Had enough right now

sijomial wrote: »

@bubus05

Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.

My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.

Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.

Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.

"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?

BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.

bubus05 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

@bubus05

Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.

My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.

Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.

Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.

"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?

BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.

Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.

bubus05 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

bubus05 wrote: »

See the problem with cardio exercises in general, including walking, is that your body adapts. What may have been a tough workout before, a few months later becomes easy. A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories. So you need to increase the pressure, switch to running is one way very effective to be sure, the other is going for anaerobic high intensity training with weights or sprinting.
1900 cals/day seem ok, but I would change my macros periodically, to see how the body reacts to carbs fats proteins.
Sadly our metabolism does slow with age, what may have been a sufficient diet a decade earlier, now may not be good enough to lose weight.
In any case patience is key, I began my journey last march. Age 49 male at 275 lbs my target was to lose a 100 lbs.
MyFitnesspal gave me 1500 cal/day to lose 2 lbs/week and I have been on that ever since. After a year I am down about 90 lbs but it took ages to really get going. Give it time...

A bunch of this, unfortunately, is counterfactual. You got a bunch of disagrees, but I'm going to use my words to explain why I'd be inclined to do likewise.

First, the same activity, done at the same intensity (pace, or other relevant intensity metric), for the same time duration, at the same body weight, burns approximately the same number of calories . It can't not. It's just physics. In most normal activity like walking or biking, efficiency (in a true physical sense) doesn't change much. (In those rare cases where efficiency may be a bigger factor, the activity isn't technically the same, and the effect is unlikely to be massive anyway; and in many activities, a more efficient person will have capabilities that let them burn more calories in a time interval than a less-efficient one for the same cost in fatigue, so there's an offsetting practical factor.)

As a person gets fitter, the activity will feel easier, perhaps much easier. As a person gets fitter, a heart-rate-based calorie estimate (like from a heart rate monitor) may estimate fewer calories, because it measures heart rate and estimates calories: The fitter person's more capable heart pumps more blood volume per beat, so needs fewer beats to deliver the same blood volume, the blood volume delivers oxygen, and it's oxygen utilization that actually correlates relatively closely with calorie burn, not heartbeats.

Yes, as one loses weight, weight-bearing activities burn fewer calories, because it takes less energy to move the lighter body. Also, some of the activities you mention (running vs. walking, sprinting vs. slower running) do burn more calories per minute than walking, but can be continued for relatively shorter time periods because of fatigue, so the net may not be better, depending on time budget. (Fatiguing activities have other downsides, but no need to get into that here, except to say that fatigue can bleed calorie burn out of the rest of the day.)

"Anaerobic high intensity training" is generally over-rated for calorie burn, in part because heart-rate monitors tend to over-estimate its calories (because heart rate goes up for reasons other than oxygen demand), in part because it feels satisfyingly difficult, and in part because people compare EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, a.k.a. afterburn) percents, rather than doing the arithmetic to discover that the difference in calories that's at play is not generally really significant.

Our "metabolism" may not slow that much with age, certainly not much by your 40s. A TDEE calculator estimates my BMR ("metabolism") at 65 to be 100ish calories lower than it was at 25, 40 years younger. That's half a serving of peanut butter, more or less. Further, if I use one of the research based formulas that considers body fat percentage, it estimates my BMR at 25 and 65, with the same body fat percent, as . . . exactly equal. Food for thought, about the importance of maintaining muscle mass to the extent feasible. (FWIW, I used https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/).

I agree with you about the "give it time" part, though, 100%. 🙂

Ok for the sake of argument...
suppose there are two guys, same weight, same age, running a five mile track. One is a pro athlete, the other is an amateur. I bet the pro guy will burn less calories doing the same routine, TBH I find it fascinating it is even debated.
You seem to agree metabolism does slow down with age, the question is by how much...I guess it depends. The point is if you eat the same food at 40 you used to eat at 20 chances are you will get fat. I happened to me.
Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight.
Thanks for your opinion, even if we disagree...

bubus05 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

bubus05 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

@bubus05

Please don't promote this myth that exercise feeling easier due to different fitness levels means lower calorie burns.
It's so wrong it's the reverse of the truth - fitter people can burn more calories through higher intensity and longer duration.

