Constrained Energy Expenditure

[wildweasel]

I love cronometer. I was using Nourish’s app because I was seeing a nutritionist (for free through my health plan) for about 4 or 5 months and their proprietary app allowed me to take pictures of my meals and we had some pretty funny conversations around those pictures. The nutritionist convinced me that not all carbs are bad.

Yes, counting calories is powerful.

Same here I heard from so much people, including my family that carbs are what makes you fat and that fat and protein don’t.. and this is from people who are overweight telling me that

I learned from experience that’s all a lie. Calories make you fat not carbs specifically. You need adequate protein and adequate fat in a diet and every other calories is best received from carbohydrates.

 

[wildweasel]

Wrong wrong wrong.....

Cardio is good only for cardiovascular reasons.

I'm 6'2, 199 pounds (trying to get down to 190) and I eat almost 4000 calories (losing about 2 pounds a week). This is with weight training and about 10k "real" steps a day (15-20k total including weight training session).

But there's also a term called NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) where every action you do throughout the day; shake your legs, move/fidget constantly, parking at the back of the lot to walk a little extra, purposely walking through every aisle at a supermarket, any and all activity ---- this will also help with energy expenditure, or calorie burn.

IN THE END: ARE WE EXPENDING MORE CALORIES/ENERGY THAN WE CONSUME????

That is the question. It doesn't matter about intermittent fasting, OMAD (One meal a day), how much cardio we do because when you're done with cardio, that's it. No more energy burn whereas if you weight train and lift heavy, the energy expenditure will keep happening for another 24-36 hours AFTER your training session is finished.

Yes, if you stop eating carbs entirely, you'll lose mostly water weight at first, then as your body becomes stable and gets used to the keto effect, you'll have to adjust your calorie intake to ensure weight loss.

So, are you burning more calories than you're consuming.

This makes no sense other than your claim about total calories determining weight loss

If all that matters is the number of calories used/burned in a day then why is burning 1 calorie quickly with cardio somehow inferior to burning 1 calorie over the course of 48 hours lifting a weight… 1 calorie is 1 calorie you implicitly say so yourself… you say all that matters is calories, and then you say the calories from X don’t matter because the calories from Y are better

I train over 20 hours a week for my sport, that’s 6 days/week 3 hours daily and then shakeout runs on rest day

I burn 1200 calories every day running, probably around 30-50% more than what is burned during my daily 2 hour lifting sessions even when accounting for the recovery period that occurs over the following 2 days.

I trained my way down from 200lbs to 155lbs, low bf and muscular with no peptides or gear, by tracking macros and training… and I agree that calories are what matter but the claim that certain calories are better than others makes no sense to me

 

[dancs]

Not sure what you are saying is wrong. I don't see where your post contradicts anything else that has been said. The video says the benefits of cardio is limited because your body compensates for a chunk of the extra calories burned. Your right that NEAT is more important than cardio for total calories burned. If you are more active in general and if you lift you are going to burn more calories. I don't see that being debated.

Oh, I didn't watch the video or really, thoroughly read the comments, maybe skimmed through it. But I do appreciate you agreeing with me!

This makes no sense other than your claim about total calories determining weight loss

If all that matters is the number of calories used/burned in a day then why is burning 1 calorie quickly with cardio somehow inferior to burning 1 calorie over the course of 48 hours lifting a weight… 1 calorie is 1 calorie you implicitly say so yourself… you say all that matters is calories, and then you say the calories from X don’t matter because the calories from Y are better

I train over 20 hours a week for my sport, that’s 6 days/week 3 hours daily and then shakeout runs on rest day

I burn 1200 calories every day running, probably around 30-50% more than what is burned during my daily 2 hour lifting sessions even when accounting for the recovery period that occurs over the following 2 days.

I trained my way down from 200lbs to 155lbs, low bf and muscular with no peptides or gear, by tracking macros and training… and I agree that calories are what matter but the claim that certain calories are better than others makes no sense to me

Did you misunderstand what I said? Or did I not clearly state what I intended to state?

Let me clarify;

In the end, what matters is, did we expend more energy than we consumed? In terms of general weight loss, this is the end.

As for the difference between cardio and lifting - example: You do a 1 hour cardio session and lose 500 calories. There is no afterburn, or in other words, you lose 500 calories during your cardio session, but nothing after.

Whereas you weight train heavy for 1 hour, you lose 500 calories AND also lose additional calories after the session is completed for 24-36 hours due to your body repairing muscles, replenishing glycogen, restoring hormones, etc... The afterburn effect.

There are some examples or situations, like yours, where the cardio is done moreso than the lifting session, but if you were to compare, in controlled environments, the same intensity, the same amount of time, the same average heart beats per minute, side by side comparison between cardio and weight lifting, the latter would be superior. Of course, each person and situation is relative. It all depends, right? Genetics also plays a role. But again, lifting weights is superior in most cases simply due to the fact that the afterburn carries over.

