You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yep, all quack science. Your qualifications on the matter are? (and no I don't mean your troll qualifications)
Van Tulleken didn’t read the paper about miners correctly
Y'know, if my choices are Van Tulleken, who by his own admission had a battery of lawyers check his work before he published, and some random on a bike forum telling me he's wrong; I'm going with Van Tulleken; the published scientist. Thanks though 👍
So you think a miner uses the same number of calories in a day as as sedentary office worker?
Pretty much. The Miner may use more during his work, but his body will claw back that deficit later by either resting more, or becoming more efficient, or spending less energy on immune endocrine, reproductive or stress systems Over time, he's not burning more than the office worker is. Who is probably spending excess energy on stress, fidgeting increased production of hormones etc etc.
Well here is the abstract of the study that van Tulleken misread, as you will see it says a miner uses 2,200 and 2,800 kCal per day - the figures van Tulleken quotes as their daily energy use - whilst at work. They actually use far more a day which anyone with half a brain will find unsurprising.
Again, if my choices are the scientist's evaluation of a study and yours, I'm still choosing the scientist. If Van Tulleken issues a retraction or offers an apology if he's mis-read the study (having read the extraction myself, I don't see your argument) then I'll likewise apologise on here
This study comparing Hadza hunter gatherers and office workers backs up his claims the overall expenditure is not effected by exercise levels, and that energy expenditure over time is the same regardless of how sedentary your lifestyle is.
sedentary office worker
programmers can burn 1.5 calories a minute when concentrating hard, and often work long days...
I had a largely sedentary lifestyle and I put on lots of weight..... I now have a very much more active lifestyle and I've lost lots of weight. I appreciate. I'm only one data point, however, if you look at the world it does seem that sedentary lifestyles and being overweight seem to have a very strong correlation. I would go so far as to say that anyone who honestly believes that exercise has nothing to do with how many calories you burn is Maybe playing with a different set of cards than I have. I appreciate there are people who have incredibly high metabolic rates and can consume many calories as they want without putting on weight, but they are the exception.
For most of us, what you put in your mouth has to be less than how money calories you burn. Else those calories will be stored on your body.
I exercise a bit less in winter, still ride 2 times a week but smaller rides than my 4 times a week longer rides in summer. My weights remains the same. That is because I am not riding 100 miles every day and the differences are fairly small and easily accommodated by eating slightly less or slightly more, fidgeting more, resting more.
If you want to (incorrectly) simplify it to calories in and calories burned you need to understand that many things are burning calories and not just the ride to work. Calories are also not all equal due to the dodgy way they are measured so do you really think your body deals with 100 calories of sugar in the same way it would 100 calories of protein?
Just to balance out the anecdotes, my weight is pretty much the same now, a decade in to a pretty hard manual job, as it was twenty years ago when I sat at a desk. Only time it fluctuates is if I stuff my face for a couple of weeks or if forget my lunch for a few days.
I would go so far as to say that anyone who honestly believes that exercise has nothing to do with how many calories you burn is Maybe playing with a different set of cards than I have.
Struggling to follow all this myself... but I think the claim is that we maybe misunderstand what "exercise" is. We all know that a ride, or shift down the pit, is exercise, and burns carbs... we don't necessarily understand that fidgeting and movement (and just standing) in daily life is also exercise. The proposal seems to be (I don't think I entirely buy it yet) that when adopting the obvious exercise, we then compensate by doing less of the other forms of less noticeable exercise.
Oh, and I like food. I don't understand who anyone else who does could bring themselves to put Huel (or Slimfast) in themselves. That stuff is all the capitalism with none of the humanity.
Struggling to follow all this myself… but I think the claim is that we maybe misunderstand what “exercise” is. We all know that a ride, or shift down the pit, is exercise, and burns carbs… we don’t necessarily understand that fidgeting and movement (and just standing) in daily life is also exercise. The proposal seems to be (I don’t think I entirely buy it yet) that when adopting the obvious exercise, we then compensate by doing less of the other forms of less noticeable exercise.
