Дрю Байе Высокий тренинга

Эй Дрю! Хороший пост. Что ACE также не упоминается так:

С AHA / ACSM документ под названием: физическая активность и здравоохранения. Обновленная рекомендация для взрослых из Американского колледжа спортивной медицины и Американской кардиологической ассоциации (стр. 7):

"Разумно предположить, что лица с относительно высоким ежедневные расходы энергии будет меньше шансов, чтобы набрать вес с течением времени, по сравнению с теми, которые имеют низкие расходы энергии. Пока данные в поддержку этой гипотезы не являются особенно убедительными. "

Эти люди Knuckleheads. Они даже не читали свои собственные документы.

Много претензий осуществляются в вашей должности, которые просто не подкрепляется какими-либо научными данными.

Во-первых, Ваше заявление, что самым большим преимуществом является упражнений мышц обслуживания "поддерживать уровень метаболизма" просто не соответствуют действительности. Во-первых, вклад мышцы на общую уровень метаболизма весьма мала. Многие люди думают, мышц способствует тяжело скорости обмена веществ, потому что они путают обезжиренной массы и мышцах. Тем не менее, дополнительные мышцы не делает значительный вклад в общий метаболизм. Метаболизма обусловлено, главным образом внутренними органами, поэтому существует такая тесная взаимосвязь между скоростью и метаболических обезжиренной массы.

В самом деле, данные довольно сильно, что нет никакой связи между метаболизма и успех с потерей веса или регулирования. Например, это было показано, что люди с низкой метаболической Цены не больше, чтобы набрать вес, чем люди с высокой метаболической ставок.

Тем не менее, данные об общем объеме ежедневного расхода энергии и физической активности и ее связь с весом регулирование достаточно сильны. Ваше сообщение здесь полным подтверждением предвзятость и избирательное цитирование. Например, если ваше утверждение, что только корреляционного отношения были показаны между активностью и поддержания веса, является неверным. Есть ряд контролируемых исследований показали, что после ожирением лица поддерживать их вес лучше выше ежедневных затрат энергии. Существует также большой объем работ по неосуществления деятельности термогенез (НИИТ) и его отношение к регулированию веса.

Американский колледж спортивной медицины и ACE имел это "их" слишком хорошо, слишком долго. Наконец кто-то их проблемы Благоверного претензий. It's About Time! Давайте оставим это довольно просто. Если один Саид повышает их активность, энергию, используемую до сделает свое дело в дальнейшем. Мы не говорим о механизированной машины, мы говорим о физиологии человека, где спрос и предложение работы в качестве масштаба. Если кто-то активными очень рано, тело будет выходить на пенсию раньше. Деятельность оказывает отрицательное воздействие на организм (делает устал), и если Тесно Scrutanized число так называемых калории сжигаются не намного больше, если верить сказкам были предложены производителями и беговые дорожки Эллиптические / лиц, совершивших деятельность классов, ETC. Кроме того, сжигание жира Hype, которые были предложены этими организациями на протяжении десятилетий является крупным мошенничеством, она просто не существует в реальной физиологии как уже издевались в последнее время основные Физиологи Университета. Это мечта маркетологов ложными надеждами и пустыми обещаниями. Диетические вмешательство является 100% Фактор Период, в противном случае все, что вы уехали в тех "избыточный вес" только FAT активных людей.

Nice Post Дрю,
Джеймс ... Несмотря на замечательные достижения mutiple получения степени магистра, перечисляя те же учетные данные в два раза после Вашего имени на блоге фактически не поддается дальнейшему авторитет, избыточность только заставляет вас выглядеть глупо и небезопасно

Брайант претензий:

"Недавние исследования показали, что аппетит может быть подавлена за 60-90 минут после интенсивной тренировки, влияя на освобождение определенных гормонов аппетита. Представляется также, что аэробные упражнения более эффективно подавляет аппетит, чем не аэробные формы упражнений (метла и др.., 2009). В целом, лица, участвующие в умеренные физические нагрузки, как правило, есть примерно такое же количество калорий (или лишь немного больше), чем если бы они не проявляли ".

