Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two people can eat exactly the same and work out exactly the same and store different amounts of excess calories. Calories in = Calories burned + calories Stored + calories wasted. Some people store more, some people waste more.
Two people can eat exactly the same and work out exactly the same and store different amounts of excess calories. Calories in = Calories burned + calories Stored + calories wasted. Some people store more, some people waste more.
Not really following your "equation", but I think the point here is, this is where the genetics aspect comes in to play of weight loss/muscle maintenance.
True. Even if you eat healthy, but overeat, you'll gain. You can eat nothing but apples all day long, but if you eat more calories than your body needs, you're gonna gain without exercise.
Again, the point is that for weight loss and muscle maintenance, it's more efficient and effective to eat healthy foods and not too much-along with exercise,
than it is to eat unhealthy foods and/or too much food and try to work it off.
So, does anyone think it's more efficient or effective to overeat and then try to work it off?
Or do you find that it's more efficient and effective to eat well and not too much in the first place?
Not a question of efficiency. It's a question of how your body responds to stress. My body and mind detest cardio, so I don't do it. Some people like it, so they do it. But they have to fuel it, usually with carbohydrates. The workouts I do are short, explosive bursts -- sprinting and lifting -- so I don't need to pump up my glycogen stores as much, so I don't need to eat as much carbohydrate.
The thing is, though, I do get why people like distance running. They get the same "good stress" -- hormesis -- from it that I do from sprints and lifting. We all need something like that in our lives, otherwise we get depressed.
So it's not a question of one or the other. It's more like, "do what you like, and find the optimal way to fuel it." And to undertake the question seriously, we need to be a lot more flexible with our definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods. "Appropriate" and "inappropriate" make much more sense. If I'm about to go sprint all-out for a half hour, Kool-Aid is an appropriate food, while beef jerky isn't. An extreme example, but a useful way of looking at things.
To sum, up eating a lot is healthy if it fuels an activity that keeps you healthy, that you really enjoy. I think not enjoying that same activity, but doing it anyway because you want to eat a lot, is considerably less healthy, because you'll be beholden to food, not to mention miserable all the time.
Not a question of efficiency. It's a question of how your body responds to stress. My body and mind detest cardio, so I don't do it. Some people like it, so they do it. But they have to fuel it, usually with carbohydrates. The workouts I do are short, explosive bursts -- sprinting and lifting -- so I don't need to pump up my glycogen stores as much, so I don't need to eat as much carbohydrate.
The thing is, though, I do get why people like distance running. They get the same "good stress" -- hormesis -- from it that I do from sprints and lifting. We all need something like that in our lives, otherwise we get depressed.
So it's not a question of one or the other. It's more like, "do what you like, and find the optimal way to fuel it." And to undertake the question seriously, we need to be a lot more flexible with our definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods. "Appropriate" and "inappropriate" make much more sense. If I'm about to go sprint all-out for a half hour, Kool-Aid is an appropriate food, while beef jerky isn't. An extreme example, but a useful way of looking at things.
To sum, up eating a lot is healthy if it fuels an activity that keeps you healthy, that you really enjoy. I think not enjoying that same activity, but doing it anyway because you want to eat a lot, is considerably less healthy, because you'll be beholden to food, not to mention miserable all the time.
Interesting.
Anyway, I too prefer short intense workouts as opposed to long drawn out sessions. HIIT and heavy weights are optimal for me.
It works much better to eat well and exercise in the first place than to overeat and eat crap and try to work it off.
The latter is usually far more futile, overwhelming, and stressful.
I have measured my anatomical measurements, diet, weight for some time now, and results are interesting.
Having always been of slim build and with a so-called "fast" metabolism, I experimented to see how my body reacted to weight gain. I could only gain a bit of weight eating more than usual, but according to my measurement follow ups, the only part of my body to increase in size was my chest, and less so, arms. Genetically gifted? Yes. Studies have already discovered that in some people excess calories are converted into muscle and not fat, even if they do little/no exercise. These people might be less than 1% population. I'm probably one of them.
Your physique is 80% the result of your diet. 10% is genetics. 10% is physical activity/exercise.
(Give or take a few percentage points)
Remembering this should help when you're deciding what to put in your mouth, whether you decide to lift weights or get cardio, and that due to genetics you just may never get that long lean dancer's body if you come from a family of short squat endomorphs
Most people are a mix of body types. But I do agree on the first line in the sense if you do right you are going to be a healthy weight and shape. Everything beyond that is vanity so its not essential. I am tired of the "metabolism" excuse from people or normal people comparing themselves to athletes.
Jers - if you were lean like an athlete and worked out like they do there is no way in the world you would gain easily. But if you notice in off season most get a little fat. Want proof? Check out a starter training day for a football team. They all have extra fat at the start. Also these people have been at it for pretty much most of their life. That level of fitness is a journey and extreme. Not necessary for just health/healthy weights.
Not really following your "equation", but I think the point here is, this is where the genetics aspect comes in to play of weight loss/muscle maintenance.
Calories In = Calories retained (as fat or other tissue), calories burned (converted to energy) or calories wasted (poop)
And yes, that is it, genetics determines the "valve setting" which proportions calories stored or wasted. In my example of two people, the thin person's valve routes more of the calories to waste and the chubby person's valve routes more of those calories to storage.
All you have to do is change your genes people. It really is that simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
