Cardio for fat burning

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

What a load of rubbish Nu. Exercise burns calories itself, not just by adding muscle tissue. And whilst metabolism will slow on any diet it's not immeadiate, couple that with refeeds to offset that slowdown too. Also a sensible diet will have a decent protein intake, which not only is LBM sparing but has the highest TEF of all three macros (carbs being next followed by fats).

If you read very carefully and slowly, I think you will find I actually did say that! But you also increase TDEE and hunger - you either resist the hunger and reduce BMR further or feed it and, either way, lose your calorie deficit. I agree that changes don't happen overnight which is why I said it can appear to work in the short-term but not over the long haul. Re-feeds may extend the usefulness of the approach for a time but possibly messing up the metabolism long-term. TEF only has a modest input to overall caloric balance and is only one facet of how different macronutrients are used within the body.

[motokouk]

Quote

I never said it didn't work only that it is not a viable, sustainable, long-term solution - most people that lose weight this way pile it back on after a year to a year and a half! Come back to me in that time and let me know if you have managed to maintain your current body composition (if you continue training I recognise that total bodyweight will likely increase if mass is your goal).

Ha ha, I've never piled the weight back on, I've only gotten leaner and leaner. 2 years between these, hasn't been constant diet, had a stab at bulking then maintaining etc etc if like you say I should've gained it all back in a year, 2 years I should be double the size! Mass isn't a priority for either. My LBM is about the same in both pics, just less fat.

In the recent picture I'm 6 pancakes, banana and yogurt into a carb refeed so little water there too.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

Ha ha, I've never piled the weight back on, I've only gotten leaner and leaner. 2 years between these, hasn't been constant diet, had a stab at bulking then maintaining etc etc if like you say I should've gained it all back in a year, 2 years I should be double the size! Mass isn't a priority for either. My LBM is about the same in both pics, just less fat.

In the recent picture I'm 6 pancakes, banana and yogurt into a carb refeed so little water there too.

How extreme has your caloric restriction been over that period? Looking at the pics I would guess there has been some loss of lean mass - how have you been measuring this? Do you use body-fat percentage?

What I object to is the idea of 'caloric deficit'. If BMR remains fairly constant (even with fat loss) there cannot be a caloric deficit at the cellular level. Whether the calories come from food or a combination of food and your own body fat, you will be supplying the same amount of energy to your cells. Genuine caloric deficit, at the cellular level, would be starvation with a great deal of lean mass loss and other metabolic and health consequences.

Even adipose tissue, which is a discreet endocrine organ in its own right, has energy requirements over and above what may be simply stored there as 'fuel'. Aside from any downward compensation of BMR to a decrease in consumed energy, the amount of energy used at the cellular level will be equivalent to the amount of energy available from food and/or body stores, so there is no real 'caloric deficit' just a shift from keeping energy in long-term storage to cellular oxidation.

Energy storage can be seen as a stimulus for increased energy demand and intake rather than the other way around - excess energy intake can be oxidised rather than stored. What determines which takes precedent may be more complex than the mere provision of an energy excess - or deficit.

[motokouk]

Quote

How extreme has your caloric restriction been over that period? Looking at the pics I would guess there has been some loss of lean mass - how have you been measuring this? Do you use body-fat percentage?

I measure with tape measure, waist arms chest etc. Never measured my BF. Caloric restriction has been varied, relatively extreme to moderate, with cardio, without etc etc.

I think you are confused by my larger looking body in the first picture, my arms are only 1/2 inch bigger than they are now (13inch now), I will easily put this to the excess fat, as I barely have any on there now. I did a pretty extreme bout of dieting last summer where I did lose LBM, my arms where 12inches but I regained the inch when I did a short bulk.

[shaneharon88]

So Nu do you think that

a) Not doing any cardio and eating certain amount of calorie deficit

is better than

b) Doing cardio but eating extra so the calorie deficit is still the same?

LOL maybe for people not carrying much muscle.

Google Berardi Gflux

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

So Nu do you think that

a) Not doing any cardio and eating certain amount of calorie deficit

is better than

b) Doing cardio but eating extra so the calorie deficit is still the same?