Thats why there is so much hooha about training zones currently and Z2 has been touted as the best for aerobic endurance, I've even seen a lot of talk lately about the "grey" area Zone 3, called that because its apparently not intense enough to benefit the anaerobic system like Zone 4/5 and isn't as effective as spending more time in zone 2 but also leading to tiring quicker so the effort/benefit is less than any other zone for training.
Biology does play a part though, I read something before about how famine shows up in peoples genetics/dna markers and those with those genetics are more likely to store fat easier than others. However right or wrong this all is though I don't know, can only ever speak for my own experiences but highlights why a lot of studies are generally useless as you can take a study group of 2000 people in the UK and 2000 people in Finland and get a result, but if expanding the study group to 40000 the results could potentially be massively different.
When I do a multi day ride trip, I tend to put weight on. I don't hold back on the grub though, think Christmas day level of consumption. But that's part of the fun and experience.
According to my Garmin I was burning 5000+ calories a day when I rode the Badger Divide last year. That's a lot of eating to keep up with, but I gave it a good go 😉
Anyone arguing over what exercises or zones etc burn more calories, you're only talking about green bit.
" 'EAT' Is Exercise Activity Thermogenesis. This is calories burned through exercise.
<br />So a tiny proportion of the calories we burn directly are through exercise? Yes that is correct. "
https://www.elevate98.co.uk/post/calories-and-macros
Oh, and I like food. I don’t understand who anyone else who does could bring themselves to put Huel (or Slimfast) in themselves.
Yes I'm saving that dubious pleasure to when I'm a dribbling old man being fed through a straw.
Anyway on the subject of weight, exercise and fitness, I was at my heaviest when I was also at my fittest. As a keen rock climber I was up to a stone and a half heavier than I am now, courtesy of weight training, building muscle and losing fat, fuelling in the gym cafe with fudge cake and afterwards in the pub.
I would go so far as to say that anyone who honestly believes that exercise has nothing to do with how many calories you burn is Maybe playing with a different set of cards than I have
What scientist are saying is that the Human body (generally) will try to use about 2000-2500Kcal a day, and maintain weight. Regardless of what you do day to day (go for a run, hunt an animal for tea, chop some coal out of a tunnel underground, sit at your desk) you (your body) will try very very hard to stick to that expenditure and weight. If you put less in [or do more work] it will cut energy use from other things that you're not consciously aware of to try to maintain that base expenditure and weight. it will cut use to your our immune system, reproduction, it will force you to rest more, stop fidgeting, make you hungry, become more efficient. If you put more in [or do less work] it will make you fidget, increase your stress, or resist feeling hungry to try maintain its weight and Kcal burn. Of those two system the Kcal burn is the stronger driver, so it will put on or loose weight, but try to maintain the Kcal expenditure above most other things. It only has a limited arsenal, so eventually you'll loose or (more easily) gain weight.
It's why you plateau when after weeks of successful weight loss; you suddenly can't seem to loose weight anymore, or are even more hungry than usual; its your body (unconsciously) trying to stop loosing any more weight. You have to eat even less, or run for longer/faster to maintain that steady loss, that up to that point has been reasonably easy. - and your body will still try to find systems that it can cut energy use to before it will give up on that Kcal burn.
All other things being equal (your diet doesn't change for instance) If you just run more, or cycle more, you won't generally loose weight. You'll just become more fatigued so you sit still, or sleep, or your body will make you hungry, or eventually you'll just become more efficient at doing that thing - which is why elite athletes still spend the same energy day to day as we do, they're just able to either go further or faster, or why some big lads can seem to just diesel their way through a 100km roadie. Your body really doesn't want to spend any more than its base 2000-2500Kcal and will try very very hard not to change that.
What scientist are saying is that the Human body (generally) will try to use about 2000-2500Kcal a day, and maintain weight. Regardless of what you do day to day (go for a run, hunt an animal for tea, chop some coal out of a tunnel underground, sit at your desk) you (your body) will try very very hard to stick to that expenditure and weight. If you put less in [or do more work] it will cut energy use from other things that you’re not consciously aware of to try to maintain that base expenditure and weight. it will cut use to your our immune system, reproduction, it will force you to rest more, stop fidgeting, make you hungry, become more efficient. If you put more in [or do less work] it will make you fidget, increase your stress, or resist feeling hungry to try maintain its weight and Kcal burn. Of those two system the Kcal burn is the stronger driver, so it will put on or loose weight, but try to maintain the Kcal expenditure above most other things. It only has a limited arsenal, so eventually you’ll loose or (more easily) gain weight.
It’s why you plateau when after weeks of successful weight loss; you suddenly can’t seem to loose weight anymore, or are even more hungry than usual; its your body (unconsciously) trying to stop loosing any more weight. You have to eat even less, or run for longer/faster to maintain that steady loss, that up to that point has been reasonably easy. – and your body will still try to find systems that it can cut energy use to before it will give up on that Kcal burn.
All other things being equal (your diet doesn’t change for instance) If you just run more, or cycle more, you won’t generally loose weight. You’ll just become more fatigued so you sit still, or sleep, or your body will make you hungry, or eventually you’ll just become more efficient at doing that thing – which is why elite athletes still spend the same energy day to day as we do, they’re just able to either go further or faster, or why some big lads can seem to just diesel their way through a 100km roadie. Your body really doesn’t want to spend any more than its base 2000-2500Kcal and will try very very hard not to change that.
Which is all very interesting and explains why losing weight is hard, but many people do, so how does that happen?
which is why elite athletes still spend the same energy day to day as we do
Pretty sure pro roadies use up more energy a day than I do
so how does that happen?
Because your body will give up or gain weight before changing its energy expenditure.
Pretty sure pro roadies use up more energy a day than I do
Bet you 50p they don't. Remember that they will eat a metric-shit tonne of food while doing their fast sprints or mega-long rides, when it all evens out their bodies will have burned through about 2000-2500Kcal on an average day.
I don’t think this thread had the intended effect… I’ve just ordered two month’s worth of Huel for lunch.
Bet you 50p they don’t. Remember that they will eat a metric-shit tonne of food while doing their fast sprints or mega-long rides, when it all evens out their bodies will have burned through about 2000-2500Kcal on an average day.
Is this some satire I don't get? So you are saying MVDP averages the same calorie burn as me over say a year? Where do all those watts come from, does he ride so fast the first law of thermodynamics goes backwards or does he spend his non race or training days comatose?
Comparing just you to just MVDP is too niche for it to be worthwhile, but if you're comparing average office workers to a whole bunch of 'average' athletes* then yes, over time; their bodies use the same energy as you do. Remember folks like MVDP will eat huge amounts after a stage and will sit on their arses until its time to ride again. Over time, he's using that same Kcal burn as the rest of us. He's just much much more efficient. But again, comparing you (average joe) to outliers like those guys isn't really worthwhile.
* if that's not too much of an oxymoron
Every time scientists measure humans to see if people doing exercise use more calories than sitting on your arse all day, then answer is always; No, no they don't. Some scientist think its that stress can significantly increase your calorie burn, stressed people can see 40% more calories burned than non stressed people so it's not nothing.
Comparing just you to just MVDP is too niche for it to be worthwhile, but if you’re comparing average office workers to a whole bunch of ‘average’ athletes* then yes, over time; their bodies use the same energy as you do. Remember folks like MVDP will eat huge amounts after a stage and will sit on their arses until its time to ride again. Over time, he’s using that same Kcal burn as the rest of us.
So you are saying MVDP uses the same number of calories a year as me?
He’s just much much more efficient.
