Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Better climbing, not looking
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


Partner robdotcalm


Oct 4, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #26 of 51 (2823 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
[Therefore, in order to lose weight, he needs to focus on refining his diet.

Actually, he needs to work on un-refining his diet and minimize highly refined food.

Wink

rob.calm


rico_1978


Oct 5, 2012, 12:49 AM
Post #27 of 51 (2808 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 5, 2012
Posts: 1

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hi Matthew,

I've just noticed this review site and there is a fat burning guide reviewed on it. not sure if it will help or not but certainly worth looking at.

http://bluebonsai.co.uk/the-fat-loss-factor-review/

Cheers

Rich


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 5:48 AM
Post #28 of 51 (2792 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
jt512 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

You need to consumer fewer calories. Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness.

Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination. Studies consistently show that it is easier to lose weight and keep it off when you combine exercise and diet.

Jay

Of course weight loss is the result of a caloric deficit. And yes, That deficit can come from reduced intake or from burning more calories, or a combination of the two.

And so you agree, then, that your previous statement, "Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness," was bullshit.

Jay

Did you read what I said? Or are you just stroking that monumental ego of yours? You must have gotten far too much priase as a child.


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 5:58 AM
Post #29 of 51 (2790 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.


potreroed


Oct 5, 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #30 of 51 (2731 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1449

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Watch your diet and get a mountain bike, it's a lot more fun than jogging.


carabiner96


Oct 5, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #31 of 51 (2727 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12529

Re: [potreroed] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm glad that my 'jogging' comment stirred things up, but what I really meant was if you're looking to lose weight, hitting that sweet green route at the gym ain't gonna do it.

The day you hear the sorority chicks saying 'OMG, spring break is only three weeks away, I totes need to lose 15 pounds before hitting up the bikini bar in Cabo...will you belay me at the gym?' will be a strange day indeed.


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #32 of 51 (2724 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [potreroed] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

potreroed wrote:
Watch your diet and get a mountain bike, it's a lot more fun than jogging.

It's more fun than jogging and climbing.


redlude97


Oct 5, 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #33 of 51 (2722 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.


jt512


Oct 5, 2012, 1:04 PM
Post #34 of 51 (2716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21891

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.

I probably should have emphasized exercise more in that article. Nonetheless it is specifically about diet.

*plonk*


(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 5, 2012, 1:06 PM)


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 1:05 PM
Post #35 of 51 (2715 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [redlude97] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.


redlude97


Oct 5, 2012, 1:15 PM
Post #36 of 51 (2709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.
Fine, ignore the exact weight of the person. 2 lbs/week is a pretty moderate weight loss goal that can be obtained by motivated individuals. IME this is done by combining both exersize and nutrition, but you claim that it can be done by focusing mainly on nutrition.


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 1:43 PM
Post #37 of 51 (2702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [redlude97] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.
Fine, ignore the exact weight of the person. 2 lbs/week is a pretty moderate weight loss goal that can be obtained by motivated individuals. IME this is done by combining both exersize and nutrition, but you claim that it can be done by focusing mainly on nutrition.

A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit, whether it's the result of an overall reduction in caloric intake, or reduced intake along with exercise.

I've assumed the OP was already working out in some form or another. My advice to him is that in order to lose weight he needs to focus on the quantity/quality of what he eats and not the amount of exercise that he does.

Matthew0718,
What's your diet look like? You into fast food? Beer, pizza? Sugar? Be honest.


redlude97


Oct 5, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #38 of 51 (2686 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.
Fine, ignore the exact weight of the person. 2 lbs/week is a pretty moderate weight loss goal that can be obtained by motivated individuals. IME this is done by combining both exersize and nutrition, but you claim that it can be done by focusing mainly on nutrition.

A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit, whether it's the result of an overall reduction in caloric intake, or reduced intake along with exercise.

I've assumed the OP was already working out in some form or another. My advice to him is that in order to lose weight he needs to focus on the quantity/quality of what he eats and not the amount of exercise that he does.
Thats a pretty bold assumption to make from this single statement
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.
I would have assumed he had no idea what he was doing, or just climbing to try to lose weight.

saint_john wrote:
A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit, whether it's the result of an overall reduction in caloric intake, or reduced intake along with exercise.
Of course, but at some point, you can only cut so many calories. Cutting 2-500 calories/day is relatively easy, but cutting 1000 is much harder. Most people find it easier to combine diet and exersize and the calorie deficict split say 50:50 or 500cals from diet and 500 from exercise.


potreroed


Oct 6, 2012, 9:18 PM
Post #39 of 51 (2634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1449

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'd choose climbing over mountain biking any day.


scotchie


Oct 8, 2012, 7:27 PM
Post #40 of 51 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 30, 2004
Posts: 260

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination.

Conservation of Energy - It's not just a good idea. It's the law. Smile


kf8mo


Oct 13, 2012, 8:05 PM
Post #41 of 51 (2468 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

There's a pile of research on this topic. I'm pretty familiar with it, as I earn money for climbing trips by being a professor of medicine. The generalization that diet is for weight loss, exercise is for fitness is roughly true, for typical recreational levels of exercise (i.e., not marathon and ultramarathon running or cycling, or amateur-elite or professional level training). Yes, the overall point is energy deficit, but creating the deficit through restricting intake, particularly intake of high-glycemic-index low-nutritional-value foods, is the most effective approach. That's the bottom line from quite a lot of well-done research.

That is not to say that exercise doesn't contribute. It does, in several ways. Though not as important as diet, it does contribute directly to the calorie deficit. It also protects muscle mass. With diet alone, muscle gets burned along with fat as the body deals with energy deficit. So, exercise is quite important in becoming healthier, as opposed to merely lighter. Exercise also makes it easier to lose weight when dieting, because it helps prevent the reduced metabolic rate that otherwise tends to happen when calories are restricted.

The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.


billcoe_


Oct 14, 2012, 8:14 AM
Post #42 of 51 (2438 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
There's a pile of research on this topic. I'm pretty familiar with it, as I earn money for climbing trips by being a professor of medicine. The generalization that diet is for weight loss, exercise is for fitness is roughly true, for typical recreational levels of exercise (i.e., not marathon and ultramarathon running or cycling, or amateur-elite or professional level training). Yes, the overall point is energy deficit, but creating the deficit through restricting intake, particularly intake of high-glycemic-index low-nutritional-value foods, is the most effective approach. That's the bottom line from quite a lot of well-done research.

That is not to say that exercise doesn't contribute. It does, in several ways. Though not as important as diet, it does contribute directly to the calorie deficit. It also protects muscle mass. With diet alone, muscle gets burned along with fat as the body deals with energy deficit. So, exercise is quite important in becoming healthier, as opposed to merely lighter. Exercise also makes it easier to lose weight when dieting, because it helps prevent the reduced metabolic rate that otherwise tends to happen when calories are restricted.

The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

Any links to studies supporting this?


jt512


Oct 14, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #43 of 51 (2409 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21891

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores.

All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned. If the body burns glycogen during exercise, then it will have to replace that glycogen from carbohydrate from the next few meals. That is carbohydrate that would have been burned for fuel had the exercise not been done. Since this carbohydrate is now not available for energy, the body must draw down that number of calories from fat stores to burn instead.

In reply to:
Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

One hour (or less) of higher-intensity exercise will be just as effective, and a lot more practical.

Jay


kf8mo


Oct 14, 2012, 3:55 PM
Post #44 of 51 (2403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned...

In theory one might think so. However, in practice it doesn't work out. Fat doesn't get burned to replace the carb intake that goes into replenishing glycogen (well, it does but just not to a useful extent). People just eat more after high-intensity exercise, the glycogen stores get replenished but the fat stores are protected. Worse, people crave carbs after high-intensity exercise, then spike their glucose and insulin levels, and can even end up adding fat.

If you really want to lose fat specifically, through-hike the Appalachian Trail. That's about the ultimate in long-duration, low-intensity exercise, plus it limits your access to calories. However, as you point out, practicality does become an issue there.

In re the question on references, sorry I don't have a bibliography to share, scrounging up a good lit review would take a couple hours I haven't to spare. I'll ask a sports-med colleague this week and if she has something readily to hand I'll share it.


jt512


Oct 14, 2012, 9:41 PM
Post #45 of 51 (2374 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21891

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
jt512 wrote:
All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned...

In theory one might think so. However, in practice it doesn't work out. Fat doesn't get burned to replace the carb intake that goes into replenishing glycogen (well, it does but just not to a useful extent). People just eat more after high-intensity exercise, the glycogen stores get replenished but the fat stores are protected. .

