Twice a Day
Replies
-
It would appear that doing 2x a day training isn't justified in the pursuit of exclusively dropping fat.
Which is why I said use diet for managing weight and exercise for health and longevity.
0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
You're trying to create an argument over something we were never talking about...
My issue was with you saying that more exercise does not burn more calories. I disagree1 -
It would appear that doing 2x a day training isn't justified in the pursuit of exclusively dropping fat.
Which is why I said use diet for managing weight and exercise for health and longevity.
I 100% agree with this...but your original premise was that moving more doesn't burn more calories.1 -
There's a potential downside to 2-a-days, and the risk is most acute if your fitness/energy level isn't up to it: If you overwork your body, its response is fatigue. Fatigue makes us do less, either in daily life (less active chores, work, non-exercise hobbies) or by resting/sleeping more. Doing less makes us burn fewer calories. It's fairly easy to wipe out a large fraction of reasonable extra exercise calories via overwork and fatigue. This can be fairly subtle.
If you're already in a calorie deficit (i.e., losing weight), and you're trying to exercise more to lose weight faster, this risk of fatigue increases, because you're intentionally under-fueling yourself.
What happens to your car if it runs out of gas? It stops. Your body can run low on fuel, and slow down, because a total stop is not an evolution-favored outcome for bodies.
That said, I've occasionally done 2-a-days, including some while in a calorie deficit . . . but I'd already been very active for over a decade, so it wasn't new, and in context it wasn't necessarily a huge extra stress. For sure, I wouldn't, even in my circumstances, even while losing fairly slowly, have scheduled 2 intense daily workouts on a regular basis.
1 -
Let's say that's true. Where do this calories come from?According to the common theory, If that's the case, go run a marathon today and tomorrow when you weigh in, you should have dropped at least 20 lbs of fat right?
Let's have a conversation about it. No one here is debating it with any empirical evidence, you guys just like hitting the "woo" button. I'm up for having my mind changed. I'm just asking that you come back with something more than you just saying you don't agree.
Who's burning 70k calories running a marathon?
Maybe a T-Rex....
That's exactly my point. Does energy (calorie burn) not start to slow down over time due to efficiency and storage?
Yeah probably, but it doesn't stop like you mentioned.
More movement = more calories burned.
Not sure where you're going with your question, cause all you've done the last couple posts is ask questions and not responeded.
I get what you're saying and what that model is saying that your body attempts to keep homeostasis and you could be burning the same amount of calories when you're marathon training as you were when you were only working out twice a week doing significantly less.
I dont have an issue with that.
My issue is you saying that more movement does not equal more calories burned.
If I get up and sprint. I've just burned an additional 10 calories. If I didnt get up and sprint i wouldnt have burned those 10 calories. If i get up and sprint every day for 6 weeks, you're saying my body will adjust and i will be burning the same amount of calories as I was before I ever started sprinting. Thats fine. But if i get up and sprint, I am still burning more calories than if i did not get up and sprint. And if i get up and sprint twice. I will burn more calories than I was when I was only getting up and sprinting once
I see your point. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I guess to explain in further detail is yes you were going to burn more calories... Up until a certain point.
the calories are being burned one way or another but it's more based on where those calories are coming from is my argument here. The original poster of this was looking to possibly up her exercise habits from once a day to twice a day in hopes of learning more calories to lose weight as I understood it? If that's the case my argument there is that it doesn't make sense to do such a thing when you can simply do that with diet and only work out once a day.
1 -
All good points here. Thanks for the conversation guys. I see where I went wrong in a dressing calories being burned versus calories being burned from fat.1
-
Let's say that's true. Where do this calories come from?According to the common theory, If that's the case, go run a marathon today and tomorrow when you weigh in, you should have dropped at least 20 lbs of fat right?
Let's have a conversation about it. No one here is debating it with any empirical evidence, you guys just like hitting the "woo" button. I'm up for having my mind changed. I'm just asking that you come back with something more than you just saying you don't agree.
Who's burning 70k calories running a marathon?
Maybe a T-Rex....
That's exactly my point. Does energy (calorie burn) not start to slow down over time due to efficiency and storage?
Yeah probably, but it doesn't stop like you mentioned.
More movement = more calories burned.
Not sure where you're going with your question, cause all you've done the last couple posts is ask questions and not responeded.
I get what you're saying and what that model is saying that your body attempts to keep homeostasis and you could be burning the same amount of calories when you're marathon training as you were when you were only working out twice a week doing significantly less.
I dont have an issue with that.
My issue is you saying that more movement does not equal more calories burned.
If I get up and sprint. I've just burned an additional 10 calories. If I didnt get up and sprint i wouldnt have burned those 10 calories. If i get up and sprint every day for 6 weeks, you're saying my body will adjust and i will be burning the same amount of calories as I was before I ever started sprinting. Thats fine. But if i get up and sprint, I am still burning more calories than if i did not get up and sprint. And if i get up and sprint twice. I will burn more calories than I was when I was only getting up and sprinting once
I see your point. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I guess to explain in further detail is yes you were going to burn more calories... Up until a certain point.
the calories are being burned one way or another but it's more based on where those calories are coming from is my argument here. The original poster of this was looking to possibly up her exercise habits from once a day to twice a day in hopes of learning more calories to lose weight as I understood it? If that's the case my argument there is that it doesn't make sense to do such a thing when you can simply do that with diet and only work out once a day.