LOL maybe for people not carrying much muscle. /thread

I don't like the use of the term 'calorie deficit' because it is meaningless. What you mean is 'eat less food'! Unless you measure it, you have no idea what your metabolic rate is. Tables and formulae will give you an indication, based on biometric information, but it is unlikely to be accurate. Basing 'calorie deficits' around that is pure guesswork even if it is 'educated' guesswork. You may have more or less of a 'deficit of food' than you think, or none or even an 'excess' depending on what your true metabolic rate is and when, and by how much, your metabolism adjusts to re-balance itself.

Re-feeds are basically a systematised way of doing IF and biological systems generally do not operate in a systematised and predictable way, unlike man-made machines.

To answer your questions:
a) If you enjoy whatever activity you do as 'cardio' then do it - just don't be under the illusion it has much input into fat loss. If you only do it for fat loss and don't really enjoy the activity, don't bother and just concentrate on diet.

b) As I said, 'calorie deficit' is a misnomer - you won't have a calorie deficit because energy not provided to cells from food will come from fat stores (if you are eating in such a way that maximises the release of fats from adipose tissue rather than blocking it). This is how fat loss works.

The only issue you may have, if fat is not readily released in the quantities needed, is increased hunger - if you resist the urge to eat more food, your metabolism (or feelings of hunger) will eventually adapt to compensate for the shortfall in cellular energy and you will be back to square one.

Tom Naughton used an interesting analogy in one of his recent blog posts:
Fat Head » Energy Balance: Why The Food Cops Have It All Wrong

[ATZ]

Quote

Hunger decreases BMR by up to 30%. Calorie-restricted weight loss diets decrease BMR by up to 20%.

I'd like to know where the above statements come from Nu?

Quote

I’d note, tangentially and I’ll come back to this below, that there is no data in humans that skipping a single meal or even a day’s worth of meals does anything to metabolic rate. Human metabolism simply doesn’t operate that quickly and various research into both fasting and intermittent fasting show, if anything, a slight (~5% or so) increase in metabolic rate during the initial period of fasting up to 72hrs. The idea that skipping breakfast or a single meal slows metabolic rate or induces a starvation response is simply nonsensical

So, when I fast I'm often hungry - yet you expect me to beleive my metabolism adapts so quickly that during the fast my BMR decreases by 30%? Even given there is data to show BMR increases by up to 5% before 72hrs of complete fasting? As stated above, metabolism simply doesn't react that quickly.

Now metabolism may drop after 4-5 days of caloric restriction, hence why refeeds are important in order to stave off the drop in metabolism and leptin associated with dieting - they also make dieting easier and more rewarding.

Oh, and you say TEF is a minor facet. Well BMR is increased after the ingestion of food because of TEF, and there is research to suggest TEF has an impact on satiety, Protein having the largest TEF and which of course should be prioritised on a diet to spare LBM:

Quote

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Aug;20(8):727-32.Links
The effect of protein intake on 24-h energy expenditure during energy restriction.

Whitehead JM, McNeill G, Smith JS.

Human Nutrition Unit, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether protein intake influences the decline in energy expenditure during energy restriction. DESIGN: Cross-over study of three diets of 4.2 MJ/d for 7 days: one diet with 36% energy as protein and two with 15% energy as protein, one high in carbohydrate and the other high in fat. SUBJECTS: Two men and six women aged 31-57 y. BMI 27.B-34.1 kg/m2. MEASUREMENTS: 24-h energy expenditure (24-h EE), sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) and body weight on days 0 and 7 of each diet; 24-h urinary nitrogen excretion (24-h UN) on days 0-7 of each diet. RESULTS: 24-h EE and SMR declined on all three diets but the decrease was significantly less on the high protein diet than on the two low protein diets. Weight loss was similar on all three diets. 24-h UN was less than N intake on the high protein diet but greater than N intake on the two low protein diets. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining protein intake reduces the decrease in energy expenditure during energy restriction.

Quote

Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Jul;52(7):482-8.Links
The influence of thermic effect of food on satiety.

