How much physical activity is needed to prevent weight gain?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
nightling is offline nightling Post #1  April 21,2010, 8:59am
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,901

See profile

The latest study suggests federal recommendations are too low. It's discouraging maybe a little bit, but don't take this study as a be all end all. It's just a data point. All this stuff is still being worked out so it's just something to keep in mind in your exercise programs if you're not getting where you want to be under current guidelines.

Amount of physical activity needed to prevent long-term weight gain

"These data suggest that the 2008 federal recommendation for 150 minutes per week, while clearly sufficient to lower the risks of chronic diseases, is insufficient for weight gain prevention absent caloric restriction. Physical activity was inversely related to weight gain only among normal-weight women; among heavier women, there was no relation, emphasizing the importance of controlling caloric intake for weight maintenance in this group."
 
  Reply With Quote
TheThinker is offline TheThinker Post #2  April 21,2010, 9:17am
TheThinker's Avatar

And now for something completely different...

Power Poster

Joined: Aug 2009

The Island of Rhode

Posts: 5,660

See profile

More than the calories you take in, is pretty much how I understand it.
 
  Reply With Quote
nightling is offline nightling Post #3  April 21,2010, 9:39am
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,901

See profile

TheThinker wrote :
More than the calories you take in, is pretty much how I understand it.
It'd be nice if it were really that simple, TheThinker, but it isn't. The body can draw from three different calorie pools at any given time, the food you eat, the fat stores you have, the very muscles you carry can all feed metabolism and the body has mechanisms to adjust it up and down depending on what it seems is the feast or famine situation based on what your diet suggests.

If you cut calories back, the body can steal muscle to regulate your metabolism downward, and so in spite of cutting back calories and exercising more you don't get anywhere.

In my own case, I didn't diet, I continued to eat a normal break -even diet, yet still lost fat. I was at first quite surprised, but after much research and reading, what I've figured out is that it was a result of the body's two-stage use of energy pools. First it uses up glycogen, then it turns to fat. If you exercise long enough to burn off all your temporary glycogen stores, you start to burn fat. If you've eaten a break-even amount of food that day, the fat won't be replaced. So you lose even though you're not really restricting calories.

Restricting calories too much or burning off too much fat at once can instigate a famine cycle where the body slows metabolism by using muscle and protein to supplement calories. You then need fewer calories to get by. Progress ceases despite calorie restriction or increased exercise.

Hence the question of how long to exercise is a very important one, and it's based on a balance that is not necessarily completely understood.

I feel based on my personal experiences that the best thing to do is start an exercise program without calorie restriction and use that time to figure out how long it takes you to exhaust glycogen, and then exercise 30minutes beyond that point to burn some fat. For me, it has been roughly a 30 minute all-out steady run, followed by 30 minutes on an exercise bike.

If you burn too much fat at once I believe based on my own experiences with this that you'll trigger a metabolism adjustment downward, and progress becomes difficult or just stops. The workouts can't be sustained. Slow and steady is better.

So no ... it's not really as simple as you suggest.
Last edited by nightling; April 21,2010 at 9:41am.
 
  Reply With Quote
TheThinker is offline TheThinker Post #4  April 21,2010, 10:09am
TheThinker's Avatar

And now for something completely different...

Power Poster

Joined: Aug 2009

The Island of Rhode

Posts: 5,660

See profile

yes, different people will burn calories...differently.
They'll always be anomalies in every test group, but for the vast majority of people it come down to two things: controlling intake with balance of activity.
The very end of the article you posted says this:

"These data suggest that the 2008 federal recommendation for 150 minutes per week, while clearly sufficient to lower the risks of chronic diseases, is insufficient for weight gain prevention absent caloric restriction. Physical activity was inversely related to weight gain only among normal-weight women; among heavier women, there was no relation, emphasizing the importance of controlling caloric intake for weight maintenance in this group."

So, from what they are saying, what I get is:
basically if you're heavy...you absolutely do have to control caloric intake.

I have yet to meet anyone who can honestly tell me they are reducing their total calorie intake, while increasing their calories "burned", and yet yet not lose weight(fat).

Sure, you will gain weight in muscle, but as that muscle gains in mass...it needs a larger amount of calories to sustain itself...if you are maintaining an minimal level of protein intake the first place your body looks for that..is fat.
Last edited by TheThinker; April 21,2010 at 10:18am.
 
  Reply With Quote
nightling is offline nightling Post #5  April 21,2010, 11:00am
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,901

See profile

TheThinker wrote :
yes, different people will burn calories...differently.
They'll always be anomalies in every test group, but for the vast majority of people it come down to two things: controlling intake with balance of activity.
The very end of the article you posted says this:

"These data suggest that the 2008 federal recommendation for 150 minutes per week, while clearly sufficient to lower the risks of chronic diseases, is insufficient for weight gain prevention absent caloric restriction. Physical activity was inversely related to weight gain only among normal-weight women; among heavier women, there was no relation, emphasizing the importance of controlling caloric intake for weight maintenance in this group."

So, from what they are saying, what I get is:
basically if you're heavy...you absolutely do have to control caloric intake.

I have yet to meet anyone who can honestly tell me they are reducing their total calorie intake, while increasing their calories "burned", and yet yet not lose weight(fat).

Sure, you will gain weight in muscle, but as that muscle gains in mass...it needs a larger amount of calories to sustain itself...if you are maintaining an minimal level of protein intake the first place your body looks for that..is fat.
If it was as simple as you think, most people would be as thin as they like, bc they'd know exactly what to do and would do it.

The body is just not linear in everything. In some things it's more like a bell curve, and you have to hit the right range for both calories and exercise, or you'll find yourself in the range of decreasing benefits and get nowhere.

I am not going to argue with you any further, but I do see it happen to people all the time at the gym. Having myself succeeded at losing a lot of fat, I think I do have a little expertise to offer here.

Editing to add ... The most common reason I see people fail is they restrict calories too much and then can't metabolically sustain working out for the long haul. It takes energy to sustain a work out, people! You can't eat like a bird and work out like a tiger.

People would be much better off imo to eat normally at the start of their new exercise program until their metabolism and fitness are running very high level, then cut back calories slowly to just the point where they start losing ... if they even need to cut back at all. I didn't for the first 40 pounds or so.
Last edited by nightling; April 21,2010 at 11:51am.
 
  Reply With Quote
TheThinker is offline TheThinker Post #6  April 21,2010, 2:38pm
TheThinker's Avatar

And now for something completely different...

Power Poster

Joined: Aug 2009

The Island of Rhode

Posts: 5,660

See profile

nightling wrote :
If it was as simple as you think, most people would be as thin as they like, bc they'd know exactly what to do and would do it.
I's not simple at all, nor did I say it was.
losing weight is tough...it takes constant effort & comittment.

wrote :
I am not going to argue with you any further
Who's arguing?
Last edited by TheThinker; April 21,2010 at 2:41pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
szgorzelski is offline szgorzelski Post #7  April 24,2010, 6:13am
szgorzelski's Avatar

is on beercation.

Veteran

Joined: Jan 2010

Fort Eustis, VA

Posts: 1,412

See profile

You guys are a little off topic. You're talking about gaining and losing fat and muscle. The topic is "weight". Very simply, if you eat more calories than you expend then you gain weight, and vice cersa. The second part of the topic is physical activity. The more physically active you are the more you can (or need to) eat, or lose weight, or both. This requires no further explanation.
 
  Reply With Quote
TheThinker is offline TheThinker Post #8  April 24,2010, 1:13pm
TheThinker's Avatar

And now for something completely different...

Power Poster

Joined: Aug 2009

The Island of Rhode

Posts: 5,660

See profile

szgorzelski wrote :
You guys are a little off topic. You're talking about gaining and losing fat and muscle. The topic is "weight". Very simply, if you eat more calories than you expend then you gain weight, and vice cersa. The second part of the topic is physical activity. The more physically active you are the more you can (or need to) eat, or lose weight, or both. This requires no further explanation.
That pretty much what I said.
 
  Reply With Quote
NYCpigeon is online now NYCpigeon Post #9  May 16,2010, 2:59pm
NYCpigeon's Avatar

There are oceans of feelings between us

Veteran

Joined: Oct 2009

Brooklyn, NY

Posts: 1,163

See profile

Low Intensity - 60-65% MHR High Intensity - 80-85% MHR Total Calories expended per min.4.866.86Fat Calories expended per min.2.432.7Total Calories expended in 30 min.146206Total Fat calories expended in 30 min.7382Percentage of fat calories burned50%39.85%
The body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat in the 'fat burning zone' or at lower intensities. But, at higher intensities, you burn a greater number of overall calories which is what you should be concerned about when trying to lose weight. The chart below details the fat calories expended by a 130-pound woman during cardio exercise:

The above information helps to demonstrate that when you work out, you will lose both fat and glycogen as fuel. The ratio of fat to muscle changes depending on intensity and duration. The above chart only shows intensity.

From what I have read, I understand that after 30 minutes of cardio, you will dramatically increase the ratio of fat to muscle burned (meaning you'll lose more fat).

When I increased my cardio workout from 30 to 40 minutes, I noticed a dramatic difference in the amount of fat I was burning. The minutes from 30 to 40 are very powerful and are worth the effort for me. Also, I work out at 85% capacity (referring to the chart above). And this also allows for more total fat burned.
Last edited by NYCpigeon; May 17,2010 at 4:04am.
 
  Reply With Quote
nightling is offline nightling Post #10  May 22,2010, 9:22am
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,901

See profile

NYCpigeon wrote :
Low Intensity - 60-65% MHR High Intensity - 80-85% MHR Total Calories expended per min.4.866.86Fat Calories expended per min.2.432.7Total Calories expended in 30 min.146206Total Fat calories expended in 30 min.7382Percentage of fat calories burned50%39.85%
The body does burn a higher percentage of calories from fat in the 'fat burning zone' or at lower intensities. But, at higher intensities, you burn a greater number of overall calories which is what you should be concerned about when trying to lose weight. The chart below details the fat calories expended by a 130-pound woman during cardio exercise:

The above information helps to demonstrate that when you work out, you will lose both fat and glycogen as fuel. The ratio of fat to muscle changes depending on intensity and duration. The above chart only shows intensity.

From what I have read, I understand that after 30 minutes of cardio, you will dramatically increase the ratio of fat to muscle burned (meaning you'll lose more fat).

When I increased my cardio workout from 30 to 40 minutes, I noticed a dramatic difference in the amount of fat I was burning. The minutes from 30 to 40 are very powerful and are worth the effort for me. Also, I work out at 85% capacity (referring to the chart above). And this also allows for more total fat burned.
That time frame seems about the same as what I"m experiencing Pidge. I have gotten to where I can tell the glycogen stores are gone ... the tiredness, the increase of body heat ... factors like that. It almost always hits for me at about the 25 to 30 minute mark. I go another 30 minutes after that and then I'm done for the day.

I do believe if you get your calories too low the body just cuts your muscle down and slows you down by making you feel tired the entire rest of the day. You're eating fewer calories, so the body just adjusts your energy level to match what's available and you don't lose a thing. I have had better luck just staying in range of the right calorie zone for me normally, rather than dieting, and just boosting my activity levels.

Just my 2 fwiw.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Fat Loss Tips | Health & Wellness | Those darned cravings »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Women and weight dure204 Relationships 197 July 1,2011 5:46pm
How I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for 14 years- RoxyRedhead Health & Wellness 16 September 7,2010 6:32pm
"elite" dating site boots "fatties" for holiday weight gain - thoughts? eHA_Admin_Lori Dating 93 January 17,2010 9:24pm
weight insecurity when meeting new people reenz Ask a Dating Expert 21 August 26,2009 8:36am
Marriage and weight gain question garagecapital Relationships 105 August 25,2009 12:05pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“The tennis ball story is a good analogy, RD, and that's how I interpret "gut feeling" -- a conclusion/sense of something that's a thought, not a feeling; though it will have feelings associated with ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion

“Agree. Given where you are emotionally, I would cease all communication with Mr. Trade Show. You're vulnerable. He's up for a challenge. It's playing with fire. You'll be in a bad place in the ... ” –  emma_hazards

Join the “Received lovely email from former poofer” discussion

“How about phone calls, then?” –  barbarella_42

Join the “Advice on Response time” discussion

“I have never spoken to a woman like he has. Yeah, I have never spoken to a woman like that either. It is a hard call to whether he is just as jerk, or whether he is a player. Both are feasible ... ” –  ScottK

Join the “So, men. Explain this to me, please!” discussion

“I have come to this same conclusion. Thank you.” –  bibittyboo

Join the “Confused about date #2” discussion

“Harmonygirl, I do not usually make up my mind on blanket situations but instead would examine each one on it's own merits, so I cannot answer your question. However, just in the going about of daily ... ” –  Ephemera

Join the “Atheism, Religion and Tolerance” discussion

“I was ok until the kiss on the cheek part....That doesn't sound like your defenses were up at all... It's one thing for a guy to walk up and start with the cheesy lines....But as soon as I say, "no ... ” –  Ingytravel

Join the “So this guy walks into a bar . . .” discussion

“ No. It is not wise. You have to throw all your eggs into one basket for love to work at all. Relationships are inherently riskier than careers. You can't use the same rules. You might lose ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Becoming Exclusive” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:25am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0