Мой ответ:
1. Подавление аппетита за 60-90 минут пост осуществлять отличается от снижения общей калорийности питания. Вы могли бы снижение аппетита на 60-90 минут после тренировки имеют еще больший аппетит позже (я испытал это).
2. В последнем предложении он признает, что люди могут есть чуть больше, если они осуществляют, чем если бы они не делают. Кроме того, оно вполне может быть, что люди не едят больше, чем если бы они не проявляли просто потому, что они уже есть больше, чем нужно (независимо от их участия в регулярные физические упражнения или нет.)
3. Что эти люди игнорируют, что если деятельность лица увеличивает, скажем, на беговой дорожке ежедневно, он / она может очень хорошо снижении активности в то другим способом. Никаких изменений в аппетите бы тогда не отражает общее изменение затрат энергии, хотя и участвует в ежедневной "Экзерсис".

Существует никаких сомнений в теле саморегулируемые. Если он движется более одного вида деятельности, он либо хочет больше пищи, или, если больше пищи, не доступна, это сократит активность в некоторых других местах. Идея, что вы можете уменьшить аппетит за счет увеличения расхода энергии, является нелепым с эволюционной точки зрения. Любой организм, который ел менее спонтанно в ответ на возросшую активность будет терять массу тела и способности к воспроизводству, а естественный отбор будет сорняков такие организмы из любого населения.

Я согласен с Дрю, водитель аппетита и веса тела заключается в диете, а не упражнения. Повышается аппетит, если клетки испытывают дефицит энергии, то уменьшается, если они испытывают приток энергии. Инсулин контролирует этот поток, и углеводов в рационе питания определяет уровень инсулина. Если инсулин является высоким, он блокирует освобождение жира из жировых, который голодает Lean тканей энергии (поскольку они предпочитают сжигать жир), а это повышает аппетит. Если инсулин является низкой, наоборот. Осуществлять только временно увеличивает освобождение от жира, в результате чего после упражнений снижения аппетита (60-90 минут), но если элита спортсмена затратив тысяч калорий в день в "аэробика", он / она может легко из-питающихся энергией расходов.

Дрю --

Если эти скептики бы просто забрать Гэри Таубса книгу и прочитать ее вместо чтения Lyle Макдональд (который на самом деле не так уж плохо), Т-нации и прочее Том Venuto, они не будут Размещая эти комментарии.

Меня поражает то, насколько плохо образованных так много специалистов фитнес есть. Они, наверное, даже не читал доклады DRI еще будет приводить доводы в пользу сложных углеводов в качестве необходимого компонента диеты человека.

Один парень на моем сайте говорит, что исследования Гэри Таубса "в GCBC был" отобран ". Я чуть не упал со стула от смеха. Я не думаю, что эти люди могут пройти первую главу в книге Таубса 'в качестве словаря возобладают тогда.

Ты должен читать материал, который в настоящее время размещены в разделе комментариев в моем блоге Дрю RE мой последний блог неурожайные годы.

ОК не буду ... А если серьезно .... Человеком О, человек! Вот почему иногда я просто хочу, чтобы получить работу в качестве мастера в столярном цехе. Математике, естественным наукам и искусству правило. Фитнес промышленности настолько залита пошляки это ошеломляет. Как Джиллиан Майклс на The Biggest Loser. Как Bugs Bunny бы сказать: "Что Maroon! Что Тар-ра-ра-goondeeay! "

Разве мы не хотим, чтобы люди получают мяса и быть здоровым? Это смешно, когда люди видят люди, как ты, Дейв Ландау и другие получают разрубил, осуществляя в течение 20 минут за тренировку в неделю, не аэробика и есть приличное количество лицензий F от мяса и жира и до сих пор даже противоположных, что ты Е. все сделали то, что они хотят! Friggin Amazing!

В 1989 г. Янссен и др. сообщили о результатах своих экспериментов в котором они приняли ранее сидячий 18 человек (9 мужчин, 9 женщин) и в течение 18 месяцев подготовку их к марафонскому бегу. Мужчины потеряли пять фунтов, женщины показали никаких изменений в составе организма. Int J Спортивная медицина мая: 10 (1 Suppl): S17-21.

Мужчины 16,5% жира в начале исследования, 13,4% 18 месяцев спустя. Женщины 25% жира в начале исследования, 24% жирности 18 месяцев спустя. Ибо ни группой, изменения веса тела, индекса массы тела, или процентное содержание жира достигло статистической значимости. Женщины не смогли прийти к "Леан" состоянии (17-21% жира). Мужчины достали "Леан" (10-15%).

Мужчинами, увеличилось их потребление энергии от 131 до 159 кДж / кг / сут. Женщины показали никаких существенных изменений в потреблении энергии. Однако, как мужчины и женщины значительно увеличили свое потребление углеводов. Увеличение СНО мужчин от 280 до 346 г / сут, а женщин увеличилась с 239 до 283 г / D.

Продолжительность обучения участвуют в среднем от 4 до 5 дней в неделю (по сравнению с менее чем 2 часа еженедельного деятельности, прежде чем руки).

Авторы объяснили отсутствие изменений в женском составе тела, как в результате увеличения эффективности в пищевой промышленности в условиях ограничения энергии ", как тело стремится защитить и пополнять свои запасы энергии".

Точно. Поскольку эти люди увеличили свои затраты энергии в порядке, все они ели больше углеводов, мужчины употребляли более общий, а женщины либо сократили свои другие виды деятельности или сокращения их метаболические ставок, или все три. Увеличилось потребление углеводов в сочетании с сокращением расходов на обмен или другой деятельности, противопоставили расхода энергии довольно тщательно женщин. И для мужчин, 4-5 часа упражнений в неделю в течение 18 недель привело к незначительным изменениям состава тела. Это клиническое испытание так что превосходит любой эпидемиологическую связь между расходами энергии и состава тела.

***********
Джеймс,

Мне бы очень хотелось видеть этих исследований и данных.
**************

Есть множество документов для изучения влияния метаболизма на потерю веса и поддержания веса. Weinsier является одним автором, который сделал многочисленных статей по этому вопросу. Некоторые из этих документов:

Weinsier др.. Ли адаптивные изменения в метаболических веса пользу ставки восстановить вес пониженным лиц? Экспертиза множества точки теории. Am J Clin Nutr 72 (5) :1088-1094, 2000.

Weinsier и др. .. Низкий покоя и сна расход энергии и использование жира не способствуют ожирению у женщин. Obes. Res. 11 (8) :937-944, 2003.

Есть множество других документов в этой области.

Что касается отношений между общей ежедневный расход энергии и физической активности и регулирования веса, существует большой объем работ по этому вопросу, и они почти все это указывает на большие совокупные расходы энергии ведет к повышению содержания в весе после потери веса. Вот несколько примеров:

Weinsier др.. Бесплатные жизни расходов энергии в деятельности женщин успешных и неудачных на поддержание нормального веса тела. Am J Clin Nutr 75 (3) :499-504, 2002.

Ванг и др.. Вес восстановить связано с сокращением физической активности в потере веса. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40 (10) :1781-1788, 2008.

Schoeller др.. Сколько физическая активность необходима для минимизации веса в ранее ожирением женщин? Am J Clin Nutr 66 (3) :551-556, 1997.

Маклин и др.. Регулярные физические упражнения ослабляет метаболические диска для восстановления веса после долгого срока потеря веса. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 9 июля 2009 (Epub впереди печати)

Джеффри RW, и др.. Физическая активность и потери веса: делает назначения выше цели физической активности улучшить результаты? Am J Clin Nutr 78 (4) :684-689, 2003.

Это только часть документов, которые там.

Regarding the body of work on NEAT and weight regulation, Jim Levine has done a number of papers on this. A good review paper:

Levine et al. Non-exercise activity thermogenesis: the crouching tiger hidden dragon of societal weight gain. 26:729-736, 2006.

Levine also did a good paper looking at spontaneous physical activity in obese people after weight loss. Spontaneous physical activity did not increase, which contradicts your claims that the reason an association is observed between physical activity and weight maintenance is because lighter people are more likely to move around.

Levine et al. Interindividual variation in posture allocation: possible role in human obesity. Science. 307(5709):584-586, 2005.

**************************
Speaking of confirmation bias, many researchers see what they want to when interpreting the results,
*****************

A blanket statement for which you have no evidence.

****************************
and often whether papers are published has more to do with whether the stated conclusions (as opposed to an objective evaluation of the data) support the existing paradigm or beliefs of the review board.
****************************

This is false, and it is obvious to me that you have never published any papers and thus do not understand the process. While there certainly are limitations to the peer-review process, papers are published all the time that may conflict with the views of scientific organizations. Here is one example. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has often been viewed as a journal “biased” against low-carbohydrate diets. This was a claim made by many people (possibly bitter researchers whose research may have been rejected for good reasons). However, I had a study favoring low carbohydrate diets published in this journal. In fact, there have been a number of papers favoring these diets published in this journal. The claims made that this journal is biased is not supported by the evidence.

************************
Like the NSCA publishing meta-analysis claiming superiority of multiple-sets which ignore all the research to the contrary.
*************************

Another false claim. I'm not sure if you are referring to the one by Wolfe et al, or if you are referring to mine which will appear in print in the next issue. Either way, these papers came to their conclusions simply because the weight of the evidence favored multiple sets. In fact, JSCR did not accept my paper on the first submission, which goes against your assertion that this journal is eager to publish anything that supports their viewpoint. In fact, there have been issues of this journal where a study favoring multiple sets (Kraemer) and a study not favoring multiple sets (Ostrowski) were published in the very same issue.

It is the job of a scientific organization to be “biased” towards the weight of the evidence. If the weight of the evidence supports multiple sets, then the organization should take that stand. This is not evidence of some sort of conspiratorial bias on the part of the organization. In fact, you have no evidence of bias on the part of these organizations. To support your assertion, you would need to provide evidence that these journals more often reject studies that don't support the organization's viewpoint, and that these rejections aren't due to sound methodological reasons.

**************************
Over the past 15 years I have trained a few hundred people,
**************************

And over the past 4 years the company that I worked for treated over 400 obese patients *per year*. Our mean weight loss was nearly 40 pounds over a 6 month period. We did the things that you claim shouldn't be done, which included a large increase in physical activity.

I will respond to the comments of others here when I get the opportunity.

***************
Exercising to burn calories is a very slow and inefficient way to lose fat compared with diet, and makes a minor contribution at best.
****************

That's not what this debate is about. Exercise *alone* certainly is not an effective way to lose large amounts of fat, and I never made such a claim. However, it is well demonstrated that it is quite necessary for long-term weight *maintenance*. Also, you have been making unsupportable claims that exercise will stimulate appetite. The vast wealth of literature shows the opposite….that physically active people have better appetite regulatory mechanisms than sedentary people.

************
A weight loss of only 40 pounds over six months for obese subjects is not that impressive. I recently had a client lose 34 pounds (from 263 to 229) in only two months and another lose 17 in a little over two months while gaining over 5 pounds of muscle, both doing no more than 20 minutes of high intensity strength training twice a week. Last year I had a woman lose 128 pounds in 13 months (from 245 to 117), also with just high intensity strength training. Not only is this a better rate of fat loss, I would bet the total exercise time is far below what your company's patients invested for the same results.
**********************

Anybody can give testimonials. They are about as worthwhile as an infomercial. We had numerous clients lose well over 100 pounds in only 3 months on our program. When I say 40 lbs, I'm talking that this is the mean weight loss of over 2000 clients. The majority of that loss was in the first 3 months, and then loss was more gradual during the second 3 months of the program (the “Phase II” of the program).

*************
If One Increases their Said Activity, the Energy Used up will Take its Toll Later On. We are Not talking about Mechanized Machines, we are Talking about Human Physiology, where the Supply and Demand works as a Scale.
****************

David, this is an overly simplistic view of human physiology. Regulation of human energy balance is quite complex. First, mechanisms to regulate energy balance tend to be more efficient with energy deficits than energy surpluses. This explains the human tendency to gain weight in today's environment….the human body has not evolved the mechanisms to resist today's environment which encourages an energy surplus. However, humans do have highly efficient mechanisms for correcting for energy deficits. But, this response is highly variable. While some people may show very efficient mechanisms for resisting and correcting for an energy deficit, others will not….hence the differing abilities of people to lose weight and maintain weight. This likewise holds true for conditions of energy surplus. Some people are better at resisting and correcting for an energy surplus than others, explaining why some people are able to resist weight gain in the same environment as other people who gain weight easily.

**************
Activity has a Negative Effect on the Body (makes it tired)
***************

A claim for which you have no evidence to support.

*************
Dietary Intervention is the 100% Factor Period,
**************

Another claim for which you have no evidence to support. While dietary intervention certainly is necessary, there is a wealth of data showing the importance of activity in appetite regulation as well as long-term weight maintenance.

*********
listing the exact same credential twice after your name on a blog does not in fact lend itself to further credibility, the redundancy only makes you look silly and insecure
***************

Todd, this is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem….generally the tactic of someone who doesn't have solid evidence. If you have evidence contradicting my assertions, then please provide it.

*****************
1. Suppressing appetite for 60-90 minutes post-exercise is different from reducing overall caloric intake. You could have a reduced appetite for 60-90 minutes after exercise yet have a greater appetite later (I have experienced this).
****************

The data shows that, on average, there is no increase in appetite even later on in the day. A few relevant papers:

Hubert et al. Uncoupling the effects of energy expenditure and energy intake: appetite response to short-term energy deficit induced by meal omission and physical activity. Appetite. 31(1):9-19, 1998.

King et al. High dose exercise does not increase hunger or energy intake in free living males. Eur J Clin Nutr. 51(7):478-483, 1997.

*****************
If it moves more in one activity, it either wants more food or, if more food is not available, it cuts activity in some other place.
******************

Again, as I mentioned in another post, this view is overly simplistic and does not reflect the reality of what happens. First, it has been established that appetite regulatory mechanisms are better in physically active people than sedentary people. Second, the response of a person to an energy deficit is highly variable. In some cases, yes, people may reduce spontaneous physical activity in response to activity. In other cases, they don't. This requires awareness of the individual of this phenomena and actions to correct it if it happens.

*************
Insulin controls this flow, and carbohydrate in the diet determines insulin levels. If insulin is high, it blocks release of fat from adipose, which starves lean tissues of energy (since they prefer to burn fat), and this increases appetite. If insulin is low, the opposite.
**************

This is not a correct view of how insulin works.

First, carbohydrate is not the only macronutrient that determines insulin secretion. Protein is also insulinemic (a fact forgotten or ignored by many posters here who subscribe to the carbs make you fat ideology). In fact, there are some proteins that can be just as insulinemic as carbohydrates.

It is true that insulin inhibits lipolysis. However, this occurs at very low insulin concentrations. Thus, there is always inhibition of lipolysis going on (unless you are Type I diabetic and are completely devoid of insulin). Thus, this concept that lowering carbohydrate helps you lose fat because of insulin's effect on lipolysis is not correct.

Also, it is false that high insulin increases appetite. In fact, the opposite is true…high insulin tends to feed back on the appetite regulatory centers of the brain and signal satiety. This makes sense because high insulin typically represents a fed state.

The problem is not insulin….it's *insulin resistance*. Insulin resistance is known to disrupt appetite regulatory mechanisms. One example is through causing leptin resistance in the brain. There are numerous papers on the disruptive effects of insulin resistance on appetite regulatory systems. This is also why physical activity tends to improve appetite regulatory systems….because physical activity reduces insulin resistance.

*********
If these naysayers would just pick up Gary Taubes book and read it instead of reading Lyle McDonald (who actually isn't too bad), T-Nation and Tom Venuto's stuff, they wouldn't be posting these comments here.
**********

Fred, this comment shows that you make assumptions and jump to conclusions on little to no evidence. I don't read T-Nation, or Tom Venuto, or Lyle McDonald. I read the scientific papers themselves. In fact, I am willing to bet I am much more versed on the energy balance literature than any of you posting here. I also have my own publications, and I personally know some of the authors of these papers that I've referenced (like Jim Levine).

James: Simple? Simple is when You have to site “research” papers for your evidence? Observations of People that do Daily Activity (I've seen thousands of examples) to My Couch Potato LifeStyle, and Guess What James, I'm about 4.2% Body Fat and the Daily Activity People, well they are still FAT and Tired. The Tendency for People to Gain Weight is do to The Richest (Caloric) Food Supply in our Nation's History, where I'm told by many from other Countries that they can't believe the amount of Food Americans Eat and have Access to. Again, I don't have to site “research” papers in order to see the Forrest for the Sake of the Trees and I don't have to site some “so called” expert that wrote a book. Yes, there is a wealth of “data” but the situation remains the same. The Article in Time was Rather Weak, he should have gone for the Juggler. Activity done for “weight loss” is a BAD idea. Now that's Simple.

*************
Increased activity levels are not necessary for long term maintenance and make a minor contribution at best.
**************

Drew, this statement shows your confirmation bias. I referenced a controlled (not observational) study by Jeffery (and others as well) which clearly showed that higher prescribed energy expenditures resulted in significantly better weight maintenance than lower energy expenditures. In fact, in the Jeffery study, the lower energy expenditure group regained half of their weight, while the higher energy expenditure group regained only about 20%. This is not a “minor contribution”. This is only one study of a body of both animal and human data that supports this. Holding up your hands to your ears and saying “Lalalalala” does not change this.

******************
As for literature showing a correlation between physically active people having better appetite regulatory mechanisms, again, consider these people may be more active because they are in better shape because they have better appetite regulatory systems, rather than the other way around.
*******************

Once again, you are demonstrating that you have not read any of this literature. In this statement, you have ASSUMED that all of this literature is simply observational data and only shows correlations. This is not even close to being the truth.

For example, Martins et al. (2007, Br J Nutr) showed, in a controlled study, that food intake regulation was improved in a group of sedentary men when put on a 6-week exercise program. In another paper published in the Journal of Endocrinology in 2007, these same authors showed exercise (again, in a controlled study) to increase peptide YY, glucagon-like peptide-1, and pancreatic polypeptide levels…..all three are key hormones in increasing satiety.

In another controlled trial, Tsofliu et al (Int J Obesity, 2003) reported moderate exercise to increase satiety in obese women compared to being sedentary.

*******************
It shouldn't surprise anyone that physically fit people are more active than people who are out of shape – not because being active in and of itself is an effective way to get or stay in shape, but physical activity is more enjoyable to fit people for whom it is not nearly as demanding, while someone who is out of shape probably does not enjoy the relatively higher demand and discomfort of similar activities.
************

Again, you are showing confirmation bias by showing that you ignored a very well designed study by Jim Levine that I referenced. Specifically, he took obese people and had them wear specially designed underwear which determined their posture allocation (sitting, standing, or moving around). He had the obese people lose weight, to see if they would become more spontaneously active since they had less weight to carry around and it was easier to move around. He found that this wasn't the case…..they continued to adhere to their habitual activity levels, and sat and lied down just as much as they did when they were obese.

You also fail to understand the concept of “convergence of evidence”……the popular skeptical writer Michael Shermer has written extensively about this concept. Basically, when you have multiple sources of data, from a variety of sources, all pointing the same conclusion, then you can reasonably ascertain that the conclusion is highly reliable. In the case of exercise and appetite control, you have a body of both controlled and observational studies showing improvements in energy intake regulation with physical activity, in both lean and obese subjects. Also, you have controlled studies showing improvements in appetite-regulatory hormones. You then have a large body of data showing improved long-term weight maintenance with increased physical activity levels. You also have animal and human data showing how insulin resistance impairs appetite regulation and related hormones, and you have data showing exercise to improve insulin resistance. This totality of evidence points to one conclusion. For your assertions to be correct, you have a very large body of data you would need to refute….which is why it doesn't surprise me when you and others on this board resort to sweeping generalizations about a body of work for which you have not closely inspected….the inevitable conclusion of all of this data doesn't match with your preformed beliefs.

**************I'd be willing to bet they could have accomplished the same or better with the same diet and one or two brief, high intensity strength training sessions per week.
***************

Now you are making absurd claims. Our clients were on 1200-1800 kcal/d, high protein, moderate carb diets. They were exercising (combo of cardio & strength training) for 75 minutes for a minimum of 5 days per week. You are essentially claiming that you would achieve higher energy deficits on a dramatically reduced exercise volume. Logic dictates that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But I highly doubt you have any solid empirical data to support the absurd claim that you would achieve higher energy deficits on such reduced volume.

**********
Simple is when You have to site “research” papers for your evidence?
***********

Empirical data is by far a superior source of evidence to anecdotal claims and personal belief.

************
I'm about 4.2% Body Fat
***********

By what measure? All 2-compartment models for determining body composition (including DEXA and hydrostatic weighing) are extremely inaccurate, particularly at extreme ranges such as this. I highly doubt your true body fat % is even close to that number.

**********
I don't have to site “research” papers in order to see the Forrest for the Sake of the Trees
************

Translation: I don't need evidence

***********
Activity done for “weight loss” is a BAD idea.
***********

Repeating something ad nauseam doesn't make it so. If you don't have evidence, your assertions are empty.

James: I will be in Seattle Thursday, so you can come over and measure my Body Fat Percentage. My Empirical Observation for well over 30 years concludes opposite to your “studies.” Agenda Anyone? The Body is a Terrible thing to waste through the pursuit of “planned canned” activity and when the thought of Such BS crosses your mind, lay down until the thought goes away. “You Don't Have to 'Exercise' – Rest Begins at Forty” – Great Classic by Peter J. Steincrohn

“Fred, this comment shows that you make assumptions and jump to conclusions on little to no evidence.”

Правда? Little to no evidence for what exactly? Increased appetite after exercise? You've already read what I said to Mike on my blog where he used research to prove that appetite did not increase after energy expenditure – and in several of the studies he posted apetite either decreased, increased or there was no change.

Take a read of Dr. Walter Willet's EPI book.

The fact is this: Modern research on the subject seems to be all over the place on the hunger after exercise issue. The experiments are hard to do because of all the psychological factors that could confound them — ie, if the people think they might lose weight in the experiment, they might consciously or even unconsciously try to eat less. This is why these experiments are actually better off being done in animals and that literature also shows a scattered response.

The other stuff is just the epidemiological observations that are in Dr. Willett's nutritional epi book, that the more people expend in their jobs, the more they eat. And then, of course as Drew mentions, common sense. This effect can also be more significant in people who tend to put on fat, than in people who are chronically lean mainly due to insulin resistance or the lack thereof. I was a chronically lean person until years of low fat high carb abuse had my triglycerides in the 300 range and putting on fat out of seemingly nowhere even though I went to 5 martial arts classes a week and left with my GI soaked. After 4 hours of martial arts I and my wife and training partners were starving. All we would do for 2 hours was eat after class. We were never fatter than then.

“I don't read T-Nation, or Tom Venuto, or Lyle McDonald. I read the scientific papers themselves. In fact, I am willing to bet I am much more versed on the energy balance literature than any of you posting here.”

That is doubtful if you are including me in the picture, but perhaps it could be. Even if you are well versed this does not mean that you are comprehending what you read thoroughly.

“I also have my own publications, and I personally know some of the authors of these papers that I've referenced (like Jim Levine).”

Cool. What are your publications? Personally knowing the authors doesn't mean much. I personally know many experts like Dr, Richard Feinman, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Mary Vernon, Gary Taubes (he is a friend and a client), and scores of others but this doesn't mean I'm right – about anything. It's nice to know folks but how does knowing people matter? They can be just as deluded or biased as anyone, right?

Have you read Gary's book in it's entirety?

And do you agree with the following statement:

“High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triaglycerols, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue.”

Here's the abstract on the Levine NEAT ob study:

“Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is the energy expenditure of all physical activities other than volitional sporting-like exercise. NEAT includes all the activities that render us vibrant, unique, and independent beings such as working, playing, and dancing. Because people of the same weight have markedly variable activity levels, it is not surprising that NEAT varies substantially between people by up to 2000 kcal per day. Evidence suggests that low NEAT may occur in obesity but in a very specific fashion. Obese individuals appear to exhibit an innate tendency to be seated for 2.5 hours per day more than sedentary lean counterparts. If obese individuals were to adopt the lean “NEAT-o-type,” they could potentially expend an additional 350 kcal per day. Obesity was rare a century ago and the human genotype has not changed over that time. Thus, the obesity epidemic may reflect the emergence of a chair-enticing environment to which those with an innate tendency to sit, did so, and became obese. To reverse obesity, we need to develop individual strategies to promote standing and ambulating time by 2.5 hours per day and also re-engineer our work, school, and home environments to render active living the option of choice.”

HUGE assumption.

This is yet another example of the GIGANTIC bias of calories used = weight gain. It presupposes that:

1. The obese are obese because they sit too much and
2. If they moved more they'd lose weight

I've asked everyone to produce ONE controlled study where significant body fat was lost from exercise alone. Can anyone produce one? James you are admittedly more well read on the subject of energy balance correct? Can you cite the study and the abstract?

Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Excess fat is accumulated when calories get stored as fat rather than used as energy. This happens then their is a hormonal disorder, specifically a disorder in the hormone insulin and that disorder is excess secretion and insensitivity.

Fat people are not fat because they move less. They move less because they are strong energy as fat and thus it is not available to them for energy.

There are many lean sedentary people who eat a lot. There are many over fat, active people, who don't eat that much. It's WHAT they are eating and how insulin insensitive they are that causes obesity.

Until we start obeying biochemistry and releasing ourselves from the paradigm paralysis of 'a calorie is a calorie' / exercise more to lose fat.' this nation will continue to become fatter and more diabetic.

****************
Todd, this is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem….generally the tactic of someone who doesn't have solid evidence. If you have evidence contradicting my assertions, then please provide it.
*****************
Actually it is a blatant ad hominem with no attempt for disguise whatsoever. Your credentialing technique is akin to the optometrist who lists “Dr. I. Kantsy, OD, Doctor of Optometry” on his/her shingle, or, closer to this discussion, the personal trainer who fills 2 lines of paper listing the certification of every pseudo-professional exercise organization following his/her name. If you must, list your highest earned degree once, and your certification/fellowship by a respected professional organization once, and be done with it. Anything more smacks of someone seeking attention and actually takes away from many of your excellent contributions to this thread.

