Yes folks, stupid me completely misrepresented caloric flux in the last post.
But, kind and wise gent that he is, Ari emailed me and straightened me out within a few hours of posting it. Instead of posting his response in a comment or changing the article, we figured it made the most sense’to post it prominently here?for everyone to see.
By the way, Ari’s book Forever Fat Loss, one?of the bestselling eBooks on the subject’since it was published 10 months ago, is just 99 cents again for’today, April 4. If you haven’t read it,?you should unless you are in the midst of recovering from an?eating disorder.
Here’s Ari’s clarification on the concept of caloric flux…
Hey Matt,
Just read your article.To clarify, there is no such thing as a “state of caloric flux.”Caloric flux is simply the term for how many calories are going in and how many are going out.
- A person consuming 1,500 calories per day and burning 1,500 calories = low caloric flux
- A person consuming 4,000 calories per day and burning 4,000 calories = high caloric flux.
But again, there is no “state of caloric flux“. High flux or low flux is simply a way of determining whether someone is regulating energy balance at a higher or lower baseline of calories in, calories out.As far as what you wrote here: “‘caloric flux,’ which basically means to lose weight by increasing your?physical activity without a reduction in calorie consumption.”??This is also not correct. Caloric flux doesn’t necessarily say anything about weight loss. It is not the same as a caloric deficit.?But you can talk about differential effects of creating say a 500 calorie deficit at a low caloric flux (consuming 1,200 calories and burning 1,700 cal) vs. high caloric flux (consuming 3,500 calories and burning 4,000) and how the same caloric deficit at different caloric flux levels impacts, for example, metabolic markers, or overall fat lost, or subjective energy levels and mood, etc.?Moreover, the recommendation for a person to consume more calories (based on overfeeding studies that show that overfeeding promotes increased calorie expenditure via increased RMR and NEAT) is a method of increasing caloric flux.Increasing caloric flux simply means going from regulating energy balance at a low calories in, calories out TO a higher calories in, calories out.It says nothing about HOW you accomplish that… i.e. whether your method of going about increasing caloric flux is simply exercise (a la Berardi), increased caloric intake (you), or gentle movement/NEAT.Different ways of increasing caloric flux have very different effects in terms of how they affect us (RMR, energy levels, stress, fatigue) and ultimately, in terms of whether they are sustainable strategies or not.Increasing caloric flux by doing two hours of p90x each day vs. by doing ample gentle movement vs. by overfeeding… all of these will have very different end effects. But they all technically “work” to increase caloric flux.
Really good explanation by Ari, that’s how I understood his points from his book forever fat loss.
Although, I still think not caring about calories by eating a lot and playing a lot without counting and by only following bio feedback is best way to get healthy or even lose weight.
But if someone insists on knowing how it probably works then Ari’s explanation would be perfect. :)
Thanks, Ali! Glad that clarified things.
A man who makes it his duty to admit when he is wrong and will also explain the error in his thinking is a true scientist. You ain’t got da Phd Mister Stone but, you’ve certainly got my heart…
Agreed!! Very rarely seen anywhere!
rofl. I could not think of a more sappy and cringe-worthy reply.
Looked into this caloric flux thing. The people who talked about it first and have discussed it the most seem to be John Berardi and Tom Venuto. Didn’t see much science literature on it. Even Berardi admits that the only true benefits of dieting (i.e. creating a caloric deficit) at a high calorie flux is probably the psychological benefit.
Also, isn’t a deficit, produced at any caloric flux, going to cause an inevitable decline in metabolic rate as the body takes action against the “starvation”? Secondly, would a high flux deficit work with any way of eating? Because high carb generally promotes high metabolic rate, while a dumbass paleo meal of animal protein+the magical miracle potion a.k.a coconut oil+ a WHOLE whopping Mango! would not promote a high metabolic rate at all, never mind the fact that you’d have to eat 500 mangoes and a whole jar of coconut oil to reach the sample 4000 calorie given… Seems like much ado about nothing.
I think the whole point is that once you can manage to spend 4000kcal a day, it’s way easier to create a calorie deficit without feeling hungry. I mean, if you ate ?only? 450 mango instead of the 500 needed, you would most probably feel quite full while still being in deficit. As for your remark on the ‘starvation?, you should note that at a similar deficit, it will be -relatively- smaller at a higher flux (500/4000 vs 500/2000) so the metabolism won’t react as much since the threat is/seems ‘smaller?.
I admit the difficult part is managing to spend that much calorie each and every day. A person almost have to live like an athlete, ‘training? multiple hour a day. Increasing your NEAT seems like a good start, but to spend 4000kcal a person would have to walk all day long? Ex.: a person with a 1500kcal base metabolism, spending 300kcal an hour walking would have to walk for 8h and twenty minutes to reach 4000, which is about half his wake up time.
Difficult, but not impossible, depending on where you work and what your day usually look like.
Also, as you said, there is the question of how someone is supposed to ingest that much calories in a day without eating during all the remaining 8h :P Lots of fats and unrefined sugar I guess.
Of course I just pull all of those numbers and explanations of out nowhere, could someone confirm it makes any sense? Also a plan sample about how someone could achieve such a high caloric flux would be much appreciated.