Additionally, doing more cardio and less weight lifting, you'll have the potential consequence of losing muscle than retaining/building while on a caloric deficit. I'm certain you already know this.

So, yes a calorie is a calorie, but between cardio and lifting weights, there really is a difference in level. All the fad diets and trendy diets going on, it doesn't matter in the end.... What matters is, are we expending more calories than we are consuming.

 

[lastresort]

Excessive cardio can also dial back your metabolism for the rest of the day.

I always try to do cardio when I am fasting or at least low on glycogen to force using fat cells as much as possible. For example, yesterday I ate ,150g or so carb and did a weight training, followed by protein only with low fat. I surely must have depleted glycogen at this point since there isnt enough source to make one even with gluconeogenesis. I will go cardio in a few hours after swigging some BAM 15

 

[wildweasel]

As for the difference between cardio and lifting - example: You do a 1 hour cardio session and lose 500 calories. There is no afterburn, or in other words, you lose 500 calories during your cardio session, but nothing after.

Whereas you weight train heavy for 1 hour, you lose 500 calories AND also lose additional calories after the session is completed for 24-36 hours due to your body repairing muscles, replenishing glycogen, restoring hormones, etc... The afterburn effect.

Now I get your misunderstanding. You mentally compare 1 hour of cardio to 1 hr weight lifting and you think cardio and weightlifting have the same MET value, that’s what you don’t understand, eg 1hr weightlifting is 500 cals and 1 hr cardio is 500 cals

Weightlifting is 3-5 METs on average, about 300-500 calories an hour, just as you said.

Cardio however, is 2-3x that. Easy cycling is 5-7 METs, slow running at 6mph is 10 METs, or about 1000cals/hr. If you are actually a runner you will burn 12+ METs, over 1200/hr

Minute-for-minute spent training, people will burn more calories in cardio than weight lifting generally by a factor of 2-3 depending on their weight and cardio aptitude

To loss the same number of calories in 1 hour doing cardio vs doing weight lifting your cardio would be something like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as weight lifting.

Of course, bodyweight plays a factor in how much calories are burned during cardio, if you were overweight, you’re going to have a lot higher MET value than what I mentioned

 

[5byfive]

Seems like no one in the discussion actually watched the video. The point is that cardio has limited value for weight loss. His example was that if you burn 600 calories your body is going to compensate and you are only going to net around 200 additional calories of total energy expenditure. This is not a single study, this is a body of evidence that has been developing for some time. This does not seem to apply to resistance training. So the same 600 calories burned lifting weights would increase total energy expenditure by 600 calories.

 

[wildweasel]

Seems like no one in the discussion actually watched the video. The point is that cardio has limited value for weight loss. His example was that if you burn 600 calories your body is going to compensate and you are only going to net around 200 additional calories of total energy expenditure. This is not a single study, this is a body of evidence that has been developing for some time. This does not seem to apply to resistance training. So the same 600 calories burned lifting weights would increase total energy expenditure by 600 calories.

I’m familiar with Herman Pontzers controversial theory on constrained energy expenditure and I’m not the only one who thinks it’s inaccurate

try giving this a read, they found no evidence of CEE theory being correct

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2519626122

 

[DrPEPr]

everything in this thread seems correct.

Fasted cardio is worth a mention though. Performing your cardio fasted forces your body to mobilize fat and glycogen stores. its not going to override a poor diet or excess cals, but it is going to bias where your body pulls energy towards reducing fat stores instead of pulling from food cals.

It doesn't seem to make a difference. Looking at the Brad Schoenfeld research on this. (there has also been a meta analisys, I will link both later).

TLDR: It showed that fasted cardio does make you burn slightly more fat (increased lipolysis) at that moment.

It also showed that if you eat before cardio, your fat oxidation will be higher later in the day. At the end of a 24-hour cycle, the net amount of fat burned was the same.

However, it does seem that there is an increased risk of proteolysis (muscle breakdown). Not huge, but with the similar fat loss result in mind, seemingly a reason not to do fasted cardio.

Conclusion, do your cardio the way you like it.

Overall cal in cal out remains the meta.

 

[dancs]

Now I get your misunderstanding. You mentally compare 1 hour of cardio to 1 hr weight lifting and you think cardio and weightlifting have the same MET value, that’s what you don’t understand, eg 1hr weightlifting is 500 cals and 1 hr cardio is 500 cals

Weightlifting is 3-5 METs on average, about 300-500 calories an hour, just as you said.

Cardio however, is 2-3x that. Easy cycling is 5-7 METs, slow running at 6mph is 10 METs, or about 1000cals/hr. If you are actually a runner you will burn 12+ METs, over 1200/hr

Minute-for-minute spent training, people will burn more calories in cardio than weight lifting generally by a factor of 2-3 depending on their weight and cardio aptitude

To loss the same number of calories in 1 hour doing cardio vs doing weight lifting your cardio would be something like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as weight lifting.

Of course, bodyweight plays a factor in how much calories are burned during cardio, if you were overweight, you’re going to have a lot higher MET value than what I mentioned

You're correct that most forms of vigorous cardio burn more calories during the actual workout than weight training. Running for an hour will usually burn more calories than lifting for an hour; aerobics vs anaerobics. You constantly do cardio whereas weight lifting, there's the resting factor. Higher average HBPM compared to its counterpart, I get it, but again my point was about what happens afterward. Weight training creates muscle damage, glycogen depletion, which demands protein synthesis, and recovery costs that continue after the workout ends.

So if two workouts both burn 500 calories during the session, the lifting workout will usually have a larger post exercise energy cost. Pretty much what @5byfive said below.

Seems like no one in the discussion actually watched the video. The point is that cardio has limited value for weight loss. His example was that if you burn 600 calories your body is going to compensate and you are only going to net around 200 additional calories of total energy expenditure. This is not a single study, this is a body of evidence that has been developing for some time. This does not seem to apply to resistance training. So the same 600 calories burned lifting weights would increase total energy expenditure by 600 calories.

Back to Wild Weasel;

So, again, between cardio and weight lifting, the latter wins.

You're well versed in this literature so you already know that the more muscle our bodies contain, the more energy is consumed - TDEE compared to fat. Here's another fantastic example, set by me , for ya; if we're to do absolutely nothing all day and one guy is 200lbs with 10% body fat and the other guy is 200lbs with 30% body fat, the one with the lesser body fat will lose more calories simply because he has more muscle.

Doing cardio has its benefits, but compared to weight lifting? Again, the latter wins.

Fight me.

 

[dancs]

It doesn't seem to make a difference. Looking at the Brad Schoenfeld research on this. (there has also been a meta analisys, I will link both later).

TLDR: It showed that fasted cardio does make you burn slightly more fat (increased lipolysis) at that moment.

It also showed that if you eat before cardio, your fat oxidation will be higher later in the day. At the end of a 24-hour cycle, the net amount of fat burned was the same.

However, it does seem that there is an increased risk of proteolysis (muscle breakdown). Not huge, but with the similar fat loss result in mind, seemingly a reason not to do fasted cardio.

Conclusion, do your cardio the way you like it.

Overall cal in cal out remains the meta.

 

[5byfive]

Doing cardio has its benefits, but compared to weight lifting? Again, the latter wins.

Fight me.

You said you didn't watch the video, did you read the posts? You are agreeing with me, why would I fight you?

 

[dancs]

You said you didn't watch the video, did you read the posts? You are agreeing with me, why would I fight you?

Dammit, I suck... Sorry.

I meant that towards Wild Weasel and it was a joke.

I should probably read the posts....... I will sometime tonight.

 

[wildweasel]

You're correct that most forms of vigorous cardio burn more calories during the actual workout than weight training. Running for an hour will usually burn more calories than lifting for an hour; aerobics vs anaerobics. You constantly do cardio whereas weight lifting, there's the resting factor. Higher average HBPM compared to its counterpart, I get it, but again my point was about what happens afterward. Weight training creates muscle damage, glycogen depletion, which demands protein synthesis, and recovery costs that continue after the workout ends.

So if two workouts both burn 500 calories during the session, the lifting workout will usually have a larger post exercise energy cost. Pretty much what @5byfive said below.

Back to Wild Weasel;

So, again, between cardio and weight lifting, the latter wins.

You're well versed in this literature so you already know that the more muscle our bodies contain, the more energy is consumed - TDEE compared to fat. Here's another fantastic example, set by me , for ya; if we're to do absolutely nothing all day and one guy is 200lbs with 10% body fat and the other guy is 200lbs with 30% body fat, the one with the lesser body fat will lose more calories simply because he has more muscle.

Doing cardio has its benefits, but compared to weight lifting? Again, the latter wins.

Fight me.

Look I agree that 1 hour of weight lifting at 500 calories burns more calories than 1 hour of cardio burning 500 calories, I don’t disagree

What you aren’t understanding is 1 hour of cardio at 500 is describing walking.

Yes 1 hour of weight lifting is superior to 1 hour of walking I 1000% agree

1 hour of cardio at slow jog pace is a 9-12 MET activity. Most will burn 900-1200 calories, significantly more than all the calories ever burned during and after the 1 hour of working out

one guy is 200lbs with 10% body fat and the other guy is 200lbs with 30% body fat, the one with the lesser body fat will lose more calories simply because he has more muscle.

lol well no shit.

I also agree with the point that cardio without strength training is going to be less effective in the long run than only cardio, if that is the point you are trying to make here. But strngth training without cardio is less effective for weight loss than strength training + cardio

This isn’t a min/max strategy here for optimal outcomes. There’s a reason that power lifters and strongmen are fat, there’s a reason endurance runners have no muscle, and the vast majority of people are best off balancing cardio or strength training for goals of weight loss that’s the simple fact, it’s not an all or nothing optimization problem as you are trying to make it, it’s simply not