, too, in all likelihood.
Making things up here, if elites are 10% more efficient than normal people doing the same thing, that would probably be "a surprisingly large effect" in a research context, but even if it applied to someone like me once I get really, really good at my cardio of choice (hah!), the calorie burn difference of 30-50 calories per workout would be lost in the noise of other sources of calorie-estimating error on both the CI & CO sides of the equation. When you offset that against the increased calorie expenditure of having the fitness to go harder for the same timespan, or go longer at the same intensity, or whatever, it seems like a difference that doesn't make a practical difference for regular people's lives, even if it's substantially more than 10% difference for the duration of the activity.5 -
mom23mangos wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.
Good job I'm not a highly trained athlete!
I know, me too!NorthCascades wrote: »What does "way less" calories mean?
There is only 5% variation in how efficient people are at turning carbs and fats into mechanical work on a road bike. Among all people, from TDF champions to overweight people who just got off the couch.
I have no clue. It was just a passing conversation about his research findings as he was measuring me. His tone implied a significant amount, but who knows. I'm sure it is also because of mechanical efficiencies as well as posted by someone earlier.
If he literally said "it was surprising . . . that they burn way less", it wouldn't surprise (heh) me if the effect is still of a fairly moderate absolute magnitude, because finding a statistically signficant difference might be surprising in itself.
The few elite endurance athletes I've known, and some I've read about, still eat massive amounts of food to fuel their activity level, and they have that increased-muscle-mass thing going on with their RMR, too, in all likelihood.
Making things up here, if elites are 10% more efficient than normal people doing the same thing, that would probably be "a surprisingly large effect" in a research context, but even if it applied to someone like me once I get really, really good at my cardio of choice (hah!), the calorie burn difference of 30-50 calories per workout would be lost in the noise of other sources of calorie-estimating error on both the CI & CO sides of the equation. When you offset that against the increased calorie expenditure of having the fitness to go harder for the same timespan, or go longer at the same intensity, or whatever, it seems like a difference that doesn't make a practical difference for regular people's lives, even if it's substantially more than 10% difference for the duration of the activity.
I could totally back that hypothesis. 2 -
mom23mangos wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »The idea that you have to switch up your cardio routine, or your body adapts and stops burning calories, is a convenient lie fostered by people who want you to keep buying different cardio programs/equipment, and "strength" programs/equipment (quotes because silly high rep cardio circuits, usually), so they keep makng money (lookin' at you, Beachbody).
Just no.
What burns calories is work, in pretty much the basic physics sense of the term "work". As you get fitter, you have the ability to do more work per unit time, and burn more calories per minute/hour, if you wish. Or, you can do what you're doing at the same speed/objective-intensity for the same amount of time (and it will burn about the same amount of calories if you're the same body size, but feel easier because you're fitter (so deceptive! ), or you can go longer at the same speed/intensity once fitter, and burn more calories that way.
There's lots of silly nonsense in blogs and such, and it's reinforced by our (misleading) perceptions. Same (per objective measure) activity at same body weight burns about the same number of calories, regardless of how many years you've been doing it. It just feels easier. There may be truly minor calorie differences because of increased efficiency (by which I mean less wasted motion, not something exotic). Otherwise, same.
I got my RMR tested at the University of Houston's Sports Medicine lab. The guy that did my testing was a Ph.D. student who was doing his doctoral thesis on metabolic efficiency in long distance runners. He said that is was surprising at just how efficient the body can become in highly trained athletes and from his research they burn way less calories than you would assume from calculations.
Edit - because I lift and had higher muscle mass my RMR was actually higher than expected from calculations.
Good job I'm not a highly trained athlete!
I know, me too!NorthCascades wrote: »What does "way less" calories mean?
There is only 5% variation in how efficient people are at turning carbs and fats into mechanical work on a road bike. Among all people, from TDF champions to overweight people who just got off the couch.
I have no clue. It was just a passing conversation about his research findings as he was measuring me. His tone implied a significant amount, but who knows. I'm sure it is also because of mechanical efficiencies as well as posted by someone earlier.
Somebody who does aerodynamic research for bike racing told me that the difference between zipping your shirt up to the bottom of your neck vs all the way up is surprisingly big. At time trial speeds, it accounts for 10 watts of drag. For context, in a time trial I'm putting out 275 to 300 watts. We're talking about a difference of about 3%, "enough to make me say 'woah!'"2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions