I am fat...but I am trying! I am fat...but I am trying!

[Jeanette401]

I have to put in my 2 cents for 'calories burned is good' even if it's low intensity.

The principle I'm illustrating again and again is the value of exercise is NOT the calories burnt while exercising. Trying to loose fat that way is the slowest, longest, hardest path.

And I have to disagree, based on my personal experience. (NB: I realize that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'). But I've lost weight without exercising at all - in fact, changing my diet caused a bigger response than pushing myself with trying to become a runner... Not only that, but burning extra calories does matter. I don't mean 'Oh, I park an extra 10 feet away from the store', I mean that I traded in 10+ hours a week that used to be sitting on my butt playing video games for that time spent on my feet doing crafts or housework or something that burns more calories than just sitting down.

And what happened? I could eat more, and instead of having to 'diet' periodically to keep from putting on weight, it started going away!

Don't get me wrong, I am trying to incorporate HIIT and resistance training into my plans, but at the same time I don't think you can say that there is so little value in just burning the calories. If all I cared was about that, and not about increasing my endurance or strength etc, I could never work up a sweat and still lose weight at a reasonable pace.

I think HIIT is a good way to give your plans a kick in the butt (and a lot less boring than an hour on the tread mill), but pushing yourself to the limit isn't the only way. Calories burned still matter - and I think it's not just possible, but actually likely, that 10+ hours of activity contributes more to my weight loss than 1.5 hours a week of 'high intensity activity'.

I think it's also easy to look for a magic bullet solution - and by all means, if low intensity calorie burning doesn't work for you, it doesn't work. But that doesn't mean it's useless for everyone, or that everyone needs to be on the same plan. Our bodies are so wildly different, it would be almost silly to think that there's one plan that will work best for everyone.

 

[Steve]

The principle I'm illustrating again and again is the value of exercise is NOT the calories burnt while exercising. Trying to loose fat that way is the slowest, longest, hardest path.

And what I'm trying to tell you over and over again is you're wrong. Update your knowledge regarding EPOC.

Steve you have to know this already. Just because someone else is saying it doesn't make it wrong.

No. I believe it's the other way around. This isn't about ego. It's about integrity of information and you spewing what you think you know b/c you heard a couple of gurus say so or read a book or two.

When you're flat wrong once you factor in the most current research on the subject.

 

[Sage]

And what I'm trying to tell you over and over again is you're wrong. Update your knowledge regarding EPOC.

Steve, sorry to mis-understand the frame you operate from.

Wisdom does not come from data.

The EPOC study you quote is only accounting for 1 small piece to the total picture as I highlighted in my other posts.

It is easy to be mislead if you only have a part of the whole.

No worries though. Holding the calories burned while exercising module can still get you results. Not, though, what you could get with a more complete understanding of the overall picture.

No. I believe it's the other way around. This isn't about ego. It's about integrity of information and you spewing what you think you know b/c you heard a couple of gurus say so or read a book or two.

When you're flat wrong once you factor in the most current research on the subject.

Steve, is the EPOC study you reference the reason you hold this belief?

If integrity of information is so important to you, which it should be of course, and not ego, then I would suggest putting your ego aside for a moment and consider something outside of your current paradigm.

Every hypothesis should certainly be tested with a carefully designed experiment according to the scientific process. If you belief the EPOC study you reference does that... well, I would consider stepping back, reviewing the study a little more carefully and seeing what it is really saying.

I have found people will defend to the death their erroneous beliefs before they will have the courage to question them. From the nature of the responses here, it seems nothing has changed.

If you want to know more about the fundamental principle I've tried to illustrate I will be glad to help anyone. So long as you are sincere about it. If you want to argue, try to make right or wrong, or come from ego I'm not that person. I don't care to build my ego or make anyone wrong. And I certainly don't have the time to argue. I simply have a sincere desire to help where I can.

Cheers

 

[Steve]

Steve, sorry to mis-understand the frame you operate from.

Wisdom does not come from data.

The EPOC study you quote is only accounting for 1 small piece to the total picture as I highlighted in my other posts.

Actually no. It's a meta analysis.

It is easy to be mislead if you only have a part of the whole.

I believe you are walking proof of this.

No worries though. Holding the calories burned while exercising module can still get you results. Not, though, what you could get with a more complete understanding of the overall picture.

Sage, after you read and comprehend this entire post, I will anxiously await your rebuttal. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what you think I'm missing in terms of "the overall picture" here.

Keep in mind the research review I post below.

Keep in mind real world results pertaining to caloric expenditure is a recordable metric nowadays quite easily.

I'm just about sick of your fucking preaching. It's quite simple folks. If you're seriously interested in this 'debate', which I highly doubt anyone is at this point, take a look at an article written by Lyle McDonald regarding this very topic.

Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption
LaForgia J et. al. Effects of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. J Sports Sci. 2006 Dec;24(12):1247-64.

Recovery from a bout of exercise is associated with an elevation in metabolism referred to as the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). A number of investigators in the first half of the last century reported prolonged EPOC durations and that the EPOC was a major component of the thermic effect of activity. It was therefore thought that the EPOC was a major contributor to total daily energy expenditure and hence the maintenance of body mass. Investigations conducted over the last two or three decades have improved the experimental protocols used in the pioneering studies and therefore have more accurately characterized the EPOC. Evidence has accumulated to suggest an exponential relationship between exercise intensity and the magnitude of the EPOC for specific exercise durations. Furthermore, work at exercise intensities >or=50-60% VO2max stimulate a linear increase in EPOC as exercise duration increases. The existence of these relationships with resistance exercise at this stage remains unclear because of the limited number of studies and problems with quantification of work intensity for this type of exercise. Although the more recent studies do not support the extended EPOC durations reported by some of the pioneering investigators, it is now apparent that a prolonged EPOC (3-24 h) may result from an appropriate exercise stimulus (submaximal: >or=50 min at >or=70% VO2max; supramaximal: >or=6 min at >or=105% VO2max). However, even those studies incorporating exercise stimuli resulting in prolonged EPOC durations have identified that the EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of the exercise. But this figure may need to be increased when studies utilizing intermittent work bouts are designed to allow the determination of rest interval EPOCs, which should logically contribute to the EPOC determined following the cessation of the last work bout. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the earlier research optimism regarding an important role for the EPOC in weight loss is generally unfounded. This is further reinforced by acknowledging that the exercise stimuli required to promote a prolonged EPOC are unlikely to be tolerated by non-athletic individuals. The role of exercise in the maintenance of body mass is therefore predominantly mediated via the cumulative effect of the energy expenditure during the actual exercise.

My comments: In the last year or three, exercise programs for fat loss have been geared around the concept of using certain types of training (either interval style cardio or highish rep/short rest weight training) to cause fat loss through an ‘afterburn‘ effect where calories are burned after workouts to a greater degree than following standard training styles (esp. low intensity cardio). Clearly from a real-world perspective, this type of training ‘works’.

Of course so do a lot of other kinds of training including the standard bodybuilder model of doing heavy weights to maintain muscle and using diet/low intensity cardio to lose fat but that’s neither here nor there right now. But a question is whether the high intensity interval types of programs are actually working via the mechanism of EPOC (as is usually claimed).

Put differently, there’s no doubt that there is an EPOC following training. The important question is what the actual magnitude of that calorie burn is and whether or not it’s reasonable to except amazing results based on EPOC per se. This paper looks at the topic in enormous detail.

The first topic discussed is what EPOC actually represents. An outdated concept is that the post-exercise calorie burn represented an ‘oxygen debt’ representing the difference between what the body needed and what was available, this turns out to be simplistic and wrong. Lactate metabolism, phosphate resynthesis and fatty acid cycling, along with increases in catecholamine levels are likely the cause of the post-exercise calorie burn. Ultimately, the mechanisms are less important than the fact that EPOC is the result of a metabolic perturbation that has to be ‘repayed’ afterwards.

I’m not going to detail the next section of the paper as it dealt with a bunch of boring methodological issues. Sufficed to say that accurate measurement of EPOC requires that certain methodologies be adhered to. One huge confound, which is likely the cause of the ‘exercise raises metabolism for 24 hours’ thing is due to a massive methodological flaw in early studies: they didn’t take into account the thermic effect of eating. It’s easy to mistake the thermic effect of eating with an effect of exercise. Good studies take this into account. Other issues such as taking into account baseline metabolic rate and subject characteristics are also important.

The next section of the paper deals with continuous exercise and the impact of both duration and intensity on EPOC. Without going into every paper detailed in the review, the picture that has developed from the research is that EPOC goes up linearly with increasing exercise duration but exponentially with increasing intensity. That is, higher intensity exercise generates the higher EPOC. This is true if the duration is the same or if the same number of calories are burned.

That is, if two people both burned 300 calories during exercise but one exercised at a high intensity and one at low intensity, the high intensity guy would get about double the EPOC. The problem is that, even under these conditions, the EPOC is still pretty minimal in an absolute sense (e.g. total number of calories burned).

In one study, subjects who exercised for 80 minutes at 70% VO2 max (about 80% of maximum heart rate) had an EPOC lasting 7 hours. But it only amounted to about 80 calories extra burned. Not to mention that only the most well trained individuals could sustain such a workload in the first place. As well, this still represented a rather small proportion of the total calorie burn from the exercise bout itself. That is, most of the calories burned were from the 80 minutes of exercise, the small EPOC only added a bit to that. Yeah, every little bit helps but which is going to contribute more to fat loss: the 700-800 calories burned during the exercise bout itself or the 80 calories burned afterwards?

Additionally, it appears that there is an intensity threshold to generate any EPOC at all, compared to exercise at 30-50% VO2 max (50% VO2 is about 65% of max HR or the typical ‘fat burning’ zone), exercise at 75% generates a larger EPOC. However, the total calorie burn is still relatively small overall, averaging perhaps 7% of the total energy burned.

So if you burn 600 calories with high intensity continuous exercise, you might burn an additional 45 afterwards. While this certainly adds up over long periods of time, it’s still relatively insignificant compared to the total energy expenditure of the exercise bout. Again, which is more important for fat loss:the 45 extra calories you burned via EPOC or the 600 calories you burned with the exercise bout itself?

The next section of the paper dealt with supramaximal work, intervals basically. Interestingly, the data available here finds that relatively short amounts of intervals can generate EPOCs comparable to much longer bouts of continuous exercise. Several studies measured EPOCs from relatively short interval workouts on par with studies using much longer (>50 minutes) of moderate intensity work.

 

[Steve]

Still, the total magnitude (total calories burned) of the EPOC was relatively small, equal to roughly 13% of the total energy used during the exercise bout (yes, about double the 7% of steady state but still small in absolute terms). So while the relative amount of calories burned after interval training is larger, the total amount is still small.

Let’s put this into real-world perspective. In one study, subjects ran 20X1 minute intervals above VO2 max with a 2? rest between. While the EPOC was about double that found in subjects who performed 30? at 70% Vo2 max, the total EPOC was only about 32 calories (135 kJ). Less than half an apple burned from EPOC. You’ll be ripped in about 15 years at that rate.

The next section of the paper dealt a little more with the issue of exercise duration as studies have identified an increase in EPOC with increasing durations. However, the effect is only significant for exercise performed at intensities greater than 50-60% VO2 max (60-72% max heart rate). However, unless folks are willing to do 60-90 minutes+ of training, this still doesn’t amount to very much in absolute terms. This is especially true of lower intensity exercise where prolonged durations of 90? or more are necessary to generate a prolonged EPOC; even there the absolute magnitude of calories burned is still small.

Finally the paper examines the impact of resistance training on EPOC. A number of studies have been performed and found fairly prolonged durations of EPOC (15-38 hours) and an increase in metabolic rate of 9-11% over that time period (so someone with a basal metabolic rate of 1600 calories per day might burn 160 calories extra). However, many of the studies used horribly unrealistic numbers of sets (60 sets of 8-12 in one study, 30 sets in another) and that certainly doesn’t represent the types of ‘metabolic’ workouts I’ve seen recommended. Interestingly, a study of women found a much shorter duration of EPOC (60-90 minutes); the reasons for this are unknown. The paper points out that the average trainee is unlikely to be able to sustain either the volumes (30-60 sets) or intensities used in these studies.

