I feel the body becomes efficient at eating when you feed it a lot of calories
Options
Replies
-
There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.
Agree with the above.
My heart rate triples when I stand on a vibration plate. So you are saying I am burning way more calories just by standing on a vibration plate because my HR is up? HR is not always a good estimate of caloric burn.5 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.
Agree with the above.
My heart rate triples when I stand on a vibration plate. So you are saying I am burning way more calories just by standing on a vibration plate because my HR is up? HR is not always a good estimate of caloric burn.
I am chronically dehydrated (get iv fluids) but last week was really bad. My hr during bad dehydration is 110+ while sitting/laying down. My hr was 150 when they took my vitals before my last infusion. I definitely wasn't burning more calories than usual.9 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »There's a bit of truth in the idea of your body getting used to it, as measured in heart rate. I've noticed that my HR has declined in cardio I do repetitively whereas a new cardio activity using different muscles can reinvigorate things as far as achieving a good exercise HR.
When in doubt, go by heart rate. The rest, I think, is mostly just talk. You HR is either elevated to the desired level or not.
You get better at doing an exercise and the HR might be lower, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burns. You're still moving the same mass over the same distance provided no weight loss or gain happened. Heart rate is absolutely not correlated to calorie burn. Calorie burn is basic physics in this case.
You are suggesting that HR has absolutely nothing to do with calorie burn? So for instance, if you do Activity A and it causes your HR to beat at 145 bpm (say, very vigorous cardio), and Activity B gives you a HR of 95 BPM (say, a stroll walking the dog), you don't believe you're burning more calories doing Activity A than B, or that heart rate is a gauge of how hard you are working (and burning fuel)?
This would certainly come as news to the various apps that use HR as the basis for estimating calories. An example (of many) would be the various Polar apps, and myWorkouts Sport GPS Tracker, the latter relying on HR based calorie estimation and which has done a stellar job for me in terms of predicting my weight loss from exercise +/- 5-10 % with no other input data - type of activity, etc. Just avg HR and duration of exercise. Quite accurate.
For the same exercise and everything else being equal, yes. I don’t burn more calories if I repeat yesterday’s run but with a higher hr because I didn’t sleep well.
If you don't sleep well, the reason your HR is higher is because your adrenal glands are releasing adrenaline to compensate for your over-tiredness. And indeed, when you're pumped with adrenaline, you're burning more calories than when you're not.Some amped up meth addict whose body is flooded with adrenaline and a HR of 170 is, obviously, burning many more calories than a person sitting on their couch.
I really don't understand how it can possibly, possibly be that a dozen or so people are Disagreeing in this thread with something so obviously true that HR is tied to caloric burn rate. It is not a controversial assertion. No doctor or physiologist would ever suggest that higher-HR activities burn the same or less calories than low-HR activities, or that a strong relationship doesn't exist between HR and caloric burn. There are, as I pointed out, apps and exercise machines that use HR as the sole variable for estimating calorie burn, and for some it's considered the gold standard of calorie burn estimation. All those watts readouts on exercise machines are, in fact, approximations in the absence of measuring the actual exertion your body conducts to perform an activity. HR is measuring the ACTUAL exertion, given that the heart is a finely regulated instrument designed to pump the precise amount of blood - oxygen - throughout the body based on its exertion level at every moment of the day.
I mean .. I respect many here, but I am completely lost as to how this can be even 0.0000001 % controversial. HR, exertion, and calorie burn are inextricably linked. Out there, outside the walls of MFP, this is not even a debate point. It's just the truth. Go run around the block a few times and check your heart rate. It will be up, as will your calorie burn. Come back home and sit. Your HR and caloric burn rate go down. I mean ... c'mon.
HR is not a gold standard for calorie estimates, it's just convenient, inexpensive and can for some exercise types provide a reasonable estimate for some people that's good enough for purpose. It's a proxy for oxygen uptake for aerobic exercise.
Why would sports labs and RMR testers use breath analysis if simply counting a pulse was so good? Why would scientific studies use massively expensive metabolic chambers?
Why would bike computers use power in preference to HR for calorie estimates when both metrics are available?