I agree.
(except for the "up to a certain point" lol)
I will never get up and sprint and not burn any calories. I can always burn more calories, by moving more. I just had to give one last quote. That would be my ego.
But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about someone not doing crazy amounts of exercise to improve their weight loss whether in one, two, three or ten sessions. Normal healthy exercise is good for everyone, with or without weight loss goals.2 -
Let's say that's true. Where do this calories come from?According to the common theory, If that's the case, go run a marathon today and tomorrow when you weigh in, you should have dropped at least 20 lbs of fat right?
Let's have a conversation about it. No one here is debating it with any empirical evidence, you guys just like hitting the "woo" button. I'm up for having my mind changed. I'm just asking that you come back with something more than you just saying you don't agree.
Who's burning 70k calories running a marathon?
Maybe a T-Rex....
That's exactly my point. Does energy (calorie burn) not start to slow down over time due to efficiency and storage?
Yeah probably, but it doesn't stop like you mentioned.
More movement = more calories burned.
Not sure where you're going with your question, cause all you've done the last couple posts is ask questions and not responeded.
I get what you're saying and what that model is saying that your body attempts to keep homeostasis and you could be burning the same amount of calories when you're marathon training as you were when you were only working out twice a week doing significantly less.
I dont have an issue with that.
My issue is you saying that more movement does not equal more calories burned.
If I get up and sprint. I've just burned an additional 10 calories. If I didnt get up and sprint i wouldnt have burned those 10 calories. If i get up and sprint every day for 6 weeks, you're saying my body will adjust and i will be burning the same amount of calories as I was before I ever started sprinting. Thats fine. But if i get up and sprint, I am still burning more calories than if i did not get up and sprint. And if i get up and sprint twice. I will burn more calories than I was when I was only getting up and sprinting once
I see your point. I understand exactly where you're coming from. I guess to explain in further detail is yes you were going to burn more calories... Up until a certain point.
the calories are being burned one way or another but it's more based on where those calories are coming from is my argument here. The original poster of this was looking to possibly up her exercise habits from once a day to twice a day in hopes of learning more calories to lose weight as I understood it? If that's the case my argument there is that it doesn't make sense to do such a thing when you can simply do that with diet and only work out once a day.
I agree.
(except for the "up to a certain point" lol)
I will never get up and sprint and not burn any calories. I can always burn more calories, by moving more. I just had to give one last quote. That would be my ego.
But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about someone not doing crazy amounts of exercise to improve their weight loss whether in one, two, three or ten sessions. Normal healthy exercise is good for everyone, with or without weight loss goals.
I guess what I meant by "up to a certain point" was meaning more towards where it's coming from.0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.2 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.
To be fair his initial comment that caused the conversation was geared toward avoiding excessive exercise solely to lose weight.
I knit picked a line and created a disagreement about it.2 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.
That's my point in physical training for health and longevity for the her specific goals. Diet for weight management.
I mentioned how 2x a day can be beneficial for the sporting athletes... (whether for weight management or training for a particular event with skill training or exercise specific.)
My answer was in relation to the original poster's question regarding increasing exercise frequency to obtain a faster weight goal. My argument in short was that it's not necessary or even 100% beneficial without managing certain conditions such as recovery, load management, and all that.
I'm not saying exercise should only be used in only one regard. It can be used for literally anything... I was just trying to panda picture based on one's goals and capabilities.2 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.
To be fair his initial comment that caused the conversation was geared toward avoiding excessive exercise solely to lose weight.
I knit picked a line and created a disagreement about it.
I'm guessing it was clumsily phrased but "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased calorie burn but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" is plain daft.
Assume what he really meant was "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased weight loss but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" which makes more sense but by no means universal. There's a lot of people who control their weight easier with a high calorie allowance boosted by exercise or alternatively find sporting goals help motivate them to control their weight better.2 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.
To be fair his initial comment that caused the conversation was geared toward avoiding excessive exercise solely to lose weight.
I knit picked a line and created a disagreement about it.
I appreciate you saying that. I also appreciate that you found something to pick at. I don't think there's anything wrong with a good debate as long as it's not personal and remains within context.
I've been wrong many times in my life, I have no ego in seeing that from others perspective.
This all keeps my mind sharp and helps me to refine my craft and research methods.4 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.
To be fair his initial comment that caused the conversation was geared toward avoiding excessive exercise solely to lose weight.
I knit picked a line and created a disagreement about it.
I'm guessing it was clumsily phrased but "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased calorie burn but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" is plain daft.
Assume what he really meant was "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased weight loss but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" which makes more sense but by no means universal. There's a lot of people who control their weight easier with a high calorie allowance boosted by exercise or alternatively find sporting goals help motivate them to control their weight better.
Well put.2 -
How would increased movement not mean an increased amount of calories burned?As previously mentioned, I don't advise that anyone outside of perhaps a top level sports competitor use increased exercise to try to double their burn rate.
In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased calorie burn but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate.
Look up the additive energy model versus the constrained energy model.
The idea that we burn an infinite amount of calories in a linear fashion makes sense in theory but doesn't work that way. That's why too much exercise has a direct correlation with adverse health effects.