Finally, perhaps the most interesting study was the one using a relatively low volume of training (4 exercises for 4 sets of 10 each) in experienced lifters; in that study metabolic rate was significantly elevated for nearly 48 hours after lifting burning something like 700 calories extra over that time period (this was thought to represent the energy cost of protein synthesis and repairing muscle damage).

This study has never been replicated and the other studies examining the topic have not found nearly the same effect. Perhaps only experienced lifters can train hard enough to make EPOC significant. Perhaps the study was simply a fluke and the measured increase in metabolic rate didn’t actually occur. Without replication, nobody can really say.

The paper concludes that, despite the variability in studies, the intensity of exercise appears to be of the utmost importance in terms of generating an EPOC. No argument there. However, most studies indicate that the total magnitude of the EPOC is unlikely to be very large no matter what is done.

With interval type training, EPOC may approach 14% of the total energy expended but, generally speaking, interval training doesn’t burn as many calories during the bout so while the relative amount may be larger, the total EPOC is still small as noted above. For submaximal work, an EPOC of 7% is roughly the average. Even though the EPOC as a %age is smaller, the absolute magnitude of calories burned will still be larger. As well, odds are that the longer, less intensive steady state sessions burned more total calories during exercise. Steady state may still come out ahead here, I’ll come back to this in tomorrow’s follow-up blog post to put some concrete numbers to things.

As well, outside of trained individuals, most folks couldn’t sustain the durations (90?+) or intensities (80% maximum heart rate for steady state work or supra-maximal intervals) required to generate much of an EPOC in the first place. I would note that even beginners can work up to that level with a properly set up progressive program. One beef I tend to have with many exercise and fat loss studies is that the intensity or duration of the exercise is never increased as the folks become fitter. But that’s a separate topic for another day.

The paper suggests that focusing on maximizing the calorie burn of the exercise bout itself and issues of compliance should be the primary goal (e.g. beginners + high-intensity training tend to equal burnout, injuries and quitting exercise). Because even if you burn a few extra calories after the exercise bout, if you increase how many calories you burn with exercise by a couple of hundred, that couple of hundred will have a much larger impact than the 15 extra you burn because of it. Regardless of what you do.

Summing up: There is absolutely no doubt that higher intensity activity generates a larger EPOC, as measured by the percentage contribution. But like the fact that low intensity cardio burns a greater percentage of fat than higher intensity, this is misleading. 14% of a smaller calorie burn may still be smaller than 7% of a much larger burn. At the end of the day, outside of extremely unrealistic levels of exercise, the basic fact is that the absolute magnitude of the EPOC simply doesn’t amount to very much in the first place. One interval study, which found a 14% increase in metabolic rate via EPOC measured an irrelevant 32 calorie afterburn. Yayyy.

And while some weight training studies are suggestive of higher EPOC’s, the volumes used are typically absurd; the one study which showed a big afterburn from a low volume of training has never been replicated and there are more questions than answers here.

The simple fact is that the calories burned during activity are going to contribute the most to calorie burn, not EPOC and focusing on increasing that value is going to have a much larger impact on calorie balance (all other things equal) than worrying about EPOC.

Steve, is the EPOC study you reference the reason you hold this belief?

Sage, that paper was highlighting all the research on EPOC. It was a meta analysis.

Please learn research if you're going to get into debates. Especially if you're of the type who refuses to let go of preconceived beliefs without any supporting data.

So far you've done a ton of preaching and not much else.

And even more especially if you're going to run around internet forums spewing blanket advice that is flat wrong, have supporting experience that is relevant and/or data to build a sturdier ground to stand on.

If you don't want to believe me or if you are having continued problems with reading comprehension, here's a simple solution for you.

Buy a bodybugg.

And see when you're expending most of your calories.

I think you'll be surprised.

If integrity of information is so important to you, which it should be of course, and not ego, then I would suggest putting your ego aside for a moment and consider something outside of your current paradigm.

Every hypothesis should certainly be tested with a carefully designed experiment according to the scientific process. If you belief the EPOC study you reference does that... well, I would consider stepping back, reviewing the study a little more carefully and seeing what it is really saying.

Haha, have you read the study?

Better yet, have you read Lyle's review I just posted.

If not, I'd love to see you hash this out with Lyle over on his forum found here:

I have found people will defend to the death their erroneous beliefs before they will have the courage to question them. From the nature of the responses here, it seems nothing has changed.

Preach all you like. Paint pictures all you like.

The data doesn't support your claims. Real world doesn't support your claims. You're standing on no ground whatsoever. Yet you do so with confidence. That's a dangerous position to be in.

If you want to take your ignorance to your grave, so be it. Don't lecture people on a forum though if that's your MO.

If you want to know more about the fundamental principle I've tried to illustrate I will be glad to help anyone. So long as you are sincere about it. If you want to argue, try to make right or wrong, or come from ego I'm not that person. I don't care to build my ego or make anyone wrong. And I certainly don't have the time to argue. I simply have a sincere desire to help where I can.

Sure you do.

That means jack all in terms of the information you provide though. I know a lot of trainers that are sincere in their intentions but I wouldn't trust my own worst enemy getting advice and information from them.

 

[Steve]

And just to build a frame around the discussion here: All of my replies to you are generating from your original argument which said exactly:

Sure, slow, steady cardio exercise burns more fat then strength training. But, the fat burning only happens while you're doing the cardio and your metabolic rate will stay elevated less then an hour or so after. After that your body is back to is normal metabolic rate.

Where as if you strength train your metabolic rate goes up while training and stays up much longer afterwords. You burn more calories. Not only that, your muscle become more efficient at burning blood sugar. And as you build more muscle your base metabolic rate goes up 24/7.

You advice wasn't even applicable to any large degree due to the fact the OP is dieting. He's interested in weight loss. If you think a 230 lbs guy eating 1500kcal per day is going to be building enough muslce to alter his metabolic rate to an appreciable degree, you best think again.

But here we come full circle to your blanket recommendations, which, per the remainder of this post above, are inaccurate.

 

[babeez1]

bottom line...a pound of fat burns 2 calores a day and a pound of muscle burns 75...so get more muscle and you'll burn more calories...

 

[Jeanette401]

bottom line...a pound of fat burns 2 calores a day and a pound of muscle burns 75...so get more muscle and you'll burn more calories...

Um, not that getting more muscle is a bad idea, but according to , a pound of muscle only burns 6 calories, not 75... I'm not sure that site is 'the authority' but 3 times more than fat makes a lot more sense than 30+ times more!

 

[Steve]

bottom line...a pound of fat burns 2 calores a day and a pound of muscle burns 75...so get more muscle and you'll burn more calories...

No. That is completely false. And inapplicable. Christalmighty is this thread a train wreck.

 

[Steve]

Um, not that getting more muscle is a bad idea, but according to , a pound of muscle only burns 6 calories, not 75... I'm not sure that site is 'the authority' but 3 times more than fat makes a lot more sense than 30+ times more!

Exactly.

To boot, even if muscle had some super duper magical voodoo thermic power, how the fuck is someone who is dieting going to be adding mass amounts of muscle?

Come on people. Think for a change. At least critically assess the crap advice and information you're spewing to people who may not know any better.

A good question you might want to task yourselves before putting yourself in a position of authority is, "Do I have verifiable data to support my claim, have I thought about what the claim actually states, and how would said claim play out in the real world?"

1. Sage doesn't have the slightest clue about research methodology and quite obviously has zero experience measuring caloric expenditure.

2. Muscle does not burn 75 calories per pound.

3. Even if it did, you aren't going to add enough muscle to make a significant impact on metabolic rate when you're dieting.

4. Stevo, spam this forum one more time and you are permanently banned. I'd rather you simply go the hell away.

I could care less if you wanted to remain in the dark and keep it to yourselves. However, when you start preaching to a community of unknowing people, it's simply not fair for you to open the flood gates of ignorance that erupts from your mouths.

 

[SonofJorEl]

No offense but I'd say give him the ziggy right now.

Really irritates me...because there are people on here who struggle everyday with weightloss...it's hard enough without being misled by spammers promising a "quick fix" that doesn't work just to make money...