Crovetti R, Porrini M, Santangelo A, Testolin G.
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Milan, Italy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate energy expenditure after three isoenergetic meals of different nutrient composition and to establish the relationship between the thermic effect of food (TEF), subsequent energy intake from a test meal and satiety sensations related to consumption. DESIGN: The study employed a repeated measures design. Ten subjects received, in a randomized order, three meals of 2331+/-36 kJ (557+/-9 kcal). About 68% of energy from protein in the high protein meal (HP), 69% from carbohydrate in the high carbohydrate meal (HC) and 70% from fat in the high fat meal (HF). SETTING: The experiments were performed at the University of Milan. Subjects: Ten normal body-weight healthy women. METHODS: Energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetric measurements, using an open-circuit ventilated-hood system; intake was assessed 7h later by weighing the food consumed from a test meal and satiety sensations were rated by means of a satiety rating questionnaire. RESULTS: TEF was 261+/-59, 92+/-67 and 97+/-71 kJ over 7 h after the HP, HC and HF meals, respectively. The HP meal was the most thermogenic (P < 0.001) and it determined the highest sensation of fullness (P=0.002). There were no differences in the sensations and thermic effect between fat and carbohydrate meals. A significant relationship linked TEF to fullness sensation (r=0.41, P=0.025). Energy intake from the test meal was comparable after HP, HC and HF meals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that TEF contributes to the satiating power of foods.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

i have to admit, even I was not fully convinced by the percentages given - they were from an article at 101weightloss (which I assume is the sort of 'calorie-counting' weight-loss resource of which you would approve!). However I used them as a quantitative example - I think it is safe to say that metabolism will slow down by some factor during extended caloric restriction in order to maintain homoeostasis (as your first study showed in only seven days of intervention).

Here is a more scientific account:

Quote

To assess potential long-term effects of weight loss on resting metabolic rate (RMR), the RMRs of seven obese women were measured by indirect calorimetry before weight loss, during a protein-sparing modified fast, and for 2 mo while at a stable reduced weight. Body composition was also determined at each interval. RMR significantly decreased 22% (p less than 0.01) with initiation of the modified fast. RMR values during the modified fast and during the maintenance diet at stable reduced weight were not different and all were significantly lower than the prediet RMR. Loss of lean tissue could not account for the decrease because changes in RMR per fat-free mass paralleled the total RMR reduction. A sustained decrement in RMR accompanied weight loss and persisted for greater than or equal to 8 wk despite increased caloric consumption and body weight stabilization.

http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/ind...&therow=276116

I never said protein wasn't a satiating macronutrient (as per your second example) I said TEF does not have such a large input into overall metabolic rate* (your first example says 'significantly less' decrease in EE but that is statistical significance - I would need to see the raw data to determine whether the actual difference would make much of a real word impact).

*TEF contributes just 10% to total energy expenditure.


EDIT: Here is a more up-to-date study:

Quote

PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4377. Epub 2009 Feb 9.
Metabolic and behavioral compensations in response to caloric restriction: implications for the maintenance of weight loss.

Redman LM, Heilbronn LK, Martin CK, de Jonge L, Williamson DA, Delany JP, Ravussin E; Pennington CALERIE Team.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and behavioral adaptations to caloric restriction (CR) in free-living conditions have not yet been objectively measured. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Forty-eight (36.8+/-1.0 y), overweight (BMI 27.8+/-0.7 kg/m(2)) participants were randomized to four groups for 6-months; Control: energy intake at 100% of energy requirements; CR: 25% calorie restriction; CR+EX: 12.5% CR plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise; LCD: low calorie diet (890 kcal/d) until 15% weight reduction followed by weight maintenance. Body composition (DXA) and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) over 14-days by doubly labeled water (DLW) and activity related energy activity (AREE) were measured after 3 (M3) and 6 (M6) months of intervention. Weight changes at M6 were -1.0+/-1.1% (Control), -10.4+/-0.9% (CR), -10.0+/-0.8% (CR+EX) and -13.9+/-0.8% (LCD). At M3, absolute TDEE was significantly reduced in CR (-454+/-76 kcal/d) and LCD (-633+/-66 kcal/d) but not in CR+EX or controls. At M6 the reduction in TDEE remained lower than baseline in CR (-316+/-118 kcal/d) and LCD (-389+/-124 kcal/d) but reached significance only when CR and LCD were combined (-351+/-83 kcal/d). In response to caloric restriction (CR/LCD combined), TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by -431+/-51 and -240+/-83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively, indicating a metabolic adaptation. Likewise, physical activity (TDEE adjusted for sleeping metabolic rate) was significantly reduced from baseline at both time points. For control and CR+EX, adjusted TDEE (body composition or sleeping metabolic rate) was not changed at either M3 or M6. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels. These data also suggest potential mechanisms by which CR causes large inter-individual variability in the rates of weight loss and how exercise may influence weight loss and weight loss maintenance.

