Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Feb-15-20, 07:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,375
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default exerciseversusweightgain

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...00213160107.htm


Quote:
10,000 steps a day: Not a magical formula for preventing weight gain
Even far eclipsing 10K steps didn't prevent weight gain for college freshmen studied

For years now, 10,000 steps a day has become the gold standard for people trying to improve their health -- and recent research shows some benefits can come from even just 7,500 steps. But if you're trying to prevent weight gain, a new Brigham Young University study suggests no number of steps alone will do the trick.

Researchers from BYU's Exercise Science Department, along with colleagues from the Nutrition, Dietetics & Food Science Department, studied 120 freshmen over their first six months of college as they participated in a step-counting experiment. Participants walked either 10,000, 12,500 or 15,000 steps a day, six days a week for 24 weeks, while researchers tracked their caloric intake and weight.

The goal of the study was to evaluate if progressively exceeding the recommended step count of 10,000 steps per day (in 25% increments) would minimize weight and fat gain in college freshmen students. In the end, it didn't matter if the students walked more than even 15,000 steps; they still gained weight. Students in the study gained on average about 1.5 kg (roughly 3.5 lbs.) over the study period; a 1 to 4 kg average weight gain is commonly observed during the first academic year of college, according to previous studies.

"Exercise alone is not always the most effective way to lose weight," said lead author Bruce Bailey, professor of exercise science at BYU. "If you track steps, it might have a benefit in increasing physical activity, but our study showed it won't translate into maintaining weight or preventing weight gain."

Study subjects wore pedometers 24 hours a day for the six-week study window. On average, students walked approximately 9,600 steps per day prior to the study. By the end of the study, the participants in the 10,000-step group averaged 11,066 steps, those in the 12,500-step group averaged 13,638 steps and those in the 15,000-step group averaged 14,557 steps a day.

Although weight was not affected by the increased steps, there was a positive impact on physical activity patterns, which "may have other emotional and health benefits," study authors said. One positive, if not unsurprising, outcome of the study was that sedentary time was drastically reduced in both the 12,500- and 15,000-step groups. In the 15,000-step group, sedentary time decreased by as much as 77 minutes a day.

"The biggest benefit of step recommendations is getting people out of a sedentary lifestyle," Bailey. "Even though it won't prevent weight gain on its own, more steps is always better for you."

Quote:
The average person burns 61 calories an hour while lying down, 68 when sitting up and an incredible 88 while reading a book or newspaper (even more if you're turning the broadsheet pages of this newspaper). If you're feeling more energetic, knitting is a great calorie-buster, burning 102 an hour.


2000 steps might be a mile, depending on stride length. So walk an extra 2500 steps or 5000, you're walking an extra 1.25 or 2.5 miles respectively. A calorie counter gives me 221 calories burned if I walk 2.5 miles an hour for an hour at my body weight. Subtract 70 calories from that, assuming that the alternative to walking was not suspended animation in some sort of sci-fi stasis field. So the biggest intervention for me might have amounted to a difference of all of 150 calories. I wouldn't be shocked if that didn't do much for me, since it's not much of an intervention. Much easier for me to have three tablespoons less heavy cream that day.

In the study itself, they bring up vigorous exercise--yes. 10000 steps is enough volume to get any conditioning effects of walking versus indolence, at that point throwing some hills or speed in makes sense, not to burn calories so much but for the conditioning.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Feb-15-20, 07:39
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,141
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

I remain somewhat cynical when my extreme exhaustion is countered, even by medical professionals, with "Exercise!"

)~#*(&%)~

My problem is that I don't have enough energy simply to get through my day? Adding additional tasks which require additional energy is not a good idea!

Plus, I lost all this weight WITHOUT increasing my minimal physical activity. I'm not against movement! I just saying people who feel good MOVE GOOD. Not, not.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Feb-15-20, 18:32
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,507
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

For about 6-1/2 years of the 7-1/2 years I worked in a grocery store, I was regularly putting in at least 10,000 steps daily. During busy times, twice that many. If that many years of that many steps actually helped in any way with weight loss, I should be bone thin. I'm not.

