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
  #11  
Unread 07-02-2010, 03:39 PM
Overkill's Avatar
Overkill Overkill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 719
Default

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5399/212

On this page. There's a link to the individual subject information at the top of table 1.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 07-02-2010, 03:49 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Serves me right for printing the thing out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 07-02-2010, 11:10 PM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 249
Default

So, how linear or not is the increase in NEAT as % of increased calories (for each individual)? I.e. the 700 cal increase guy - if he ate 500 calories excess, would the NEAT increase be 350 or would it be closer to 500?

And if he was to go on a 500 calories excess bulk, he'll in reality need more than 1000 extra calories. If that ratio continued, he'd need a whopping 1667 calories actually consumed. Or would there come a point that NEAT would stop increasing with all the excess calories? I.e. he'd have a maximum possible NEAT and once he's hit that point all extra calories would end up being fat/muscle.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 07-02-2010, 11:43 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

To my knowledge, never been tested in that formal of a fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 07-03-2010, 02:58 AM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 249
Default

So in practical terms, if +500 isn't working, just increase it to say +700 and see how it works?

I think Overkill has a very valid point that the subjects were all lean to start with, which would indicate that they'd be people who'd be more likely to have greater increased NEAT than the population as a whole.

I guess it would be pretty hard to get a paper published where you deliberately overfed fat people to see whether they'd get even more fatter
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 07-03-2010, 05:36 AM
Overkill's Avatar
Overkill Overkill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cxw View Post
So in practical terms, if +500 isn't working, just increase it to say +700 and see how it works?
That's pretty much always been the advice around here. Start our with a conservative surplus and if it's not working increase it.

Quote:
I think Overkill has a very valid point that the subjects were all lean to start with, which would indicate that they'd be people who'd be more likely to have greater increased NEAT than the population as a whole.

I guess it would be pretty hard to get a paper published where you deliberately overfed fat people to see whether they'd get even more fatter
I'm not sure how 'lean' all the people were. They just weren't obese. My point was that the average increase in NEAT in the study probably wouldn't reflect the average of an entire population. But in practical terms, I still don't think that point has much value because even the nonobese subjects in the test ranged from 0-700 and about everywhere in between.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 07-03-2010, 08:40 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cxw View Post
So in practical terms, if +500 isn't working, just increase it to say +700 and see how it works?
What other option is there in a practical sense?

Quote:
I think Overkill has a very valid point that the subjects were all lean to start with, which would indicate that they'd be people who'd be more likely to have greater increased NEAT than the population as a whole.
Do not disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 07-03-2010, 05:16 PM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
What other option is there in a practical sense?
Ok, it wasn't brightest question
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 07-03-2010, 05:20 PM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill View Post
I'm not sure how 'lean' all the people were. They just weren't obese.
If they're not obese, then they're leaner than average in the western world. I never assumed that were <=10% lean.

I'm wondering whether the people with increased NEAT in an uncontrolled environment might actively end up doing more active excercise (even if it's just house or yard work) and not fidget quite as much as they would under the controlled conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 07-05-2010, 07:54 AM
vee716 vee716 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 116
Default

BMR wet up only 5% accounting for 8%

went
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 05:08 AM.


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