this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1636 readers
2 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thought for the day.
How easy is it for you to accept new information; when it contradicts an existing belief or view?
e.g. from the book I am reading: it is not possible to exercise ourselves to weight loss; the body essentially has a fairly consistent energy use, weather sitting at a desk or going for a run. This is both interesting and counter intuitive, physical exertion seems like it should use more energy than sitting around. The book goes on to explain the both the mechanism for this and the push by various companies to equate exercise with weight loss. Exercise does a huge range of good things for us, but losing weight is not one of them.
I can accept new information but if it goes against my current belief it needs to back itself up pretty well with multiple sources. In this case it does not sound correct or it sounds like they're trying to refine the situation so that they can say a complicated version of calories in vs calories out and act like its something new.
I would like to add some more detail to this. Its not actually the exercise that causes weight loss, its the panting and breathing that causes weight loss. You literally breathe out the weight as carbon dioxide.
The most effective way to do this, is Sprint Interval Training.
From the book'
I've read articles about the diet etc of top athletes, they're often consuming 7,000 calories at the peak of their training regime, and clearly not getting fat.
The idea that a sedentary office worker is burning as much energy as an athlete is just nonsense.
That is interesting; what is their energy balance over an extended period?
I assume they are not eating 7000 calories for months on end; I realize the idea seems nonsense at first glance; which is why I posited the question, how do you take new information that conflicts with an existing view point?
That's exactly what they're doing. Michael Phelps, for example, would eat multiple whole pizzas a day.
For a proposal like this, which contradicts a lot of knowledge I already have about exercise and nutrition, my response would be to reject it unless either multiple sources confirmed it, or the source was extremely credible.
Assume the source is very credible; do you actively search for why it contradicts or do you just accept the new view point?
Do you try to find common ground between the new information and the old?
I try to get to the bottom of the difference and see how the new info relates to the old. I'll look for corroborating sources if it still doesn't seem correct / the explanation is not satisfying.
The book is "Ultra Processed People, the science of food that isn't food"
The book is extremely interesting, I'm almost 1//2 way through. I am really interested; it is so cool.
In that particular instance, I'd say it's absolute bullshit, because it contradicts everything we know about exercise and energy expenditure.
As an example, have a look at what a top athlete eats when they're training, they're often eating more than twice the amount a regular person will.
How would you explain this?
To not answer the question you posited, and instead look a the assumptions in your statement. The book goes into the specifics.
There are examples sited, to scientific articles in highly respected journals that show this effect. I also know of plenty of people who go to the gym and yet are not loosing weight, anecdotal I know, which point to the fact that exercise does great things for the body but burning fat isn't one of them.
Over the long term energy in vs energy out will cause weight loss, however the short and long term act in vastly different ways.
It’s pretty well known in fitness circles that you should be using TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) to lose weight. Simply put it’s calories in vs. calories out. Doesn’t really matter if you exercise or not. If calories going in is less than what you use daily, then weight loss should happen.
What if the TDEE is not really a useful measure?
What if your body is working against you in that particular regard?
In what way? What do you mean body working against you?
It's never going to be exact, but unless your a top 1% athelete who's getting lab work done regularly, it doesn't need to be.
As long as you're generally lower on intake than what you burn , weight loss should occur, barring illnesses or similar. There will also always be outliers who burn more or less at rest.
Think of it like this.
Your body has two energy users, the autonomic stuff that you have no control over (immune system, endocrine system, reproductive system etc..) and the conscious stuff that you do have control over, walking / running / working etc..
Your body will dial back the autonomic functions to allow you to increase the conscious energy load, this is to stay inside your energy budget.
The parts of you that you have no control over are working against you in subtle ways that you cannot know. I realize that the energy in vs energy out argument is good, because in the long run it works out, but on a daily basis it doesn't. It would work much better if you changed daily to monthly or quarterly.
Total Monthly Energy Expenditure vs Monthly Calorific Intake. Or more succinctly your personal Monthly Energy Balance.
I don't know man, you're getting into some woo woo broscience with talk like that.
Yes illnesses, lack of sleep, thyroid issues etc. can affect weight loss. There is enough data out there to show how weight loss works. It doesn't need to be an exact calorie number you hit each day. It's about generally keeping better habits and being mindful of your nutrition. Some days you go over, some days are under. Some days you exercise more and some days less.