The calories aren't coming from the proper energy stores but are actually being pulled from other sources. Remember we burn calories at all times of the day and night, why? Because our body is constantly at work to keep us alive. Too much exercise pulls calories that were originally allotted for the immune system and has now given their share to increase exercise duration.
Too much exercise starts to metabolize energy from non preferred sources i.e. Muscle stores.
Even if what you said were true (and I haven't taken the time to look up the additive energy model - I've been away from my computer until now), I never questioned where these calories were coming from. The question isn't "is fat being burned?" it's "how are more calories not burned when you exercise more?"1 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?0 -
How would increased movement not mean an increased amount of calories burned?As previously mentioned, I don't advise that anyone outside of perhaps a top level sports competitor use increased exercise to try to double their burn rate.
In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased calorie burn but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate.
Look up the additive energy model versus the constrained energy model.
The idea that we burn an infinite amount of calories in a linear fashion makes sense in theory but doesn't work that way. That's why too much exercise has a direct correlation with adverse health effects.
The calories aren't coming from the proper energy stores but are actually being pulled from other sources. Remember we burn calories at all times of the day and night, why? Because our body is constantly at work to keep us alive. Too much exercise pulls calories that were originally allotted for the immune system and has now given their share to increase exercise duration.
Too much exercise starts to metabolize energy from non preferred sources i.e. Muscle stores.
Even if what you said were true (and I haven't taken the time to look up the additive energy model - I've been away from my computer until now), I never questioned where these calories were coming from. The question isn't "is fat being burned?" it's "how are more calories not burned when you exercise more?"
Forgive me as I don't mean to evade your question but I would still point you in the direction of the original study of additive versus constrained. I think that will better answer your question.0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.1 -
Spoilascanb wrote: »Do anyone exercise twice a day? If so have you seen increased weight loss?
To return to the point...I am working back towards two sessions a day, because my job is quite sedantary. Can't do it every day at the moment
20 years ago I would happily do two workouts a day, but I was 20 years younger and 4 stone lighter!
I am however very mindful of what those sessions are so as not to overload. I like to swim before work because it wakes me up and puts me in a good mood. It will be burning more calories, but is not hard for me. Then it will be a run or gym in the evening.
One day a week I do a short run with speed intervals in the morning, that evening I do a yoga class.
Try it to see if it works for you, if you like it. But be prepared to be flexible and build up slowly.0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
Oh trust me, I don't think time alone is a good estimation of how many calories are burned. You're (potentially inadvertently) being a bit obtuse given how straight forward my original question was. You also seem to think that I'm preoccupied with where these calories are coming from. I can assure you that I'm not.
That said, let's say that I did an hour long ride and the power meter (which has an accuracy of +/- 1.5%) on my bike reported that my average power over than hour was 112 watts. Using this formula I burned 404 calories. Then that evening I did a second, less intense, ride that burned 154 calories according to the same rather formula. That's an additional amount of calories burned over that initial 404.
Next month I'll probably start exercising twice a day twice a week for a month and a half or two. Should I just not eat more those days compared to the days I exercise once a day?
---
Outside of this, it seems as though if the body completely plateaued with regards to calories burned, then there would be no need for say, college rowers, to eat the sheer number of calories they need to eat to have enough energy to perform. It would mean that I would have been able to get away with eating far less than I did during the century that I did last summer as well. It would also negate the need for feed zones during the Tour de France.3 -
Oh trust me, I don't think time alone is a good estimation of how many calories are burned. You're (potentially inadvertently) being a bit obtuse given how straight forward my original question was. You also seem to think that I'm preoccupied with where these calories are coming from. I can assure you that I'm not.
*Understood. I don't mean to be. Perhaps you're giving me more credit than I deserve on aptitude with keeping up with this conversation.
That said, let's say that I did an hour long ride and the power meter (which has an accuracy of +/- 1.5%) on my bike reported that my average power over than hour was 112 watts. Using this formula I burned 404 calories. Then that evening I did a second, less intense, ride that burned 154 calories according to the same rather formula. That's an additional amount of calories burned over that initial 404.
*Okay.
Next month I'll probably start exercising twice a day twice a week for a month and a half or two. Should I just not eat more those days compared to the days I exercise once a day?
*Is this a legitimate question or rhetorical?
My answer to all questions starts with it depends...
I don't know if I missed your previous post explaining who you are and your goals and training background but I don't quite understand where you're going with this...? I've been corrected back on course since having this conversation with you so I'm slightly confused on if we're still talking about my original point of the additive model versus the constrain model or speaking more about where the calories are coming from and how it's not necessarily an added benefit to workout more in regards to losing weight faster?
Outside of this, it seems as though if the body completely plateaued with regards to calories burned, then there would be no need for say, college rowers, to eat the sheer number of calories they need to eat to have enough energy to perform. It would mean that I would have been able to get away with eating far less than I did during the century that I did last summer as well. It would also negate the need for feed zones during the Tour de France.
*Still, I see your point but 1) common practice doesn't add to the validity and justification of "need" and effectiveness 2) you're referring to elite/extreme athletes who trained for different purposes under different circumstances and conditions.
My points were simply made in regards to the original posters question in regards to losing weight faster by increasing frequency of exercise from one time of day to two times a day.