One may conclude from this study that combining exercise with diet is a good thing from the point of view of maintaining metabolic rate - though total weight loss was not significantly different between caloric restriction and caloric restriction+exercise. But I would venture the feelings of gnawing hunger would be greater and harder to endure for prolonged periods in the latter protocol! Plus, if energy expenditure is maintained on a calorie restricted diet when combined with exercise without a significant increase in weight (fat?) loss, it seems to me it would be harder to maintain said weight (fat?) loss once the calorie restricted diet was ended. Whereas, with diet alone, you lose the same amount of weight (fat?) but reduce calorie expenditure, so it should be easier to cope with less food intake from that point on.

[shaneharon88]

Quote

I don't like the use of the term 'calorie deficit' because it is meaningless. What you mean is 'eat less food'! Unless you measure it, you have no idea what your metabolic rate is. Tables and formulae will give you an indication, based on biometric information, but it is unlikely to be accurate. Basing 'calorie deficits' around that is pure guesswork even if it is 'educated' guesswork. You may have more or less of a 'deficit of food' than you think, or none or even an 'excess' depending on what your true metabolic rate is and when, and by how much, your metabolism adjusts to re-balance itself.

Re-feeds are basically a systematised way of doing IF and biological systems generally do not operate in a systematised and predictable way, unlike man-made machines.

To answer your questions:
a) If you enjoy whatever activity you do as 'cardio' then do it - just don't be under the illusion it has much input into fat loss. If you only do it for fat loss and don't really enjoy the activity, don't bother and just concentrate on diet.

b) As I said, 'calorie deficit' is a misnomer - you won't have a calorie deficit because energy not provided to cells from food will come from fat stores (if you are eating in such a way that maximises the release of fats from adipose tissue rather than blocking it). This is how fat loss works.

The only issue you may have, if fat is not readily released in the quantities needed, is increased hunger - if you resist the urge to eat more food, your metabolism (or feelings of hunger) will eventually adapt to compensate for the shortfall in cellular energy and you will be back to square one.

Tom Naughton used an interesting analogy in one of his recent blog posts:
Fat Head » Energy Balance: Why The Food Cops Have It All Wrong

I log every single food that I eat and advise my clients to do so.
What I am saying is if your eating:
x amount of calories vs
eating x +500 calories and also burning 500 calories (roughly) the body composition AND metabolism will be better the second option.

Oh noes hunger increases, eat some green veg or man up and ignore the hunger. Hunger isn't your metabolism

Studies are fine but often don't equate the same when it comes to the real world.

EDIT- Plus, anyone with an appreciable amount of muscle mass will be best served eating more and extra cardio.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

I log every single food that I eat and advise my clients to do so.
What I am saying is if your eating:
x amount of calories vs
eating x +500 calories and also burning 500 calories (roughly) the body composition AND metabolism will be better the second option.

Oh noes hunger increases, eat some green veg or man up and ignore the hunger. Hunger isn't your metabolism

Studies are fine but often don't equate the same when it comes to the real world.

EDIT- Plus, anyone with an appreciable amount of muscle mass will be best served eating more and extra cardio.

I agree that studies should be viewed through the lens of real-life experience (among other faculties) but the study does show that option b) while preserving metabolic rate does not result in any more weight loss. Whether the composition of that weight loss is different is another matter and not quantified in the abstract of that study. Real life also shows us that many fat people both diet and exercise and either don't lose weight or lose weight but pile it on again at a later date. Weight-Watchers, Slimming World and various gyms and fitness centres rely on this phenomenon for repeat business.

The last study I quoted also points up another curious factor: those following a calorie restricted diet and engaging regular exercise preserved their pre-diet metabolic rate, unlike those following the calorie restricted diet alone, so would have had a much larger 'calorie deficit' yet they did not lose any more weight. If a 'calorie is just a calorie' how is this explained?