"You can't out-train a bad diet"

[AdamWW]

Post 77

Ok…

But, that doesn’t negate my comments about removing activity

[EiFit91]

That graph massively overestimates TEF……

It’s just a simplification and my interpretation of the model (but the authors don’t really formulate the model clearly).

My interpretation of it if we say A is «energy intake»: when energy intake goes up a lot, a unit of exercise added has a greater effect on TDEE compared to the older curve with the lower energy intake. This doesn’t have to be because of a direct effect of TEF. It could be that as energy intake goes up, downregulation goes down and only becomes substantial at a much higher physical activity level.

[AdamWW]

It’s just a simplification and my interpretation of the model (but the authors don’t really formulate the model clearly).

My interpretation of it if we say A is «energy intake»: when energy intake goes up a lot, a unit of exercise added has a greater effect on TDEE compared to the older curve with the lower energy intake. This doesn’t have to be because of a direct effect of TEF. It could be that as energy intake goes up, downregulation goes down and only becomes substantial at a much higher physical activity level.

It’s the same as it is with exercise…

It’s a diminishing return… not linear…


But again, it goes completely against the studies claiming exercise won’t increase tdee… no matter how you spin it

[EiFit91]

Ok…

But, that doesn’t negate my comments about removing activity

When you remove activity along the higher curve there is a large TDEE drop, putting the guy (assuming energy balance before the activity drop) in a substantial calorie surplus. It then makes sense to lower his calorie intake, and then he is on the lower curve.

[EiFit91]

It’s the same as it is with exercise…

It’s a diminishing return… not linear…


But again, it goes completely against the studies claiming exercise won’t increase tdee… no matter how you spin it

There are no studies, to my knowledge, categorically saying that exercise won’t increase TDEE. Only Jordan Feigenbaum.

[paulinkansas]

There are no studies, to my knowledge, categorically saying that exercise won’t increase TDEE. Only Jordan Feigenbaum.

Hey Spaniard, read your sig file. LOL.

[EiFit91]

Hey Spaniard, read your sig file. LOL.

I will

... but not yet

[desslok]

There are no studies, to my knowledge, categorically saying that exercise won’t increase TDEE. Only Jordan Feigenbaum.

then why are you saying that it doesn’t? i’m kind of starting to think you MUST be trolling now…starting to remind me of the Rick James interview on Chapelle lol


“Quote Originally Posted by EiFit91
In the one I posted there was no detectable TDEE increase from added exercise, even when the amount of exercise added was substantial.”

[EiFit91]

then why are you saying that it doesn’t? i’m kind of starting to think you MUST be trolling now…starting to remind me of the Rick James interview on Chapelle lol


“Quote Originally Posted by EiFit91
In the one I posted there was no detectable TDEE increase from added exercise, even when the amount of exercise added was substantial.”

What I meant: In that particular study and some others, they didn’t find a «statistically significant» effect of the exercise intervention on TDEE. So they cannot reject the «null hypothesis» of no difference in TDEE between the study groups.

I am not trolling.

[paulinkansas]

I think it may depend on the duration of the exercise. Lifting is basically 8-16 reps of a compound movement for several sets. That doesn't really compare to say, jogging for 60 minutes. Jogging for 60 minutes is going to burn more calories than a 60 minute workout.

Sort of like the lifespan of a semi automatic firearm is about 60 minutes. You add up the tens of thousands cycle times and you'll end up with about 60 minutes of the gun being in operation. In laymen's terms, you can shoot a gun about 50,000 times before something breaks. And it's usually a $5-$10 part.

[Strawng]

Aight. So these kinds of discussions tend to get me pissed off sometimes & I have some anger issues, so I'm actually intentionally ignoring the last few pages of this thread. That being said, I listened to the SBS podcast with fellow miscer & strength science expert Greg Nuckols last week, & I just HAVE to share his quick take on the "constrained energy model":

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-62/ (discussion starts at 1:29:15)

I found myself nodding along with everything he was saying at first. He points out that people who take this to mean that "exercise is pointless for weight loss" or "exercise does nothing to raise TDEE" are failing to grasp the nuances of Pontzer's conclusions. He posits that going from sedentary to active will likely increase TDEE, but adding in say "20% more exercise" if you're already active may not meaningfully increase TDEE. I think it may even be more specific and nuanced than this, because there are certainly exceptions to both of these rules, but they're acceptable conclusions based on the model. So, all well & good...UNTIL...he just completely underwrites what he just said and the conclusions of the study in general. He proceeds to claim that a sedentary man working a desk job would probably not increase his TDEE if he decided to train for a marathon because he can afford to be so sedentary all day at work, whereas a man working at the Amazon warehouse with an extremely physical job likely would increase his TDEE if he were to train for said marathon. I get what he's saying, that people who have the opportunity to be entirely sedentary outside of their exercise will likely not increase their TDEE as much because they have the opportunity to down-regulate NEAT to a far greater degree than someone who must be active for their job. While I agree, at the core of the model is the discovery that people who are the most active experience far less calorie burn by adding more activity than would be predicted. I believe there are two things happening at once here:

a) People who are sedentary at work all day are prone to down-regulating their NEAT in response to increased exercise.

b) There is a point of diminishing returns wherein people who are already highly active won't burn as many calories as would be predicted by increasing their activity levels even further due to metabolic adaptation to the work being performed.

While both of these things are true, increasing exercise can absolutely increases TDEE. This is because the downregulation of NEAT in a) can likely be ameliorated to some degree by things like tracking steps and completely eliminated by individual genetic variation & b) is a very rare scenario.

[AdamWW]

Aight. So these kinds of discussions tend to get me pissed off sometimes & I have some anger issues, so I'm actually intentionally ignoring the last few pages of this thread. That being said, I listened to the SBS podcast with fellow miscer & strength science expert Greg Nuckols last week, & I just HAVE to share his quick take on the "constrained energy model":

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-62/ (discussion starts at 1:29:15)

I found myself nodding along with everything he was saying at first. He points out that people who take this to mean that "exercise is pointless for weight loss" or "exercise does nothing to raise TDEE" are failing to grasp the nuances of Pontzer's conclusions. He posits that going from sedentary to active will likely increase TDEE, but adding in say "20% more exercise" if you're already active may not meaningfully increase TDEE. I think it may even be more specific and nuanced than this, because there are certainly exceptions to both of these rules, but they're acceptable conclusions based on the model. So, all well & good...UNTIL...he just completely underwrites what he just said and the conclusions of the study in general. He proceeds to claim that a sedentary man working a desk job would probably not increase his TDEE if he decided to train for a marathon because he can afford to be so sedentary all day at work, whereas a man working at the Amazon warehouse with an extremely physical job likely would increase his TDEE if he were to train for said marathon. I get what he's saying, that people who have the opportunity to be entirely sedentary outside of their exercise will likely not increase their TDEE as much because they have the opportunity to down-regulate NEAT to a far greater degree than someone who must be active for their job. While I agree, at the core of the model is the discovery that people who are the most active experience far less calorie burn by adding more activity than would be predicted. I believe there are two things happening at once here:

a) People who are sedentary at work all day are prone to down-regulating their NEAT in response to increased exercise.

b) There is a point of diminishing returns wherein people who are already highly active won't burn as many calories as would be predicted by increasing their activity levels even further due to metabolic adaptation to the work being performed.

While both of these things are true, increasing exercise can absolutely increases TDEE. This is because the downregulation of NEAT in a) can likely be ameliorated to some degree by things like tracking steps and completely eliminated by individual genetic variation & b) is a very rare scenario.

gotta love this forum... i wrote a huge response and just keep getting the error

ill just say x2 instead =o)

[EiFit91]

Aight. So these kinds of discussions tend to get me pissed off sometimes & I have some anger issues, so I'm actually intentionally ignoring the last few pages of this thread. That being said, I listened to the SBS podcast with fellow miscer & strength science expert Greg Nuckols last week, & I just HAVE to share his quick take on the "constrained energy model":

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-62/ (discussion starts at 1:29:15)

I found myself nodding along with everything he was saying at first. He points out that people who take this to mean that "exercise is pointless for weight loss" or "exercise does nothing to raise TDEE" are failing to grasp the nuances of Pontzer's conclusions. He posits that going from sedentary to active will likely increase TDEE, but adding in say "20% more exercise" if you're already active may not meaningfully increase TDEE. I think it may even be more specific and nuanced than this, because there are certainly exceptions to both of these rules, but they're acceptable conclusions based on the model. So, all well & good...UNTIL...he just completely underwrites what he just said and the conclusions of the study in general. He proceeds to claim that a sedentary man working a desk job would probably not increase his TDEE if he decided to train for a marathon because he can afford to be so sedentary all day at work, whereas a man working at the Amazon warehouse with an extremely physical job likely would increase his TDEE if he were to train for said marathon. I get what he's saying, that people who have the opportunity to be entirely sedentary outside of their exercise will likely not increase their TDEE as much because they have the opportunity to down-regulate NEAT to a far greater degree than someone who must be active for their job. While I agree, at the core of the model is the discovery that people who are the most active experience far less calorie burn by adding more activity than would be predicted. I believe there are two things happening at once here:

a) People who are sedentary at work all day are prone to down-regulating their NEAT in response to increased exercise.

b) There is a point of diminishing returns wherein people who are already highly active won't burn as many calories as would be predicted by increasing their activity levels even further due to metabolic adaptation to the work being performed.

While both of these things are true, increasing exercise can absolutely increases TDEE. This is because the downregulation of NEAT in a) can likely be ameliorated to some degree by things like tracking steps and completely eliminated by individual genetic variation & b) is a very rare scenario.

Great post.

I think the guys who proposed the “constrained model” have done a very poor job presentation wise. Just going by their “simple” exposition it’s really prone to misinterpretation, and I think it’s sort of because the model isn’t really carefully explained... that Greg Nuckols also seems to misapply it at times (haven’t listened to the podcast so just relying on your post) just shows that the model is inherently confusing

[EiFit91]

I think it may depend on the duration of the exercise. Lifting is basically 8-16 reps of a compound movement for several sets. That doesn't really compare to say, jogging for 60 minutes. Jogging for 60 minutes is going to burn more calories than a 60 minute workout.

Sort of like the lifespan of a semi automatic firearm is about 60 minutes. You add up the tens of thousands cycle times and you'll end up with about 60 minutes of the gun being in operation. In laymen's terms, you can shoot a gun about 50,000 times before something breaks. And it's usually a $5-$10 part.

In the study I posted (that was originally shared by mrpb) the participants did a lot of exercise in one of the exercise groups.