*I just got off track with misinterpreting what was being asked and inserting my own biased but as mentioned earlier, I was corrected by others on here so I feel a little out of the loop on what you're asking exactly.
*If we're looking at these feeding stations then we have to know that they're not jammed with just anything but have strategic reasoning behind the foods and supplements based on the needs of the athlete and sport. Even if it's powdered donuts... There was a reason for it to be there. Different philosophy for different coaches/athletes.
*I love this stuff and am happy to have this conversation at length, I'm just not able to keep up with what you're asking or the points being made currently. I feel like I missed something you had said previously (I've gone through the entire thread). I don't mean to be dismissive.0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
Oh trust me, I don't think time alone is a good estimation of how many calories are burned. You're (potentially inadvertently) being a bit obtuse given how straight forward my original question was. You also seem to think that I'm preoccupied with where these calories are coming from. I can assure you that I'm not.
That said, let's say that I did an hour long ride and the power meter (which has an accuracy of +/- 1.5%) on my bike reported that my average power over than hour was 112 watts. Using this formula I burned 404 calories. Then that evening I did a second, less intense, ride that burned 154 calories according to the same rather formula. That's an additional amount of calories burned over that initial 404.
Next month I'll probably start exercising twice a day twice a week for a month and a half or two. Should I just not eat more those days compared to the days I exercise once a day?
---
Outside of this, it seems as though if the body completely plateaued with regards to calories burned, then there would be no need for say, college rowers, to eat the sheer number of calories they need to eat to have enough energy to perform. It would mean that I would have been able to get away with eating far less than I did during the century that I did last summer as well. It would also negate the need for feed zones during the Tour de France.
3
Twice a Day
« 1 3 »
Search discussion
MT1134MT1134 Member
July 11, 2019 1:49PM
sijomial wrote: »
» show previous quotes
But who says exercise is about dieting?
I'm currently training for a closed roads 100 mile cycle event.
You can bet 100 miles is going to burn more calories than 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 miles!
Where's the energy going to come from? From my food, not all from food eaten that day though.
The only negative I'm expecting is some saddle soreness and a bit of fatigue for a couple of days.
By the way Lance Armstrong was reputed to have gained about 1% efficiency in a year training like a beast, not significant for an ordinary person.
That's my point in physical training for health and longevity for the her specific goals. Diet for weight management.
I mentioned how 2x a day can be beneficial for the sporting athletes... (whether for weight management or training for a particular event with skill training or exercise specific.)
My answer was in relation to the original poster's question regarding increasing exercise frequency to obtain a faster weight goal. My argument in short was that it's not necessary or even 100% beneficial without managing certain conditions such as recovery, load management, and all that.
I'm not saying exercise should only be used in only one regard. It can be used for literally anything... I was just trying to panda picture based on one's goals and capabilities.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
Like
Woo
Hug
sijomialsijomial Member
July 11, 2019 1:50PM
Rammer123 wrote: »
» show previous quotes
To be fair his initial comment that caused the conversation was geared toward avoiding excessive exercise solely to lose weight.
I knit picked a line and created a disagreement about it.
I'm guessing it was clumsily phrased but "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased calorie burn but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" is plain daft.
Assume what he really meant was "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased weight loss but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" which makes more sense but by no means universal. There's a lot of people who control their weight easier with a high calorie allowance boosted by exercise or alternatively find sporting goals help motivate them to control their weight better.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
1
Like
Woo
Hug
MT1134MT1134 Member
July 11, 2019 1:53PM
Rammer123 wrote: »
» show previous quotes
To be fair his initial comment that caused the conversation was geared toward avoiding excessive exercise solely to lose weight.
I knit picked a line and created a disagreement about it.
I appreciate you saying that. I also appreciate that you found something to pick at. I don't think there's anything wrong with a good debate as long as it's not personal and remains within context.
I've been wrong many times in my life, I have no ego in seeing that from others perspective.
This all keeps my mind sharp and helps me to refine my craft and research methods.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
1
Like
Woo
Hug
MT1134MT1134 Member
July 11, 2019 2:11PM
sijomial wrote: »
» show previous quotes
I'm guessing it was clumsily phrased but "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased calorie burn but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" is plain daft.
Assume what he really meant was "In theory it makes sense that increased movement means increased weight loss but scientifically that's actually been proven inaccurate" which makes more sense but by no means universal. There's a lot of people who control their weight easier with a high calorie allowance boosted by exercise or alternatively find sporting goals help motivate them to control their weight better.
Well put.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
1
Like
Woo
Hug
aokoyeaokoye Member
July 11, 2019 2:24PM
MT1134 wrote: »
» show previous quotes
Look up the additive energy model versus the constrained energy model.
The idea that we burn an infinite amount of calories in a linear fashion makes sense in theory but doesn't work that way. That's why too much exercise has a direct correlation with adverse health effects.
The calories aren't coming from the proper energy stores but are actually being pulled from other sources. Remember we burn calories at all times of the day and night, why? Because our body is constantly at work to keep us alive. Too much exercise pulls calories that were originally allotted for the immune system and has now given their share to increase exercise duration.
Too much exercise starts to metabolize energy from non preferred sources i.e. Muscle stores.
Even if what you said were true (and I haven't taken the time to look up the additive energy model - I've been away from my computer until now), I never questioned where these calories were coming from. The question isn't "is fat being burned?" it's "how are more calories not burned when you exercise more?"