My main sport of cycling is a good example as energy output (power) can be easily measured and the energy accurated assessed.

Example 1
200w is a fast pace and hard effort for me (720 net cals / hour). That's double the power and calories of many people who aren't very fit pushing at their fast and hard effort - irrespective of their weight. It's also about half of what a pro rider can produce and burn at same relative effort. The reason they are pro riders is actually because they have the capability to burn a lot more calories to produce more power than regular people.

Example 2
Fairly early on into taking up cycing I did a maximum sustainable power test. 612 cals/hour
Current max sustainable power. 810 cals/hour
Same feeling of maximal effort, I'm not more efficient I just have higher capabilities due to a better fitness level.

"Anaerobic high intensity training is hardly over rated if anything it is under rated, ask any professional athlete what they do if they want to lose weight."
Nonsense, you clearly have zero idea about how pro athletes train. Boxers doing long slow roadwork, cyclists doing long moderate intensity rides are far more typical.
What rate of burn would you have to achieve to match 4 hours of moderate effort riding do you think from a very short duration anaerobic effort?

BTW - I eat more food in my 60's than my 30's, 40's and am much slimmer.

Here is a 2016 study about the subject..
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8
To summarise the more you exercise the more your body will adapt and at one point the total energy expenditure
plateaus. What it is saying is that you might be burning more calories with an exercise sadly it won't result in more weight loss, the body will simply compensate by lowering your TDEE. The more 'adapt' you become by getting stronger the more you need to exercise to get the same results. This study doesn't distinguish between the different types of exercises.
I may have been wrong about the cardio vs high intensity issue I admit they all seem to have the same limits in terms of how much weight one can actually lose by doing them. My apologies, this is why I love getting into debates, I learn.

That study is not saying what you think it's saying!
It's nothing to do with burning less calories through efficiency. It's saying some people's behaviours change if they feel fatigued, that's especially true if people attempt too much high intensity exercise beyond their recovery ability.

e.g. that study would support that after riding for 4hrs I felt pretty tired yesterday evening and didn't do much compared to a usual evening. But do you think sitting on the sofa for an evening in some way cancelled out a 1937+ cal burn?

And if you want to expand into strength training, the more weight you move the more calories you burn. It takes twice the energy to bench press 100kg rather than 50kg.

My TDEE was about 4,500 yesterday, yes that's unusual but over the course of many years I'm burning c. 600 cals a day on average. If that made me tired (it doesn't - it makes me feel energized) and reduced my NEAT a bit (it doesn't, since I got fitter I'm only more active) then there would be some compensation in spells of lower burn when not exercising.

None of that in any way makes your statement anything but completely wrong - "A five mile walk may have burned x cals before but as your body gets stronger the exercise gets more comfortable the body needs less energy hence will burn less calories".

We must be reading a different study.
Direct quote " Here we tested a Constrained total energy expenditure model, in which total energy expenditure increases with physical activity at low activity levels but plateaus at higher activity levels as the body adapts to maintain total energy expenditure within a narrow range. "..." For subjects in the upper range of physical activity, total energy expenditure plateaued"

As far as I can see how many calories we burn during an exercise is only part of the equation when it comes to weight loss. In that sense a 500 cal workout might result in the same TDEE as a 1000 cal workout at least according this study. So yes I was wrong, a five mile walk might result in the same calorie burn as a pro but your TDEEs will differ . A pro athlete is obviously 'very adapt' to exercise hence his
TDEE will most likely look substantially different to that of an amateur doing the same excercise.

concordancia wrote: »

I bet someone who is trained to swim would burn fewer calories than me getting across the pool. However, I attribute this entirely to form. If I hold a board or noodle and do frog kicks, I either stay in place or move backwards. I have tried to get a few swimmers to help me, but they are too busy laughing to offer helpful suggestions. My freestyle moves more water out off the pool than across my body. My back crawl takes me in circles if the swimming area is big enough. This makes it very hard to get across the pool. I have never really worked on these problems consistently because I go to the pool to have fun and burn calories, which I am doing in spades by flailing around aimlessly.

I do not know if it is possible to be this bad at cycling or running and I have no idea if I use more or fewer calories because I have to walk my bike up the steep hills...