At what exactly, he must spend his off days in a coma 😄
Every time scientists measure humans to see if people doing exercise use more calories than sitting on your arse all day, then answer is always; No
Really, everytime? Amazing
At what exactly, he must spend his off days in a coma
More or less. His body will be much more efficient than yours at doing regular stuff, plus I'll bet that if he didn't have a doctor looking after him everyday, he'd get more colds, and they'd last longer than yours. But yes if you and MVDP are running side by side on treadmills and let's say for the sake of the experiment that you weigh the same, you'll use the same (roughly) amount of calories, even if MVDP can kill you on any climb you care to race him up.
Every time scientists measure humans to see if people doing exercise use more calories than sitting on your arse all day, then answer is always; No, no they don’t. Some scientist think its that stress can significantly increase your calorie burn, stressed people can see 40% more calories burned than non stressed people so it’s not nothing.
Have they ever measured pro athletes? The tests all appear to be on hunter/gatherers, miners, manual workers etc, all of whom I'd imagine try as hard as possible not to push themselves to the limits that pro athletes do. I know that everyone I work with (manual job) takes every opportunity to save energy (and will stop and rest if it's all getting a bit much), whereas a pro athelete in a hard training block is doing exactly the opposite.
I'm curious to know if there's a level at which the body does require more calories. There are numerous stories about pro athletes eating thousands and thousands of calories but none where they say 'nah, we eat the same amount as everybody else.'
I'd agree that yes the body is naturally trying to seek equilibrium but the idea that people who are extremely active burn the same calories as someone who is sedentary (because they fidget!) is patently absolute nonsense. You can argue with NASA if you like, they seem to think their astronauts use 3500 calories/day
kind of back on-topic, the idea that "high tech" or lab made foods cannot possibly be healthy is also misguided IMO. I think in the future these kinds of food, including lab-grown meat, will not only be commonplace but quite necessary to efficiently feed a rapidly growing population. Obviously Huel isn't currently marketed as such, but surely it would be a good idea for famines/disaster relief etc (where water is available of course!) as it's efficiently transported, doesn't go off & provides everything required to keep people alive etc etc.
is patently absolute nonsense.
They do say that the idea that "if you exercise more, you'll loose weight" is the last diet/exercise/health zombie myth left to die...
But yes if you and MVDP are running side by side on treadmills and let’s say for the sake of the experiment that you weigh the same, you’ll use the same (roughly) amount of calories
Even though he is pushing out more watts? Amazing.
Of course it is nonsense our virologist came to this conclusion because he misread the miners' study. He quoted that study as saying the miners used energy 2,200 and 2,800 kCal per day and this shows that the body reaches equilibrium etc at that point even though they did hard physical work. Unfortunately the study didn't say that it says the miners used that amount of energy whilst at work. When you take into account the energy they use during the rest of their day, their energy usage averages 3,500 kCal.
Rowers in programmes at elite rowing British Universities are consuming 5,000 to 6,000 kCal pretty much for the whole of the year - they get double portions for the same price as one at Durham - an impossibility if van Tulleken is to be believed. He is a media hack.
Humans aren't magical creatures. If you weigh say 75kg and you go run a marathon, Of course tomorrow you'll probably weigh less. But over time, you'll get back to 75kg, and every time you run a marathon, the weight-loss the following day will be less and less, until one day, the scales won't budge at all.
Of course it is nonsense our virologist came to this conclusion because he misread the miners’ study.
You keep saying that, and yet, I still believe him over you.
He is a media hack.
And you're trolling, so it seems to have a neat symmetry, don't you think?
You keep saying that, and yet, I still believe him over you.
One can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You should pay attention to AA though, he is a scientist and has a Phd.
And you’re trolling, so it seems to have a neat symmetry, don’t you think?
Just expressing my opinion, he is all over the Daily Mail.
he is a scientist and has a Phd.
Cool, my wife's a doctor and also has a Phd, I'm not going to ask her for advice on human metabolism either.
But you are happy to take advice from someone else who has no specialism in it - weird.