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
Like
1
Woo
Hug
aokoyeaokoye Member
July 11, 2019 2:27PM edited 2:29PM
MT1134 wrote: »
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
Like
Woo
Hug
MT1134MT1134 Member
July 11, 2019 2:34PM
aokoye wrote: »
» show previous quotes
Even if what you said were true (and I haven't taken the time to look up the additive energy model - I've been away from my computer until now), I never questioned where these calories were coming from. The question isn't "is fat being burned?" it's "how are more calories not burned when you exercise more?"
Forgive me as I don't mean to evade your question but I would still point you in the direction of the original study of additive versus constrained. I think that will better answer your question.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
Like
Woo
Hug
MT1134MT1134 Member
July 11, 2019 2:42PM
aokoye wrote: »
» show previous quotes
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
Like
Woo
Hug
littlegreenparrot1littlegreenparrot1 Member
July 11, 2019 2:59PM
Spoilascanb wrote: »
Do anyone exercise twice a day? If so have you seen increased weight loss?
To return to the point...I am working back towards two sessions a day, because my job is quite sedantary. Can't do it every day at the moment
20 years ago I would happily do two workouts a day, but I was 20 years younger and 4 stone lighter!
I am however very mindful of what those sessions are so as not to overload. I like to swim before work because it wakes me up and puts me in a good mood. It will be burning more calories, but is not hard for me. Then it will be a run or gym in the evening.
One day a week I do a short run with speed intervals in the morning, that evening I do a yoga class.
Try it to see if it works for you, if you like it. But be prepared to be flexible and build up slowly.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
Like
Woo
Hug
aokoyeaokoye Member
July 11, 2019 3:10PM
MT1134 wrote: »
» show previous quotes
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
Oh trust me, I don't think time alone is a good estimation of how many calories are burned. You're (potentially inadvertently) being a bit obtuse given how straight forward my original question was. You also seem to think that I'm preoccupied with where these calories are coming from. I can assure you that I'm not.
That said, let's say that I did an hour long ride and the power meter (which has an accuracy of +/- 1.5%) on my bike reported that my average power over than hour was 112 watts. Using this formula I burned 404 calories. Then that evening I did a second, less intense, ride that burned 154 calories according to the same rather formula. That's an additional amount of calories burned over that initial 404.
Next month I'll probably start exercising twice a day twice a week for a month and a half or two. Should I just not eat more those days compared to the days I exercise once a day?
---
Outside of this, it seems as though if the body completely plateaued with regards to calories burned, then there would be no need for say, college rowers, to eat the sheer number of calories they need to eat to have enough energy to perform. It would mean that I would have been able to get away with eating far less than I did during the century that I did last summer as well. It would also negate the need for feed zones during the Tour de France.
Quote
Insightful
Inspiring
2
Like
1
Woo
Hug
MT1134MT1134 Member
July 11, 2019 3:46PM
Oh trust me, I don't think time alone is a good estimation of how many calories are burned. You're (potentially inadvertently) being a bit obtuse given how straight forward my original question was. You also seem to think that I'm preoccupied with where these calories are coming from. I can assure you that I'm not.
*Understood. I don't mean to be. Perhaps you're giving me more credit than I deserve on aptitude with keeping up with this conversation.
That said, let's say that I did an hour long ride and the power meter (which has an accuracy of +/- 1.5%) on my bike reported that my average power over than hour was 112 watts. Using this formula I burned 404 calories. Then that evening I did a second, less intense, ride that burned 154 calories according to the same rather formula. That's an additional amount of calories burned over that initial 404.
*Okay.
Next month I'll probably start exercising twice a day twice a week for a month and a half or two. Should I just not eat more those days compared to the days I exercise once a day?
*Is this a legitimate question or rhetorical?
My answer to all questions starts with it depends...
I don't know if I missed your previous post explaining who you are and your goals and training background but I don't quite understand where you're going with this...? I've been corrected back on course since having this conversation with you so I'm slightly confused on if we're still talking about my original point of the additive model versus the constrain model or speaking more about where the calories are coming from and how it's not necessarily an added benefit to workout more in regards to losing weight faster?
Outside of this, it seems as though if the body completely plateaued with regards to calories burned, then there would be no need for say, college rowers, to eat the sheer number of calories they need to eat to have enough energy to perform. It would mean that I would have been able to get away with eating far less than I did during the century that I did last summer as well. It would also negate the need for feed zones during the Tour de France.
*Still, I see your point but 1) common practice doesn't add to the validity and justification of "need" and effectiveness 2) you're referring to elite/extreme athletes who trained for different purposes under different circumstances and conditions.
My points were simply made in regards to the original posters question in regards to losing weight faster by increasing frequency of exercise from one time of day to two times a day.
*I just got off track with misinterpreting what was being asked and inserting my own biased but as mentioned earlier, I was corrected by others on here so I feel a little out of the loop on what you're asking exactly.
*If we're looking at these feeding stations then we have to know that they're not jammed with just anything but have strategic reasoning behind the foods and supplements based on the needs of the athlete and sport. Even if it's powdered donuts... There was a reason for it to be there. Different philosophy for different coaches/athletes.
*I love this stuff and am happy to have this conversation at length, I'm just not able to keep up with what you're asking or the points being made currently. I feel like I missed something you had said previously (I've gone through the entire thread). I don't mean to be dismissive.0 -
REPOSTING JUST BECAUSE MY LAST POST CAME OUT ALL WHACKY.
@aokoye
Oh trust me, I don't think time alone is a good estimation of how many calories are burned. You're (potentially inadvertently) being a bit obtuse given how straight forward my original question was. You also seem to think that I'm preoccupied with where these calories are coming from. I can assure you that I'm not.
*Understood. I don't mean to be. Perhaps you're giving me more credit than I deserve on aptitude with keeping up with this conversation.
That said, let's say that I did an hour long ride and the power meter (which has an accuracy of +/- 1.5%) on my bike reported that my average power over than hour was 112 watts. Using this formula I burned 404 calories. Then that evening I did a second, less intense, ride that burned 154 calories according to the same rather formula. That's an additional amount of calories burned over that initial 404.
*Okay.
Next month I'll probably start exercising twice a day twice a week for a month and a half or two. Should I just not eat more those days compared to the days I exercise once a day?
*Is this a legitimate question or rhetorical?
My answer to all questions starts with it depends...
I don't know if I missed your previous post explaining who you are and your goals and training background but I don't quite understand where you're going with this...? I've been corrected back on course since having this conversation with you so I'm slightly confused on if we're still talking about my original point of the additive model versus the constrain model or speaking more about where the calories are coming from and how it's not necessarily an added benefit to workout more in regards to losing weight faster?
Outside of this, it seems as though if the body completely plateaued with regards to calories burned, then there would be no need for say, college rowers, to eat the sheer number of calories they need to eat to have enough energy to perform. It would mean that I would have been able to get away with eating far less than I did during the century that I did last summer as well. It would also negate the need for feed zones during the Tour de France.
*Still, I see your point but 1) common practice doesn't add to the validity and justification of "need" and effectiveness 2) you're referring to elite/extreme athletes who trained for different purposes under different circumstances and conditions.
My points were simply made in regards to the original posters question in regards to losing weight faster by increasing frequency of exercise from one time of day to two times a day.
*I just got off track with misinterpreting what was being asked and inserting my own biased but as mentioned earlier, I was corrected by others on here so I feel a little out of the loop on what you're asking exactly.
*If we're looking at these feeding stations then we have to know that they're not jammed with just anything but have strategic reasoning behind the foods and supplements based on the needs of the athlete and sport. Even if it's powdered donuts... There was a reason for it to be there. Different philosophy for different coaches/athletes.
*I love this stuff and am happy to have this conversation at length, I'm just not able to keep up with what you're asking or the points being made currently. I feel like I missed something you had said previously (I've gone through the entire thread). I don't mean to be dismissive.0 -
Edited for the sake of lengthI love this stuff and am happy to have this conversation at length, I'm just not able to keep up with what you're asking or the points being made currently. I feel like I missed something you had said previously (I've gone through the entire thread). I don't mean to be dismissive.
I think you probably misunderstood my initial question that I wrote this morning, though I appreciate that this has been a seemingly civil discussion.
I will say that I think it's important to realize that training for and completing something like a century or a number of the triathlon distances isn't reserved for elite or what many people would think of as highly trained (where "highly trained" means training for a number of years) athletes. I completed that century 7 months after a very major knee surgery and wasn't and still am not in any way extreme or elite with regards to being an athlete. I now row 5 days a week and I while I finally am like, "oh right, I guess I am an athlete", I am not an elite athlete. The added exercise that I'll be doing in August is because I want to do the Zwift Academy again this year. I'm actually excited that this year they're giving you the option to not do any virtual races
Like I said, I'm not particularly unique with regards to fitness. I work out 3-5 times a week (the 5 day thing is new as of a week and a half ago), I only have a coach because I'm part of a coached rowing club (I didn't have a coach when I was only riding my bike), and it's fairly easy for me to overtrain. That is to say it's easy for me to end up approaching the point of exercising too much. If anything is unique, it's that I'm very good at knowing when I'm about to hit a wall with regards to overtraining before I actually end up being overtrained. Those two extra workouts a week will likely fall on days that are right before rest days because working out 7 days a week will not work for me. Working out six days a week is also not sustainable as of the last time I tried.0 -
Edited for the sake of lengthI love this stuff and am happy to have this conversation at length, I'm just not able to keep up with what you're asking or the points being made currently. I feel like I missed something you had said previously (I've gone through the entire thread). I don't mean to be dismissive.
I think you probably misunderstood my initial question that I wrote this morning, though I appreciate that this has been a seemingly civil discussion.
I will say that I think it's important to realize that training for and completing something like a century or a number of the triathlon distances isn't reserved for elite or what many people would think of as highly trained (where "highly trained" means training for a number of years) athletes. I completed that century 7 months after a very major knee surgery and wasn't and still am not in any way extreme or elite with regards to being an athlete. I now row 5 days a week and I while I finally am like, "oh right, I guess I am an athlete", I am not an elite athlete. The added exercise that I'll be doing in August is because I want to do the Zwift Academy again this year. I'm actually excited that this year they're giving you the option to not do any virtual races
Like I said, I'm not particularly unique with regards to fitness. I work out 3-5 times a week (the 5 day thing is new as of a week and a half ago), I only have a coach because I'm part of a coached rowing club (I didn't have a coach when I was only riding my bike), and it's fairly easy for me to overtrain. That is to say it's easy for me to end up approaching the point of exercising too much. If anything is unique, it's that I'm very good at knowing when I'm about to hit a wall with regards to overtraining before I actually end up being overtrained. Those two extra workouts a week will likely fall on days that are right before rest days because working out 7 days a week will not work for me. Working out six days a week is also not sustainable as of the last time I tried.