I'm actually not sure what the point you're making is in regard to weight loss. As you say it all works out in the long run anyway.
The conversation went away from my original question about new information that conflicts with existing views, but that is the nature of conversation, you go where it leads.
But the book is more about the way ultra-processed foods mess with out reward systems to encourage over-eating and that exercise is not a way to balance out excess consumption. As your body simply thinks it needs more food, even though you have blown your food budget for the day; the increased exercise doesn't burn nearly as much as you would expect given the level of work you think you are doing, then eating a little more blows the budget even further.
I agree with that in the sense that most people when getting in to fitness start to realise how much you have to exercise to burn off excess consumption. And that it's already known that ultraprocessed food is usually very calorie dense but can be nutritionally empty. I'm sure most who get into it seriously are aware dietary habits also need to change.
In running circles there's a saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". There's also "Abs are made in the kitchen".
There is some evidence that the body will do that while you are undergoing intense exercise, IE at or above the aerobic threshold, but everything we know says it goes right back to normal once you slow down. The idea you will use the same amount of energy regardless is simply nonsense.
What you said, is the same as what I said.
You do understand the "aerobic threshold" is the limit is your lung capacity, right? You need to be absolutely sprinting for this to take place.
I had to remind myself what AT was as your explanation differed from my memory. AT is the limit at which you can do exercise for hours; you have used the the glycogen in your muscles (moved from anaerobic exercise to aerobic); this is where oxygen from your lungs is supplying your muscles along with the fuel. This is much slower then using the stored glycogen; you don't need to sprint to get to the AT; but you will get there much quicker if you do, consistent exercise at a lower level will use up the glycogen and force you into aerobic exercise mode.
It's quite hard if the existing information is there for solid reasons, but once I have, it's an amazing feeling and I love it.
Firstly, learning something truly new to me just feels really pleasurable. Not sure why.
Secondly, realising my current belief is wrong may feel disconcerting, so if there's other better information to replace it with, being able to grasp the new info and be right again is reassuring.
With your weight loss example learning that was a relief, I'm in a situation where I had to lose weight without exercise or fasting, so I read around that quite a bit. As the old saying goes, "you can't outrun your fork" ( this article is quite useful).
But the counter-intuitive part for me was that all calories are not created equal. That was harder for me to get my head around because it goes against conventional wisdom, and I had to deep dive into liver function. I was very suspicious and had to look at multiple convincing sources before the "calories in = calories out is all there is to it" could be dislodged.
Another example would be arsenic in rice. I eat rice all the time and I so wanted it to either be a myth of be something I didn't need to care about. But facts are facts, if you want to be right, not knowing you're wrong doesn't make it so.
Knowing the truth made the next step possible, finding a scientific paper on better cooking methods to remove arsenic from rice. So now it's all good.
If you can grab a copy of the book I'm reading.
"Ultra Processed People, the science of food that isn't food".
Yes I'm beginning to want to read it.
I eventually lost over 20 kg without exercise or fasting (or surgery obviously) by the way. So I believe in it from an experience point of view as well.
Well done; your achievement must be so satisfying.
As someone who has never struggled with this burden; I realize that it must be very difficult for those that do. The social aspects of being heavy are also addressed in the book, a lot of blaming the person when there are so many factors at play.
Nah it was honestly just a relief. I'd never been overweight before in my life, and suddenly went through a 50% increase in body weight over about 11 months and it was terrifying.
As well as barely recognising yourself (doesn't help that you can't fit any of your own clothes) and getting the sudden social stigma and blame of being fat, there's also a host of health risks.
So I was super motivated to learn about it.
Took me years to get back down below the "obese" threshold because of the methods available to me, and it was such a relief to have all those risk percentages going down again.
It's crazy to me how mean people are to obese people. Surely no one wants to be at risk for strokes and heart disease and diabetes. There have got to be factors at play, like you say.
I think the problem is moreso the fact that modern food is so energy-dense.
But exercise makes a big difference between [being morbidly overweight] vs. just having a tummy - for people who otherwise have a problematic relationship with food.