Calories in VS Calories out ???
- 09-08-2010, 05:13 PM
Calories in VS Calories out ???
Ok so this may sound confusing but try and humor me if you will be so kind.
Lets say we have 2 people. Both are trying to lose weight on a calorie restricted diet. For sake of simplicity we will use nice rounded numbers. Person A will be sedentary, person B will be exercising.
Person A burns the same calories when sedentary as person b does which is 2000 a day, so to lose a pound a week he needs to be in a 500 calorie restriction making his intake at 1500 daily.
Person B also burns 2000 calories and is on a 500 calorie restricted diet.
Now the question is because B is working out doing cardio 3 days a week and weight training 3 days a week and burning lets say 500 calories per workout should B eat more calories than A or should they both eat 1500 a day just B will lose the weight faster and be more toned?
Of course due to working out person B will be burning more than 2000 a day anyway due to the faster bmr, but thats delving a little deeper.
Appreciate any input on this. Thanks.
- 09-08-2010, 05:51 PM
If the two individuals are the same sex, age, body mass, and height, they are automatically going to have DIFFERENT Maintenance caloric intakes, because activity level plays an important role in the calculation of Maintenance.
Regardless, the individual who is actively exercising is going to be able to eat more, and will see better results re fat loss than the sedentary individual who is dieting only.
In saying all that, weight and fat loss is not as simple as calories in versus calories out. So many other factors play a role, including but not limited to age, sex, body mass, height, activity level, etc.
- 09-09-2010, 01:44 AM
For simplicity, if person b burns 2,000kcals after exercising and takes in 1,500kcal daily and person a burns 2,000kcals with a sedentary lifestyle and also takes in 1,500kcal daily, then person b's metabolism will increase with exercise.
Cardiovascular/respiratory training will induce biochemical adaptations to muscle fibers. These adaptations (increase: mitochondria, capillary beds, myoglobin, etc) primarily occur in type I fibers, but can be seen in type IIa fibers with this type of training. The increase in mitochondria will increase mitochondrial oxidation to aid in lipid metabolism. *Note: some biochemical adaptations can be limited by high intensity.
Resistance training will induce biochemical adaptations primarily to type II fibers. These adaptations (increase: contractile proteins, sarcoplasmic volume-glycogen, phosphocreatine). Carbohydrate metabolism will increase due to resistance training. Although, with the caloric deficit, increases in muscle mass will be minimal.
*Side note: during recovery at rest energy needed for recovery of glycogen, phosphocreatine, ATP (which are minimal), and muscle adaptations will be provided primarily by lipids (recovery during exercise is replenished typically by other mechanisms). In other words, if you exercise at a high intensity and primarily use glycogen as a substrate for ATP synthesis, during recovery at rest lipids will provide the majority of the energy needed for recovery. So don't get caught up in type of substrate used for ATP synthesis during exercise, but the type of biochemical adaptations which suit your training goals. Simply put, it boils down to calories in vs calories out.
09-09-2010, 01:34 PM
I'm so glad that someone said this. So many people completely buy into the "calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat)."
I cannot explain it as eloquently as Dr. Scott Connelly, but I'll give it a shot. You can google his explanations on insulin resistance where he refutes calories in vs calories out as well.
Basically, from a scientific standpoint calories in - calories out = change in weight (fat) is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed and inherently innaccurate. First look at the equation and the units of measure involved with each variable:
Calories in vs. calories out:
Kcal (calories in) - Kcal (calories out) = Lbs. (change in weight/fat)
Kcal - Kcal CANNOT = LBS.
There are specific examples that he gives where calroies and activity level have been controlled variables, and change in weight in various test subjects still varied greatly. He also explained the bomb calorimeter method and its other inherent innacuracies. Basically he claims that insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity account for the majority of the deviations in how diet and exercise affect weight loss, as well as the only real methods to counteract them.
09-09-2010, 02:50 PM
It's been systematically proven that net weight of triglycerides equal to one pound requires an energy surplus or deficit to gain or lose that pound. Most reactions in the body require a source of energy (ATP). Foodstuffs are broken down and converted to ATP to supply the required energy. A calorie is a unit of energy. Therefore, the amount of triglycerides (molecules or weight) can be measured since it provides energy. This can be measured by various methods inside and outside of the body (e.g. Direct/indirect calorimetry, controlled lab experiment via combustion). Numerous studies suggest that one pound of triglycerides provides approximately 3,500kcal (metabolic costs factored in).
09-09-2010, 05:58 PM
ok this sounds like it may be getting a little heated.
I guess really what I was asking is that if I work out more should I be eating more food, or will it be safe to stay in the same calorie deficit without consuming more ?
Reason I ask is because I do an hour of fasted cardio 5 to 6 times a week, and then train 3 to 4 times a week for 2 hours a each time. the problem is that the rest of the time I am mainly sitting on my laurels at my job and not moving around much.
09-09-2010, 06:16 PM
Generally speaking, you should calculate your basal metabolic rate then factor in caloric expenditure from physical activity and exercise since everyone is different. Once you know this you can figure out how many kcals you need to consume to elicit your desired training goals (e.g., weight loss-caloric deficit, muscle gain-caloric surplus) depending on how quickly you want to do this you can calculate how much of a deficit or surplus you need. Also consider that an extreme deficit will cause your body to adapt and slow your metabolism in simply terms.
Based on current data I would suggest you eat more than 1,500kcal daily.
09-09-2010, 06:31 PM
Its true that the way kcal are measured is vaguely ridiculous, but there is still some correlation between that and real bioavailable energy in the foods. Not a perfect correlation though
09-10-2010, 02:42 AM
Personally, I think that an hour of fasted cardio 5-6 times a week and then training for two hours 3-4 times a week is UNnecessary. Two hours is a long time to train, unless you are an athlete or training for something specific that requires that amount of time - and certainly on top of the extra cardio.
If you're trying to lose fat, then you can train a lot smarter and far more effectively than that, IMO.
09-10-2010, 03:23 PM
As for accuracy, that is definitely open for discussion. Firstly, the body does have energy stores in both protein and fat and both can be broken down. So there are composition complications. Secondly, yes there is error in the experimental energy content of various foods as well as energy expenditure calculators are only estimates because of individual differences. These inacurracies do not mean that the theory is wrong. They merely mean that theoretical values are calculated to get a starting point and then adjusted after a couple weeks trial.
While insulin considerations make for interesting discussion, they have little practical value because they are not readily quantifiable. When was the last time you have your insulin or sensitivity tested?
Similar Forum Threads
- By crankchest in forum Weight LossReplies: 5Last Post: 08-17-2009, 06:37 PM
- By stfdkd37 in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 10-02-2008, 07:48 PM
- By xaktsaroth in forum BulkingReplies: 15Last Post: 03-24-2006, 11:01 AM
- By supersoldier in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 06-15-2004, 01:57 PM
- By kraftkid in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 05-28-2004, 06:07 PM