BodyRecomposition Support Forums

BodyRecomposition Support Forums (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//index.php)
-   Articles on the Main Site (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   A 45-Minute Vigorous Exercise Bout Increases Metabolic Rate for 14 Hours (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//showthread.php?t=11203)

lylemcd 05-24-2011 07:48 AM

A 45-Minute Vigorous Exercise Bout Increases Metabolic Rate for 14 Hours
 
Research review on the main site

peter.k 05-24-2011 10:13 AM

Great write up, Lyle. So for athletes who are in energy balance as well as doing long-duration and/or high-intensity stuff, EPOC can account for quite a bit?

Oh, and do you know if there is an increase in NEAT following exercise?

Overkill 05-24-2011 10:54 AM

From my own experience which may mean little to nothing...

As exercise intensity goes up, NEAT goes down. Which would make sense because you're tired.

Quote:

So for athletes who are in energy balance as well as doing long-duration and/or high-intensity stuff, EPOC can account for quite a bit?
Not "and/or"... and.

Those would be pretty brutal workouts just to be able to eat a little more and it's not like you can do that sort of thing every day. I don't think it's that relevant for most. I guess that's pretty much what Lyle already said in the article though.

lylemcd 05-24-2011 10:56 AM

I'm the same way: after an hour or 90 minute grinder, I pretty much lay down the rest of the day.

FutureisNow 05-24-2011 11:10 AM

Thanks for the write-up also. At first reading 57% max watts, it didn't sound very intense, but reading your explanation does make it seem so! I agree that the calorie balance issue needs to be explored further; though , as you say, not recommended during dieting anyway.

One hopes the effect kicks in sooner, during a 30-25 minute threshold run for example - if running packs a bigger bang. Not that it matters but it wouldn't be bad either :)

peter.k 05-24-2011 11:30 AM

Weird. I'm in the opposite way in terms of NEAT (and thus my question). My burn rate increase by great amount according to the GWF following exercise, caused by both higher rest expenditure and more movement. Even if what I did was very high-intensity.

dresden 05-24-2011 05:36 PM

Isn't the relevant point the lower increase in hunger compared to lower intensities? Not about the study, but about choosing high intensities for fat loss purposes.

Zé Apelido 05-24-2011 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dresden (Post 138989)
Isn't the relevant point the lower increase in hunger compared to lower intensities? Not about the study, but about choosing high intensities for fat loss purposes.


A related issue that has been bugging me is the apparent imbalance between 'heat balance' and 'mass balance' in regards to high intensity training.

When people talk about thermodynamics, they interchange heat and potential energy from stored molecules (fatty acids, glycogen, etc...). Specifically thermodynamics is about heat transfer. The key assumption made when attributing a certain calorie value to a macronutrient is how much heat it gives off when oxidized. That is the assumed link between mass balance and heat balance.

But when training at higher intensities, more glycogen is broken down without oxygen, which is a different process that releases a different amount of heat per molecule. This alone would go against the assumption of stored carbohydrate having a value of 4 kcal / unit. So more mass would be expended per unit of heat. But still the byproducts of anerobic glycolysis may be oxidized (lactate) to make up the difference, but I read a few papers which indicate that lactate produced is not totally oxidized.

I'm not sure about it, if someone knows more and could clarify that, I would appreciated. But in regards to your question, it could be possible that training with heavy anaerobic component can burn off more glycogen than measured via direct calorimetry (heat).

lylemcd 05-24-2011 07:50 PM

Yeah, didn't you already start a thread about this?

dresden 05-24-2011 07:59 PM

Why did he quote me :confused:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.