However, every time I exceeded about 10,000 steps, I was utterly exhausted - so IMO, that much exercise is really only good for one thing: if your goal is to be utterly worn out, it'll do that.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 02:42
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,533
 
Plan: No GS, IF
Stats: 150/129/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: the North, England
Default

Then again, there is runner's high. When I was doing my modest running schedule and did not feel clapped out when I started, I could reach mild euphoria in about 40 minutes. Also appetite suppression and a feeling of being in overdrive. Even as a walker I can achieve this around the 15 mile mark. Nothing beats a long hill walk on a sunny summer day. Even the daily 4 miles is, I hope, preventing the diseases caused by excessive sitting. But does not produce weight loss in the 65 year old female.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 06:54
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,141
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Just read this story on Diet Doctor; Crystal's Story

Quote:
Has exercise helped Crystal lose weight? She doesn’t think so, but she’s become more active as she’s lost weight. Now she enjoys walking with her family and lifting weights with her husband.


Like Calianna, I've had job and living situations when I was very active. And didn't budge my weight.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 07:40
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,507
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Just read this story on Diet Doctor; Crystal's Story



Like Calianna, I've had job and living situations when I was very active. And didn't budge my weight.



I should have added to that post that if it had not been for doing LC for several years before starting that job, and sticking to it straight through (to retirement, and beyond), I would have never survived the first day there. It was exhausting (in part due to the stressful nature of the job), but no way could I have physically handled it during the decades I was all carbed up.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 08:55
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,375
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Active job versus being more sedentary--due to social anxiety, I was underemployed for years. Full time kitchen work for almost two years now, very active position. Lost weight when I started. More people gain weight--but I don't eat most of the food there. Working in a kitchen doesn't seem to be as fattening, at least for me, as spending most of my time near my own kitchen, where I'm free to nibble and snack all day. I've always, even in my low fat dieting days, found it easier to lose weight during a work week, the day's more structured, I tend to go all Rainman and want to eat the same things at the same time every day.

https://www.fitnessblender.com/arti...oes-my-job-burn


Quote:
Examples: Teachers, childcare workers, personal trainers, mechanics, police officers, cooks, salespeople, floor managers, pharmacy techs, nurses & other health care providers, realtors, and security services.

These professionals are not completely sedentary in their jobs, but they also aren't necessarily reaching the recommended 10,000 steps a day. During an hour these careers require roughly 920 steps, which adds up to 7360 steps during the full 8 hours. This activity, along with energy required for bodily function, adds up to a total of 127.5 calories burned per hour, or 1020 throughout the full working day.


Quote:
Calories burned in jobs with a high amount of activity
Examples: Construction workers, waitresses, farmers, custodians and maintenance workers, landscapers, professionals of a construction trade such as carpenters, plumbers, welders, roofers, or electricians.

These professions require a lot of physically taxing activity. They might range widely in nature, but what they have in common is that they cover a lot of distance, or spend a lot of time hefting themselves or materials around in order to get a job done. They spent much of the day on their feet, and some of them must use their strength in often varying and unpredictable ways.

With roughly 1500 steps taken each hour, these careers have people taking roughly 12,000 steps in an 8 hour period. By our calculations, that’s 175 calories per hour, or 1,400 in eight. Keep in mind that these numbers are based off of a 145 pound person. Considering that the occupations above have a higher than average male occupancy, body weights will tend to be higher and so will the caloric burn.


1020-1400 calories, five days a week--now we're sort of talking. Knock off about 600--let's not give activity credit for the basal metabolic rate. 420-800. That's more like it. I think my activity in my current job is closer to what a waiter would do than a cook on that site, it's hard to quantify. Social anxiety makes me twitchy when around people, that gives me a higher energy level than some people doing the same job. I'm a bit more sluggish at home.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 10:21
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,551
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
1020-1400 calories, five days a week--now we're sort of talking. Knock off about 600--let's not give activity credit for the basal metabolic rate. 420-800. That's more like it. I think my activity in my current job is closer to what a waiter would do than a cook on that site, it's hard to quantify. Social anxiety makes me twitchy when around people, that gives me a higher energy level than some people doing the same job. I'm a bit more sluggish at home.

I think this is the correct, realistic way to look at it. Yes, we all burn calories when not eating, but the amount is dynamic and has a lot to do with how our metabolisms respond. Metabolic adjustment is the variable that is hard to calculate, and one could hypothesize that metabolic rate is different based on the WOE one adopts. We are not engines with fixed rates that can be easily calculated.

Burning fat, growing muscle, desiring to be active as opposed to desiring to be sedentary all play a role in this, and the food one eats can stimulate desire to be active or not over time. I'm kind of the reverse in that I'm active because my job is not physically demanding. Before I went low carb and started to burn fat as fuel, I was not motivated to get out do physical activity, despite the fact that I have participated in many sports over my lifetime. At times, activity was forced. Now, I can't wait to get out and work. My mindset is different. I've also come to realize how healthy workouts are critical to my overall well being. While I don't track steps or physical work, doing work on a regular basis makes me feel better.

My assumptions based on recent observations about the importance of exercise? Physical activity is good at the cellular level, and mitochondria benefit, and when our mitochondria benefit, we feel better. Physical activity stimulates energy production, and those tired, fatigued feelings become memories over time. Based on my experiences, none of this was possible until I started eating correctly, started timing my meals optimally, and started improving my overall health. Even back in my former carb addicted days when I was running marathons (how many steps is 26.2 miles coupled with all the training required?), I didn't become thin as a rail as I had expected. Now I know why.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 12:40
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,375
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
A 155-pound person burns 211 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 267 calories at 3.5 mph. A 180-pound person burns 245 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 311 calories at 3.5 mph


Another way to look at it--at 3.5 mph, this person burns 56 more calories than at 2.5 mph. So for that extra mile, 56 calories are burned. At that rate, 62.5 miles, and you've burned that supposed 3500 calories for a pound of fat. Whoopee.

Metabolic compensation? To undo that extra mile--you'd only have to be 2.43 calories "lazier" or less twitchy, or less rolling around in your sleep or--per hour the other 23 hours in the day. I don't know if that's even measurable. And do you know if you ate an extra 56 calories on a given day? Even if you weigh everything you eat, that's little room for error. One reason very slow and steady in dieting just isn't practical, there's no way to tell you're even going anywhere. Maybe an ounce a week of fat loss would be ideal, but there's no feedback, so it's useless. Dr. Oz once asked Gary Taubes why people couldn't just eat 100 calories less a day and lose weight. Somehow he's a Doctor.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 13:10
BawdyWench's Avatar
BawdyWench BawdyWench is online now
Posts: 8,270
 
Plan: High-Protein Keto
Stats: 212/197/170 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 36%
Location: Rural Maine
Default

If only it were truly just a numbers game ...
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 15:04
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,615
 
Plan: Eat B4 Noon (2020 Q4)
Stats: 342.2/191/000 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 44%
Default

Quote:
Dr. Oz once asked Gary Taubes why people couldn't just eat 100 calories less a day and lose weight. Somehow he's a Doctor.

OMG I laughed out loud when I read this teaser - I don't have anything agains Dr. Oz but your punchline and timing there killed me Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 15:39
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,507
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Another way to look at it--at 3.5 mph, this person burns 56 more calories than at 2.5 mph. So for that extra mile, 56 calories are burned. At that rate, 62.5 miles, and you've burned that supposed 3500 calories for a pound of fat. Whoopee.

Metabolic compensation? To undo that extra mile--you'd only have to be 2.43 calories "lazier" or less twitchy, or less rolling around in your sleep or--per hour the other 23 hours in the day. I don't know if that's even measurable. And do you know if you ate an extra 56 calories on a given day? Even if you weigh everything you eat, that's little room for error. One reason very slow and steady in dieting just isn't practical, there's no way to tell you're even going anywhere. Maybe an ounce a week of fat loss would be ideal, but there's no feedback, so it's useless. Dr. Oz once asked Gary Taubes why people couldn't just eat 100 calories less a day and lose weight. Somehow he's a Doctor.



Assuming it even worked like that, good luck even figuring out exactly 100 calories less a day.

I once looked up calorie counts for a bunch of very common foods, primarily with the idea that tiny differences in the size of a serving could add up to big differences in the total number of calories you ate. I only chose 7 items, but most people are likely to eat a dozen or more items. Some of those items were weighed, some were measured by diameter, some where the measurement was only a vague description:



Potato:

small (138g - 4.93 oz) 128 cals
NLEA serving (148g - 5.28 oz) 138 cals -
(10 g or approximately 1/3 oz difference in size) 10 cals diff

butter:

1 Tbsp (14g - 0.5 oz) 100 cals
3 pats (15g - 0.5357 oz) 108 cals
(1 g diff) 8 cals diff

cheerios:

1 oz (28g - 1 oz) 103 cals
NLEA serving (30 g - 1.0714 oz) 110 cals -
(2 g, or slightly more than 7/100 oz diff) 7 cals diff

chicken breast (meat only):

"standard" 100 g serving - 3.57 oz ) 100 cals
1/2 breast (118 g - 4.214 oz) 130 cals (This assumes that your 1/2 breast weighs exactly 4.214 oz - many weigh 8 oz, 12 oz, or more these days)
(slighly more than 1/2 oz diff) 30 cals diff (unless you have one of the 8 or 12 oz breasts, which could provide an extra 160-290 calories for this one item)


corn:

1/2 c (82g - 2.928oz ) 72 cals
100 g ( 3.57 oz), 88 cals
(less than 1/3 oz diff) 16 cals diff

apple:

1 NELA serving (154g - 5.3214 oz) 80 cals
1 medium (182g - 6.5 oz) 95 cals -
(less than 1-1/4 oz difference - less than 1/4" diameter difference in the two apples) 15 cals diff

M&M's:

Single serving box (42g - 1.48 oz) 207 cals
Single serving bag (48g - 1.69 oz) 236 cals
(6 g difference - less than 1/4 oz difference) 29 cals diff


Just with these 7 items, you could eat exactly what is described in your diet, and your calories could still be off by a minimum of 115 calories, even though the measurements of each item (such as small potato vs NELA serving of potato) differs by only a few grams.

Most of the time, diets specify a measurement that's not nearly as specific as the exact number of grams per serving - for instance 1/2 cup of corn - what if the kernels are smaller, and therefore naturally leave less air space in the measuring cup? That would weigh more, and therefore have more calories than 1/2 cup of larger kernels. Broken O's in your measuring cup of cheerios? You could end up with an extra few grams of cheerios, and therefore more calories than you realize. If your diet says you can have 1/2 chicken breast in this day and age where a 1/2 chicken breast is rarely anywhere near the 100 g serving size, and often well over 8 oz, you could be eating hundreds of calories more while still following the diet exactly. Do you take calipers with you to the store, so you can determine the exact diameter of an apple before purchasing it? Are you going to weigh the apple to the exact gram, and throw away any extra apple beyond the exact number of grams you're allowed for the exact number of calories of apple that fits into your diet?



The idea of controlling weight by eating 100 calories less a day - or even the idea that you can accurately measure every single morsel you put in your mouth so that you come up with exactly 100 calories less per day - it's absolutely ludicrous.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 15:47
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,141
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

I once tried the "just eat smaller portions!" gambit. BUT I'M HUNGRY never got solved that way.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 18:49
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,568
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/170/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 110%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

The calories-in/calories-out philosophy for weight control is a scam.
There is no way that a person can live a normal life and accurately track the calories that are eaten to a precision necessary to not gain or lose weight. As Calianna showed in her post, it is very easy to over or under consume without no clue. By slightly overeating by only 25 calories a day will result in a weight gain of about 3 pounds a year.
The problem is even worse in trying to figure out the calories out component. It's impossible to track every movement and know how much energy the movements use.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sun, Feb-16-20, 20:57
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,551
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Interesting discussion. I can overeat by 150 calories a day, but I can also lose weight/ burn fat during that time depending on what kind of calories I'm consuming. CI/CO is a misguided notion, and the critical danger is that the hypothesis has been rendered plausible by the laws of thermodynamics. Counting calories, counting footsteps (presumed calories burned), and other measures of energy input/ output are based on the notion that it all makes sense in the calculations of energy stored and lost. It's never as simple as the same applied to the Briggs & Stratton engine in my lawn mower.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:16.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.