I appreciate the conversation but everything you've said here is purely anecdotal or subjective. Nothing stated here actually provides any relevance to the rest of the world.
I will agree that none of these things are reserved for the "elite" or "highly trained" but I then come back to say, it's rare that anyone who's completing these courses isn't "highly trained".
I don't say highly trained in regards to who's coaching or sponsoring them but highly trained in the sense that they have put in many hours of that given activity (or something that supports it) in order to complete the event.
I then say Elite refers more to status and not time in.
I feel as if you've taken this out of context though, considering I was only speaking about those terms from the way you described them.
You spoke of being very good at knowing when you're going to overtrain, therefore backing off before it happens. How do you know? I'm not trying to be rude here but you simply stating that "you know" without having any proof doesn't help me to adopt your methods and philosophy. It just tells me your opinion.
Completing such an event 7 months after a major knee surgery is seemingly impressive but that doesn't speak to your training history prior to the surgery nor after in preparation.
I'm not trying to take away from your accomplishments but 7 months of training for a specific event sounds like you were probably highly trained. I doubt you went to the gym 3x a week and did some bicep curls and 30 minutes of "cardio" then topped it off with a few beers and donuts.
Let's say you did exactly that as mentioned above, I think you'd be the exception to the rule at that point, don't you?
I'm not saying you have to prepare for such an event in any specific manner (I do highly recommend it though) I'm just saying it's probably best that you do, so that you increase your odds of not hurting yourself, placing at a higher spot amongst others, just finishing period.
That's what training is all about right? Increasing your odds of being successful.1 -
According to the common theory, If that's the case, go run a marathon today and tomorrow when you weigh in, you should have dropped at least 20 lbs of fat right?
Let's have a conversation about it. No one here is debating it with any empirical evidence, you guys just like hitting the "woo" button. I'm up for having my mind changed. I'm just asking that you come back with something more than you just saying you don't agree.
That's a bizarre strawman. Nobody thinks that.0 -
According to the common theory, If that's the case, go run a marathon today and tomorrow when you weigh in, you should have dropped at least 20 lbs of fat right?
Let's have a conversation about it. No one here is debating it with any empirical evidence, you guys just like hitting the "woo" button. I'm up for having my mind changed. I'm just asking that you come back with something more than you just saying you don't agree.
Who's burning 70k calories running a marathon?
Maybe a T-Rex....
That's exactly my point. Does energy (calorie burn) not start to slow down over time due to efficiency and storage?
Fatigue, not efficiency and storage. People get tired and stop.0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
Except the question that I originally posed was never about where these burned calories were coming from. It was how does exercising 2 hours a day (broken up into two sessions) burn the same calories as exercising 1 hour a day?
I'm not sure how you see this but isn't it more realistic to base the calories burned on a measurement system of Intensity and duration together.
Time alone has no accurate measurement to how many calories are burned.
2 hours of walking versus 1 hour of sprint intervals I imagine have very different calorie burns.
Protein, fat, carbs all have different calorie input.
Protein 1g=4 Cal
Carb 1g=4 Cal
Fat 1g=9 Cal
*Generally
Furthermore, the body uses these calories differently in different orders for different activities based on duration and intensity.
I say generally because (without going too deep into biochemistry) we all have different calorie burns as individuals. That's made up from a variety of reasons different reasons.
I agree with the bold.
However, if I ride a bike at 200 watts for 1 hour, I'll burn exactly half as many calories as I will riding at 200w for 2 hours. It will be more tiring, but I'll have done 720 kilo Joules vs 1,440 kJ of physical work. I cannot put energy into the bike (or hiking or anything else, but bikes are easy to quantify) without using calories.
200w for 2 hours is pretty hard for me. 🙁1 -
With regards to anecdotes, the only thing that I wrote in the post you most recently replied to that I could see as my trying not to be anecdotal is the mention about triathlons and century rides. While in no way scientific, you could camp out at the finish line of any century and see that the people there are likely not elite athletes. There are also a ton of 12 and 8 week training plans for centuries. Don't believe me? Here's a quick google.
Edited for the sake of lengthI love this stuff and am happy to have this conversation at length, I'm just not able to keep up with what you're asking or the points being made currently. I feel like I missed something you had said previously (I've gone through the entire thread). I don't mean to be dismissive.
I think you probably misunderstood my initial question that I wrote this morning, though I appreciate that this has been a seemingly civil discussion.