BTW James, your paper titled:

“SINGLE VERSUS MULTIPLE SETS OF RESISTANCE EXERCISE: A META-REGRESSION”

Not to change the subject or highjack the thread, but did you account for intensity of effort in your analysis? Seems quite odd that 1 set was as good as 4-6 sets but inferior to 2-3 by a whopping 46%. Did this 46% relate to increased lean mass in the 2-3 set group?

Perhaps we could start a thread about this on my discussion forum http://seriousstrength.yuku.com/

Sorry Drew but while I had James attention I wanted to address this.

James: If I can, I may have access to a Dexa in Olympia if I can get down there.

If anyone thinks we have no evidence that research is biased and rife with error, s/he needs to read this:

WHy Most Published Research Findings Are False by John PA Ioannidis

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Some quotes:

“It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

“REsearch is not most appropriately represented by p-values….”

“The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.”

“If the true effect sizes are very small in a scientific field, this field is likely to be plagued by almost ubiquitous false positive claims. "

“There is strong evidence that selective outcome reporting, with manipulation of the outcomse ans analysise reported, is a common problem even for randomized trials [25].”

“Scientists in a given field may be pregudiced purely because of their belieif in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].”

“Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.”

“Highly prejudiced stakeholders may even create a barrier that aborts efforts at obtaining and disseminating opposing results.”

“Conversely, a meta-analytic finding from inconclusive studies where pooling is used to “correct” the low power of single studies, is probably false if R ? 1:3.”

“As shown, the majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings. Let us suppose that in a research field there are no true findings at all to be discovered. History of science teaches us that scientific endeavor has often in the past wasted effort in fields with absolutely no yield of true scientific information, at least based on our current understanding. In such a “null field,” one would ideally expect all observed effect sizes to vary by chance around the null in the absence of bias. The extent that observed findings deviate from what is expected by chance alone would be simply a pure measure of the prevailing bias.”

This paper proves that most research findings, including most cited by James, are false.

As Drew pointed out, what point in exercising 5 hours a week if we can get the same results with a decent diet and two 20 minute strength training sessions or less. In my case, I have less than 10% body fat and my vigorous exercise amounts to, usually, not more than 20 minutes per week of HIT. I attribute it to my diet.

Oh, and if you want to learn how and why insulin increases appetite, read GCBC. Talk about selective citation…..

I have responded to various people's posts here over on the seriousstrength board.

Here's the abstract on the Levine NEAT ob study:

“Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is the energy expenditure of all physical activities other than volitional sporting-like exercise. NEAT includes all the activities that render us vibrant, unique, and independent beings such as working, playing, and dancing. Because people of the same weight have markedly variable activity levels, it is not surprising that NEAT varies substantially between people by up to 2000 kcal per day. Evidence suggests that low NEAT may occur in obesity but in a very specific fashion. Obese individuals appear to exhibit an innate tendency to be seated for 2.5 hours per day more than sedentary lean counterparts. If obese individuals were to adopt the lean “NEAT-o-type,” they could potentially expend an additional 350 kcal per day. Obesity was rare a century ago and the human genotype has not changed over that time. Thus, the obesity epidemic may reflect the emergence of a chair-enticing environment to which those with an innate tendency to sit, did so, and became obese. To reverse obesity, we need to develop individual strategies to promote standing and ambulating time by 2.5 hours per day and also re-engineer our work, school, and home environments to render active living the option of choice.”

HUGE assumption.

This is yet another example of the GIGANTIC bias of calories used = weight gain. It presupposes that:

1. The obese are obese because they sit too much and
2. If they moved more they'd lose weight

I've asked everyone to produce ONE controlled study where significant body fat was lost from exercise alone. Can anyone produce one? James you are admittedly more well read on the subject of energy balance correct? Can you cite the study and the abstract?

Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Excess fat is accumulated when calories get stored as fat rather than used as energy. This happens then their is a hormonal disorder, specifically a disorder in the hormone insulin and that disorder is excess secretion and insensitivity.

Fat people are not fat because they move less. They move less because they are strong energy as fat and thus it is not available to them for energy.

There are many lean sedentary people who eat a lot. There are many over fat, active people, who don't eat that much. It's WHAT they are eating and how insulin insensitive they are that causes obesity.

Until we start obeying biochemistry and releasing ourselves from the paradigm paralysis of 'a calorie is a calorie' / exercise more to lose fat.' this nation will continue to become fatter and more diabetic.

HE is spot on correct.