Calories are units of energy and you can't measure energy by counting the stroke rate of a pump that has hugely variable efficiency between people, between the same person at different training levels and a pump also varies its rate for reasons unconnected with oxygen demand.
Think of these scenarios to see some flaws.....- My HR is far higher producing the same power indoors compared to outdoors. (Pumping more blood to skin surface to help with cooling,) The cardiac drift upwards happens even with steady state where my actual energy output is constant,
- My HR is higher outside on a hot day than a cool day for the same performance.
- My sustainable power is now 25% higher at same HR due to fitness improvements - same pulse but 25% more energy expended.
- Steady state 170w compared to interval training with same average power and same duration will result in a very different number of heart beats.
- I have over-sized lungs and an endurance trained heart that pumps a lot of well oxygenated blood for relatively few beats. Compare that to a same gender/age/size person who is an unfit smoker. We are going to have very different pulse rates and energy expenditure.
It can also give wildly inaccurate calorie estimates for inappropriate exercise, primarily non-aerobic exercise but also cardio interval training. It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers for people with unusual HR response, It can also give wildly inaccurate numbers outside of moderate intensity. Think of two people (same age/gender/size) with RHR of 50 and 80 - do you think a HRM will give accurate numbers for both people at 100bpm?
No HR is not measuring exertion in the sense of energy, it's just measuring your heart's response to exercise (plus other factors) and making a lot of assumptions.
That an individual may be burning more calories at a higher HR compared to that individual at a low HR says absolutely nothing about accuracy.
Agree with the above.
My heart rate triples when I stand on a vibration plate. So you are saying I am burning way more calories just by standing on a vibration plate because my HR is up? HR is not always a good estimate of caloric burn.
I am chronically dehydrated (get iv fluids) but last week was really bad. My hr during bad dehydration is 110+ while sitting/laying down. My hr was 150 when they took my vitals before my last infusion. I definitely wasn't burning more calories than usual.
This is also an effect I've seen without any kind of chronic health condition: I do similar outdoor workouts relatively frequently (as an on-water rower), and use a Garmin to track them, so I have a good experiential knowledge of my heart rate response over standard distances at standard speeds. Not only does HR run a little higher on hot days vs. cold ones, but if I unintentionally let myself dehydrate, it will become somewhat higher still.
I'm not trying to deprecate your experience, @singingflutelady: I'm trying to support it, and say that in principle this effect will apply even to people without problematic health conditions, though the effect is unlikely to be quite as dramatic. (In my own case, for example, if I notice it happening, I simply drink more water! Unfortunately, for you, you don't have that simple a solution.) Thank you for pointing this out!0 -
Lol, tell that to people who tip scales at 300+ lbs and STILL KEEP GAINING.They say that cardio makes your body too efficient at burning fat. Diet does too. I also believe the opposite is true. Extra eating makes your cardio inefficient at storing fat. That's why after a while when you've gained a certain amount of weight, it gets harder for you to gain more weight. You hit a plateau. The more fat and calories you eat, the more your body gets used to it and it gets tougher to gain. You become too efficient in the other direction. It only makes sense because it works both ways.
That's why one summer I ate nothing but cheeseburgers and pizza every day. I couldn't gain weight anymore because my body got used to those foods. My body got used to eating fatty meals and it didn't have the same caloric effect as before.
They say in cardio you got to switch it up because your body becomes too efficient. Same thing with eating and gaining. You gotta switch up the types of foods you're eating or your body gets used to it. Otherwise, you might actually start to lose a little weight if you don't switch it up. For instance, if you eat pizza every day your body gets used to it and so you start to get too skinny. So maybe try ice cream, to trick the body.
You may think it sounds crazy but this actually did happen to me.
It STILL comes down to math. CICO is much more accurate than people think it is.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
You're listening to the wrong people then.Redordeadhead wrote: »No.
Just all no.
Well if you wanna make your body immune to gaining weight from fat, you gotta get it used to it.
No. Not how it works.
The "body gets used to cardio" thing is false, too. "Body confusion"/"muscle confusion" is a myth spread by Beach Body and their ilk to keep you buying new & different programs and equipment.
What? But everyone talks about body confusion.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions