BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General diet questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 03-02-2018, 07:23 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 201
Default Constrained Energy Model

Anyone familiar with the constrained energy model, which basically says energy output increases at a decreasing rate, rather than linearly as the body adapts.

Is this just decreased NEAT or actually possible? Empirically, it seems to play out, but theoretically sounds illogical.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 03-02-2018, 07:35 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 757
Default

There is indirect work showing that TDEE doesn't increase as much as you'd expect in response to exercise. In some models, it's like 55%. So you add 400 calories of exercise but TDEE only goes up by like 220 calories. Presumably the body is adapting elsewhere. Since it's not RMR or TEF, that means NEAT adjusts.

It's actually called The Exercise Paradox by Pontzer.

Pontzer is talking specifically about the fact that adding exercise often doesn't increase total daily energy expenditure in the way you'd expect.

So assume the system is stastic. TDEE is 2500 cal/day. You add 300 calories/day of exercise. Theoretically your TDEE is at 2800. But it doesn't always work out that way. Some other component (i.e. NEAT) goes down and in many cases you maybe raise TDEE by half of the predicted.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"

Last edited by zLeeKo : 03-02-2018 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 03-02-2018, 08:25 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zLeeKo View Post
There is indirect work showing that TDEE doesn't increase as much as you'd expect in response to exercise. In some models, it's like 55%. So you add 400 calories of exercise but TDEE only goes up by like 220 calories. Presumably the body is adapting elsewhere. Since it's not RMR or TEF, that means NEAT adjusts.

It's actually called The Exercise Paradox by Pontzer.

Pontzer is talking specifically about the fact that adding exercise often doesn't increase total daily energy expenditure in the way you'd expect.

So assume the system is stastic. TDEE is 2500 cal/day. You add 300 calories/day of exercise. Theoretically your TDEE is at 2800. But it doesn't always work out that way. Some other component (i.e. NEAT) goes down and in many cases you maybe raise TDEE by half of the predicted.
Thanks for response. That makes practical sense.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 03-02-2018, 08:28 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
Thanks for response. That makes practical sense.
No problem. It's a very good question, we discussed it on Lyle's FB group couple of times. If you're in the group, there's some really good info about it.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 03-02-2018, 08:42 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zLeeKo View Post
No problem. It's a very good question, we discussed it on Lyle's FB group couple of times. If you're in the group, there's some really good info about it.
Will do and thanks again.

Inevitably, past dieting failures always resulted by adding calories (even very conservatively) while adding cardio. It never seemed to work out, even though (55 VO2 max) in decent cardio shape.

Have you experienced similar things?

Time to move less (but still a lot relative to average sedentary person) and eat less. Good times ahead.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 03-02-2018, 09:08 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post

Time to move less (but still a lot relative to average sedentary person) and eat less. Good times ahead.
Exactly.

I was always cautious while adding cardio on diet, even in form of LISS cardio. I don't like to compensate extra calories by adding cardio, for all the reasons explained above.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 03-02-2018, 09:09 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
Anyone familiar with the constrained energy model, which basically says energy output increases at a decreasing rate, rather than linearly as the body adapts.

Is this just decreased NEAT or actually possible? Empirically, it seems to play out, but theoretically sounds illogical.
Why does it sound theoretically illogical? If I make you do 600 calories of hard exericse, why wouldn't your body likely adapt by reducing NEAT?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 03-02-2018, 09:56 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Why does it sound theoretically illogical? If I make you do 600 calories of hard exericse, why wouldn't your body likely adapt by reducing NEAT?
I must of misunderstood the article, probably.

Thought it may have been alluding to energy output decreasing (via increased levels of activity after a threshold point) while holding NEAT constant.

Time to invest in reading comprehension class for me.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 03-03-2018, 12:07 AM
funkord funkord is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 290
Default

I think there is work showing that this holds especially for high Levels of physical activity, which is something Lyle also talkend about in the context of how Bad it is to combine high activity with low calories. I experienced it myself Last year, where forcing myself into insane levels of activity (40.000 steps plus gym Daily) at 9 cal/Lb did not bring results it should have in terms of theoretical cal deficit or body fat loss. I think going for moderat-ish activity while keeping cal lower is way better in terms of predictability of weight and fat loss.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 03-04-2018, 09:38 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkord View Post
I think there is work showing that this holds especially for high Levels of physical activity, which is something Lyle also talkend about in the context of how Bad it is to combine high activity with low calories. I experienced it myself Last year, where forcing myself into insane levels of activity (40.000 steps plus gym Daily) at 9 cal/Lb did not bring results it should have in terms of theoretical cal deficit or body fat loss. I think going for moderat-ish activity while keeping cal lower is way better in terms of predictability of weight and fat loss.
Interesting. In your experiment, what was actual vs predicted weight loss? Over how long of a period?
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 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.