BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 12-28-2011, 05:47 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureisNow View Post
Anyway, the oxygen debt analogy makes sense in regards to some of the post-exercise recovery processes. And the debit in terms of fat/glycogen does as well.

I think some of the thermodynamic calculations depend on there being a closed or open system. What you say is true in a closed system. However the body is an open system. But generally I agree you need to pretty much eat back (an estimate) what you work off (an estimate) to maintain stasis (another estimate). It's all an approximation.

What that Dr is finding is that the recovery burn from single sets of certain strength training exercises exceeds that of the expenditure. The expenditure isn't that great. But the recovery exceeds 100% of that apparently, according to his measurements. Interesting ... though not sure if his subjects were at maintenance calories or stayed in deficit either.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...nsumption.html
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 12-29-2011, 10:27 AM
FutureisNow FutureisNow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
That's the article that i posted under actually

I read your comment about the study that wasn't replicated - the 4 set study that yeilded 750cals. Was that performed by Chris Scott who I linked to? I didn't see the who did in the article. If it was him, I'm not suprised it hasn't been replicated, since the guy is on the forefront of anaerobic measurments apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 12-29-2011, 10:30 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureisNow View Post
That's the article that i posted under actually

I read your comment about the study that wasn't replicated - the 4 set study that yeilded 750cals. Was that performed by Chris Scott who I linked to? I didn't see the who did in the article. If it was him, I'm not suprised it hasn't been replicated, since the guy is on the forefront of anaerobic measurments apparently.
Or perhaps HIS methodology is wrong and everyone else's is correct.

Because if his one study found one thing and 3-4 others find contradictory things, you don't get to cherry pick the one you happen to like. It's like the water intake and energy expenditure studies. Two studies using one method find pretty much impossible increases in energy expenditure and like 4-5 using a different method find no such thing.

Which do you put more weight on? Other than 'the one that tells me what I want to hear/the one that sells me the most product'?s

Also, including the energy cost of hypertrophy is not correct in terms of establishing EPOC. They are different biological processes and you don't get to conflate the two or redefine the terms as you so desire. Which isn't to say that the energy cost of hypertrophy doesn't count.

But it's not part of EPOC.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 12-30-2011, 12:18 PM
FutureisNow FutureisNow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Or perhaps HIS methodology is wrong and everyone else's is correct.

Because if his one study found one thing and 3-4 others find contradictory things, you don't get to cherry pick the one you happen to like. It's like the water intake and energy expenditure studies. Two studies using one method find pretty much impossible increases in energy expenditure and like 4-5 using a different method find no such thing.

Which do you put more weight on? Other than 'the one that tells me what I want to hear/the one that sells me the most product'?s

Also, including the energy cost of hypertrophy is not correct in terms of establishing EPOC. They are different biological processes and you don't get to conflate the two or redefine the terms as you so desire. Which isn't to say that the energy cost of hypertrophy doesn't count.

But it's not part of EPOC.
Indeed. He is using novel measurment techniques in an area he has devoted his life to, so there is a possiblity that could be right. I would not discount it completely, nor give it undue credibility at this stage. I would want to understand more about his methodology first before reaching a conclusion,
assuming I could understand it, lol.

But I don't beleive he has a vested interest in their being more calories burned from weights or HIIT though. It's the people that grab the research and claim it means more than it does.

He himself in the interview said that he wasn't taking into account the cost of hypertrophy. The interviewer added that and Scott said it was a seperate item as you did.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 12-30-2011, 04:44 PM
FutureisNow FutureisNow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CleanSnatch View Post
You are confusing things.

1st law holds for all systems, open or closed. It is only a simple accounting of energy.

Energy created - Energy destroyed + Energy influx - Energy efflux + Work done on the system - Work done by the system = Energy stored

It does not account for entropy, irreversibilities and friction within the system. Heat produced by exothermic biochemical reactions is an expression of entropy.

So if you expended 400 calories then to get back those 400 you will need more. How much more depends on the lossyness of the human system. Since no one has developed equations of state for every biochemical reaction in the body quantifying it cannot be done directly. Only empirically. If you eat 200 kcals a day and dont gain or lose weight then thats your maintenance requirement. Base your diet on that.

All this is moot since you will never completely restore yourself to the pre exercise state. Adaptations caused by exercise will mean you can never go back in time.

If you want to lose weight be in a deficit. Gain weight then be in a surplus. Want nutrient partitioning, decide on the kinds of exercise you need to do, plus the macros you eat. You don't need to know the intricaces of enthalpy, entropy and latent heats etc to get ripped.
Ok, just saw this!

Practically speaking, I agree, it doesn't matter. I was just interested in the theory.
I'm waiting for my first exercise physiology book in the mail, which should help somewhat with the
theory part as well.

The thermodynamics area I have little familarity with, so you're probably right.

Although, if ATP is expended inefficently, in an anaerobic glycotic process at least,
but replenishished efficently, aerobicaly, I don't see why it can't take
less energy than was spent to restore the ATP levels to their pre-expenditure levels.

Some of the lactate created anaerobically gets used for energy directly or converted to glucose
and again used for energy, which perhaps reduces the inefficenty of anaerobic glycolosis somewhat.
Still there are transport and conversion costs involved.... in other words, it should
still cost less to recover than to expend, looking strictly at ATP levels.

Last edited by FutureisNow : 12-30-2011 at 04:51 PM.
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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:12 PM.


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