Please cite recent peer review research to back up these claims.

In reply to:
Worse, people crave carbs after high-intensity exercise, then spike their glucose and insulin levels, and can even end up adding fat.

Okay, so now you're claiming that high-intensity exercise actually causes gains in body fat. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're a crank. Of course, I'll happily apologize if you can convincingly support this claim by showing that you have the balance of peer review research on your side.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 14, 2012, 9:51 PM)


camhead


Oct 15, 2012, 6:53 AM
Post #46 of 51 (2350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20728

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
jt512 wrote:
All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned...

In theory one might think so. However, in practice it doesn't work out. ...

Dude, just step away from rc.com now. Mentioning anything beyond simple binary "theory" to JT512 just makes his head explode in confusion. In theory, he should be climbing 5.14. But in practice, he just topropes 5.12 on the internet.


camhead


Oct 15, 2012, 6:55 AM
Post #47 of 51 (2350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20728

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

In reply to:
Worse, people crave carbs after high-intensity exercise, then spike their glucose and insulin levels, and can even end up adding fat.

Okay, so now you're claiming that high-intensity exercise actually causes gains in body fat.

Case in point.

Vulcandonny winz rc.n00b.


amarius


Oct 15, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #48 of 51 (2331 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 107

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

Given, I am internet based researcher, but almost everything is just one click away. Here is one study that present slightly different commentary.
In short - aerobic at 70% of VO2Max increases resting energy expenditure
The commentary also emphasizes that more fit individuals, that is the ones with higher VO2Max, will burn more energy even at the same relative load. I don't feel like searching for references showing that VO2Max can only be increased if exercising at high intensity levels.

Then, there is study , which also presents similar results.
In short - 70% HIIT regime resulted in higher subcutaneous fat loss than 50% regime.

Perhaps there were studies done recently with different outcomes?


redlude97


Oct 15, 2012, 11:39 AM
Post #49 of 51 (2323 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [amarius] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

amarius wrote:
kf8mo wrote:
The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

Given, I am internet based researcher, but almost everything is just one click away. Here is one study that present slightly different commentary.
In short - aerobic at 70% of VO2Max increases resting energy expenditure
The commentary also emphasizes that more fit individuals, that is the ones with higher VO2Max, will burn more energy even at the same relative load. I don't feel like searching for references showing that VO2Max can only be increased if exercising at high intensity levels.

Then, there is study , which also presents similar results.
In short - 70% HIIT regime resulted in higher subcutaneous fat loss than 50% regime.

Perhaps there were studies done recently with different outcomes?
The problem that kf8mo is referring to is that humans suck at regulation, and when doing HIIT they end up eating more, canceling out much of the benefit. People are lazy sacks of shit, but truely motivated people will get the best results training at higher intensities and controlling their diet properly


kf8mo


Oct 16, 2012, 9:08 PM
Post #50 of 51 (2244 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [redlude97] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
The problem that kf8mo is referring to is that humans suck at regulation, and when doing HIIT they end up eating more, canceling out much of the benefit. People are lazy sacks of shit, but truely motivated people will get the best results training at higher intensities and controlling their diet properly

In the physiology lab, of course x minutes of exercise at 85% max burns more calories than x minutes at 70%, which is more than x minutes at 50%, and that results in weight loss.

In the world outside the lab however, human behavior happens.

It's not so simple as being lazy sacks of s@#!, it includes the fact that when there is not an exercise physiologist or registered dietician measuring our calorie intake, we are lousy at estimating it. So indeed we do overshoot when doing high-intensity exercise, and at least replenish the glycogen stores and often more. And we don't realize we're doing it. Even for the truly motivated, it's the diet part that pares off weight. Exercise contributes fitness and prevents muscle loss, but not weight loss unless combined with diet, and people randomized to diet + exercise don't lose more weight than those randomized to diet alone. (Again, caveat that this is ordinary recreational level exercise, the level you can get most people to do, does not apply to amateur-elite/pro/marathon athletes, military recruit "volunteers", or the hardcores who live in the gym.)

It's probably worse in real life than even that, because the studies are done with volunteers willing to be randomized. They're the most motivated people around. For Joe Average, it's likely even worse.

Overall though the best prescription is diet + exercise, because losing weight while becoming less fit is not helpful.


(This post was edited by kf8mo on Oct 16, 2012, 9:29 PM)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook