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
  #1  
Unread 07-31-2009, 11:19 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Post The Energy Balance Equation

Article on the main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 07-31-2009, 11:36 AM
Dr_Jim Dr_Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Default

Very interesting and informative.
Thx.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 07-31-2009, 11:53 AM
nadfubach nadfubach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,502
Default

Quote:
There is also some evidence that based on different in the bacteria in the gut, there may be small differences in how well or poorly people extract energy from food during digestion, the most recent paper Iíve seen suggests that this can vary by roughly 100 calories per day. So thatís another place where the equation might be modified for any given individual.
grammar error there.

lyle has me on his ignore list. can someone quote me so that he can see this?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 07-31-2009, 11:55 AM
kurth kurth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 122
Default

great article, as always. Thanks Lyle.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 07-31-2009, 12:02 PM
monkeyarms's Avatar
monkeyarms monkeyarms is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 264
Default

Really good article -- it really cleared up a few details I was fuzzy on. Smart move closing comments btw - so that the message doesn't get diluted by the inevitable retarded debates


small corrections:
Quote:
There is also some evidence that based on different in the bacteria in the gut,....
Quote:
You donít geenrally see massive differences in proteins or fats although there can be slight differences.
Quote:
Well, some research has found that (and this usually happens in older people) that excessive amounts of activity burned during exercise causes people to move around later in the day.
- should that be "move around less later in the day" ?

Quote:
The 2500 cal/day maintenance level goes down becuase SPA/NEAT does down because they have less energy.
Quote:
The equation is valid, it ahs to be, whatís invalid are peopleís dumbassed assuptions about how things should work.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 07-31-2009, 12:02 PM
nadfubach nadfubach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,502
Default

Quote:
Ok, you say, what if I add exercise instead? Well, some research has found that (and this usually happens in older people) that excessive amounts of activity burned during exercise causes people to move around later in the day. For example, say you put yourself through 500 calories of hard activity but, due to fatigue, you sit on the couch more later that night, burning 300 calories less than you expended before training. The supposed 500 calorie deficit you’re creating is really only 200 calories because your SPA/NEAT has adjusted itself. You might expect one pound per week fat loss but the deficit is actually less than half of that (200 cal/day * 7 days = 1,400 calories = 0.4 pounds fat per week).
Found another... double "that" and the omission of the word "less"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 07-31-2009, 12:07 PM
Heavy_Lifter85 Heavy_Lifter85 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 556
Default

Awesome!

Few grammer notes (Oops, like five people posted while I was typing!):

Generally is spelled incorrectly.

Quote:
A More Detailed Look at the Equation: Energy In

Now, energy in is actually the simplest aspect of all of this, this represents the number of calories that you ingest each day from the nutrients protein, carbs, fat, fiber and alcohol.

Of course, even that is not so simple. First and foremost, not all foods are digested with identical efficiency. On average, high quality animal-source proteins are digested with roughly 90-95% efficiency with vegetable source proteins coming in lower than that (80-85%), fats about 97% efficiency and carbs can be as low as 80% depending on fiber content.

There can be some variance between different sources of the same nutrient as well. For example, a recently developed carbohydrate called resistant starch (it resists digestion) is absorbed with poor efficiency, more calories are lost in the stool compared to other carbs; some sugar alcohols share this effect (although they can just as readily cause massive stomach upset and diarrhea because of it). You don’t geenrally see massive differences in proteins or fats although there can be slight differences.
I think "left" should read "right" below.

Quote:
The Energy Balance Equation Isn’t Static

This is the real biggie which is why I saved it for last. As noted above, the energy balance equation can be written a bit more complexly as:

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Mass

Here’s what I want to talk about now: every factor on the left hand side, BMR/RMR, TEF, TEA and SPA/NEAT can change based on environment. Please read that sentence again a couple of times.
Think you need a less were indicated. Also, there is an extra "that."

Quote:
Ok, you say, what if I add exercise instead? Well, some research has found that (and this usually happens in older people) that excessive amounts of activity burned during exercise causes people to move around less later in the day. For example, say you put yourself through 500 calories of hard activity but, due to fatigue, you sit on the couch more later that night, burning 300 calories less than you expended before training. The supposed 500 calorie deficit you’re creating is really only 200 calories because your SPA/NEAT has adjusted itself. You might expect one pound per week fat loss but the deficit is actually less than half of that (200 cal/day * 7 days = 1,400 calories = 0.4 pounds fat per week).
Should exercise be stated explicitly in the expanded equation?

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Mass + exercise

Last edited by Heavy_Lifter85 : 07-31-2009 at 12:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 07-31-2009, 12:20 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

TEA = exercise

thanks for all the rest
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 07-31-2009, 01:01 PM
vee716 vee716 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 116
Default

Very good article. I can't believe that I've never run across that piece of information that losing muscle frees up so little energy before.

Just out of idle curiosity, given that much of LBM isn't actually muscle but connective tissue or other stuff, is that 600 cal/lb figure close for all LBM or just muscle? I'm thinking about the very obese where they will lose LBM as they diet, but not necessarily much muscle.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 07-31-2009, 01:16 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

It's probably going to vary and I sort of alluded to that by mentioning connective tissue but I couldn't be bothered to go look it up. Then again, connective tissue is mostly protein so it may not be that different.

Outside of research, I'm the only person I've ever seen make a point about the energetics for losing or gaining muscle vs. fat. Most people just think '3500 cal = 1 lb' but it's just not correct.
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 01:39 PM.


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