I will say that I think it's important to realize that training for and completing something like a century or a number of the triathlon distances isn't reserved for elite or what many people would think of as highly trained (where "highly trained" means training for a number of years) athletes. I completed that century 7 months after a very major knee surgery and wasn't and still am not in any way extreme or elite with regards to being an athlete. I now row 5 days a week and I while I finally am like, "oh right, I guess I am an athlete", I am not an elite athlete. The added exercise that I'll be doing in August is because I want to do the Zwift Academy again this year. I'm actually excited that this year they're giving you the option to not do any virtual races
Like I said, I'm not particularly unique with regards to fitness. I work out 3-5 times a week (the 5 day thing is new as of a week and a half ago), I only have a coach because I'm part of a coached rowing club (I didn't have a coach when I was only riding my bike), and it's fairly easy for me to overtrain. That is to say it's easy for me to end up approaching the point of exercising too much. If anything is unique, it's that I'm very good at knowing when I'm about to hit a wall with regards to overtraining before I actually end up being overtrained. Those two extra workouts a week will likely fall on days that are right before rest days because working out 7 days a week will not work for me. Working out six days a week is also not sustainable as of the last time I tried.
I appreciate the conversation but everything you've said here is purely anecdotal or subjective. Nothing stated here actually provides any relevance to the rest of the world.
If I'm talking only about myself then of course it's anecdotal.
In addition to what I've posted above, I would argue that "highly trained" is pretty subjective at the lower levels. I'm watching highlights of the Giro Rosa and the people there are highly trained. On the flip side, I have been rowing for less than a year and would not consider myself highly trained unless I'm comparing myself to other novice adult rowers. Elite can refer to a lot of things, but I would consider an elite athlete one who is capable of competing at a national level competition and/or at the upper echelon of a local competition.I will agree that none of these things are reserved for the "elite" or "highly trained" but I then come back to say, it's rare that anyone who's completing these courses isn't "highly trained".
I don't say highly trained in regards to who's coaching or sponsoring them but highly trained in the sense that they have put in many hours of that given activity (or something that supports it) in order to complete the event.
I then say Elite refers more to status and not time in.
I think you actually were the one who first used the words elite and extreme. I did refer to college rowers, Tour de France riders, and people riding a century. I definitely didn't use the word "extreme" and I think I only used elite in response to your usage of the word.I feel as if you've taken this out of context though, considering I was only speaking about those terms from the way you described them.
You're reading significantly more into this than was actually written. When, in this thread, did I say that anyone should try to adopt my methods or philosophy? When did I imply that my knowledge of my own body is going to somehow be transferable to someone's knowledge of their body? Also my knowing my own body isn't telling you my opinion, it's telling you my experience. Those are two different things. You want to know hypothesis of why I'm so good at knowing my limits? I've had 4 major knee surgeries. I have been in situations where I couldn't afford to overwork myself unless I somehow wanted to prolong my recovery. Do you really want to know the various signs that I am overtraining?You spoke of being very good at knowing when you're going to overtrain, therefore backing off before it happens. How do you know? I'm not trying to be rude here but you simply stating that "you know" without having any proof doesn't help me to adopt your methods and philosophy. It just tells me your opinion.
I did a massive amount of physical therapy for my knee and, looking back at my logs, I road my bike 3 days a week mostly following a plan. It wasn't especially complicated. I also had a prior knee surgery 12ish months on the other knee (and another two 4+ years prior - so two per knee in total). Prior to my third knee surgery, I think my longest bike ride was 40 miles and I can't imagine that I rode longer than that before the last knee surgery either given that I spent the summer before it without a bike. I had zero running background, didn't swim consistently, etc. Also strength training...barely, much to my physical therapist's frustration.Completing such an event 7 months after a major knee surgery is seemingly impressive but that doesn't speak to your training history prior to the surgery nor after in preparation.
I'm not trying to take away from your accomplishments but 7 months of training for a specific event sounds like you were probably highly trained. I doubt you went to the gym 3x a week and did some bicep curls and 30 minutes of "cardio" then topped it off with a few beers and donuts.
Given that there are a number of 8-12 week beginner century plans, I'm not that much of an exception - no.Let's say you did exactly that as mentioned above, I think you'd be the exception to the rule at that point, don't you?
Well at least we agree on this one.I'm not saying you have to prepare for such an event in any specific manner (I do highly recommend it though) I'm just saying it's probably best that you do, so that you increase your odds of not hurting yourself, placing at a higher spot amongst others, just finishing period.
That's what training is all about right? Increasing your odds of being successful.
Honestly your whole reply seems like you think that I'm trying to sell people on some sort of philosophy or method. I have no idea where in the world you're getting that from but it couldn't be further from the truth. You are reading significantly more into my posts than what's actually there.0 -
You're proving my point.
From food.
So what's the point in increasing exercise for calorie burn when you could simply do it by diet alone, avoiding all the risk and negative factors that could come from too much exercise?
I need something like 2,200 kCal if I don't move all day. Some days I burn that much riding a bike. If the bike energy comes entirely from the food I've eaten recently, then all the other things I need to do to stay alive will use calories stored as fat. It's like asking if I spent the money from my latest check, or from an earlier one.
You should talk to some thru hikers, you'll learn from them. Friend of a friend lost almost 40 pounds on the PCT. Like everyone else on the trail, he was eating as much as he was capable of. One day it was an entire pizza, a jar of peanut butter, box of crackers, and the nig Haagan Dazs. Heather Anderson used to be obese, now a gentle breeze could blow her away. She walks 45 to 50 miles a day for months at a time. From the way you're describing biology, this should be impossible. But it happens. And that means this model has been falsified.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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