Who is "they"?? For a person within "normal" ranges already, yes, because the more you exercise, the more calories you need or you become ill. It's not because the body can magically do massively more work with the [I]same[/I] number of calories. For people who are (very) obese, no, absolutely if you exercise more you will lose weight (unless they specifically have an unusual condition) - quite rapidly actually (as mentioned before, the body [I]does[/I] naturally want to seek a healthy equilibrium).They do say that the idea that “if you exercise more, you’ll loose weight” is the last diet/exercise/health zombie myth left to die…
The problem is that a lot of people are over estimating the effects of exercise on calorie usage. If someone trying to lose weight walks for an hour a day that is not a whole lot of calories used is it and if they don't do anything at all different with their diet they are not going to see much of a result. Especially if they do slightly less for the other 23 hours with consciously knowing it.
This is not about pro level athletes it is about the other 99% of people...
I watched an interview with someone who escaped North Korea, all this chat on how to burn calories better is really making me think how crazy this country is, when there is people starving in other countries.
Even when I was a kid, my pal used to eat around my house as his mom often didn't feed him.
The world's gone mad....
You should pay attention to AA though, he is a scientist and has a Phd.
To be fair I only studied wild flowers!
I've already highlighted that your 'EAT' is only a small portion of your dailly calorie expenditure, according to some people only 5%.
Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (EAT) contributes ~5% to total daily energy burn.
https://www.modus-energy.com/tdee/
Speaking of the Van Tulleken's they have a new series on Radio 4 which started today - on exercise
Also on that page is a link to a short clip of Herman Pontzer talking about the Hadza experiment.
um, it literally says in bold within that linked article:I’ve already highlighted that your ‘EAT’ is only a small portion of your dailly calorie expenditure, according to some people only 5%.
Daily activity level has an enormous impact on the calories you burn.
I’ve already highlighted that your ‘EAT’ is only a small portion of your dailly calorie expenditure, according to some people only 5%.
Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (EAT) contributes ~5% to total daily energy burn.
https://www.modus-energy.com/tdee//blockquote >
I am not sure that link says what you think it says, or have I missed your point?NEAT: Increase your general activity level during the day – if you have a sedentary job, dedicate specific times of day that you will stand up and walk around.
TEF: Your diet should contain adequate protein (0.8 -1 g/lb. of bodyweight) and contain carbohydrates sources that are high in fiber and minimally processed. Fats should remain in your diet from healthy sources.
EAT: Get some form of dedicated exercise 3-4 x week. Ideally, incorporate resistance training in your routine to support lean mass retention and fat loss/muscle gain, which will drive further increases across all key elements of total daily energy expenditure.
It basically says move more and eat less
Interestingly that GCN video debunks the link between exercise and weight loss.
So does my belly. But I did lose a bit of weight when I was doing 8-10 hour riding days on a trip last year 😀
I do a lot of work on weight loss programmes (the ones that local authorities offer, not diets), and I'd estimate about 80% of the time is spent on food and eating - with about 20% on exercise and social aspects.
I'm not saying this is because exercise can't lead to weight loss. Obviously it can. It's just much more achievable for most people (especially those referred by their GP to a weight loss programme) to reduce their calorie consumption.
Calorie counting isn't really pushed, but it's useful to understand about calories, knowing healthier alternatives and getting people cooking for themselves. The NHS Eatwell Guide is the main resource provided and is a nice simple guide to nutrition: Eatwell Guide (publishing.service.gov.uk)
The NHS Eatwell Guide
Oh my goodness, you need to come and talk to a couple of my patients who're both obsessed (and I use the word advisedly) with low carb diets and the 'evil' (their words) that is the Eatwell Guide. 😂
You say semantics but I never made up this stuff, merely referring to it.
Oh my goodness, you need to come and talk to a couple of my patients who’re both obsessed (and I use the word advisedly) with low carb diets and the ‘evil’ (their words) that is the Eatwell Guide.
This subject does generate strong opinions - as we've seen in this thread.
Low-carb diets clearly work for some, but then people get all evangelical about it.
Probably the same people who get all obsessive about Manitou forks on the internet.