Agree about the exercise. Berardi recommends an hour of intense (HIIT style) weightlifting a day, every day of the week! No breaks, no days off. That alone will downshift your metabolism, to say nothing of the inevitable overtraining and burnout it would cause. As for ingesting that many calories, you’re right, there is no way you can hit that with clean, whole foods. You need to bust out the pizza and Haagen Dazs. Also, I’m not so sure that the metabolic downshifting will be lessened at a higher flux. There is no proof of this. The body hates any deficit of any kind, no matter what the numbers, and will fight hard to stop you.
I agree with @Mary. This is just a pseudo-scientific term, another attempt to come up with a new magic pill/silver bullet. After all we haven’t had a fad for about 2-3 years now lol. It’s been a long time since Intermittent fasting and gut bacteria were doing the rounds…
Skeptic,
You said: “As for ingesting that many calories, you’re right, there is no way you can hit that with clean, whole foods.”
First, there is no magic special number of calories that one “MUST” get to in order to realize some benefit of higher caloric flux. The number 4,000 was a number given as an example to illustrate a concept, NOT as a blanket recommendation for a calorie intake goal that all people reading this article should aim for.
Flux is obviously a relative term. Regulating energy balance at 1,000 calories is a relatively low flux vs. 1,500 cal, which is low relative to 2,500, which is a low flux relative to 3,500, and so on.
Second, regarding this notion on *needing* to consume large amounts of calories BEYOND one’s hunger/satiety signals, and needing to use processed foods in order to do so. Or the idea that one cannot reach eating 4,000 calories a day without the help of modern processed food… Well, that’s just silly and contradicted by actual scientific data. 150 years ago in the Victorian era in the UK, it was not uncommon for men to consume upwards of 4,000 or even 5,000 calories per day, and for women to consume upwards of 3,000 calories. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/
But if one’s goal is to consume 4,000 calories a day while BURNING only 2,000 or 2,500, then yes, you likely would need modern processed food to achieve that goal.
Sorry for the late reply (forgot to tick the notification box). I know 4000 was just an example, but it is a commonly picked number for dieting and/or eating disorder rehab. I believe it goes back to Minnesota starvation experiment performed by Ancel Keys, who found that number needed to be hit to rehab the dieters. As for reaching that number, yes you can reach it with whole foods if you allow generous amounts whole grains and legumes, like the Victorians were eating, two foods groups that you try to steer people away from in your book. But with water rich fruits like mangoes and melons? Hardly doable.
As for the study of high flux dieting, i can use the regular, annoying rebuttals, like “only eleven people were studied” and “it wasn’t long term” etc, but instead let me come from another angle: countless obesity researchers, papers and experiments have shown, time and time again, that you will hit a wall eventually during weight loss, usually around the point when 10% of bodyweight is lost. The brain will detect the loss of fat regardless of the size of the deficit or flux, and will act accordingly, adjusting hormones like leptin, thyroid and ghrelin, to get you to eat more and move less. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
Also, if you’re morbidly obese, you can’t do the “exercise more” portion of high flux dieting, because even a 20 minute brisk walk will kick your ass, let alone Berardi’s insane 7 days of HIIT stuff.
Skeptic,
Instead of coming up with lame goalpost-shifting arguments, why not just acknowledge where you jumped to conclusions that are incorrect.
1) You made the argument based on a literalization of 4,000 calories being some universal calorie target.
It isn’t.
Instead of just acknowledging that, you’re making some convoluted argument that *really* people do recommend 4,000 calories. Huh?
2)You made the argument that “you can’t eat 4,000 calories with whole foods.” I demonstrated that you actually can, and many people do.
You replied with “but you can’t do it with mangoes and melons.”
So what, no one is recommending that. I recommend foods that are not difficult to get calories from, like potatoes, sweet potatoes, and white rice. The higher the flux, the more liberal one can be with calorically dense foods while remaining lean.
Anyone who advocates eating calorically dense processed foods WITHOUT also putting emphasis on higher flux (through movement) is likely overweight, or has tons of followers who are overweight.
3) You cite a paper that has nothing to do with the concept in discussion–flux. And you assume that their conclusion is the same regardless of flux–i.e. that the body has the same negative metabolic consequences regardless of caloric flux level.
This is simply wrong, and is plainly scientifically illiterate. The concept in question is flux, and basically all studies that have tested the concept show that negative metabolic adaptations *do* differ between different levels of flux. So when you say “The brain will detect the loss of fat regardless of the size of the deficit or flux” you are saying something that directly goes against every study that has actually tested the claim you’re making.
When there are studies on a topic, and one willfully ignores those studies and continues to make assertions in direct contradiction to the results of those studies, that is someone I have no further interest having a discussion with.
Take care.
You also said “Also, I’m not so sure that the metabolic downshifting will be lessened at a higher flux. There is no proof of this.”
It’s strange to me that you comment on this issue with such certainty, as though you’ve researched this subject heavily and you already know the answers.
In fact, there *is* scientific data to show that the negative compensatory responses (hunger, decreased RMR, etc) are indeed lessened by being in a state of higher caloric flux. See here: http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/11/high-energy-flux-new-determinant-of.html
Two very interesting read Ari, thanks a lot.
Fine, i concede your 1 and 2. For the record, potatoes are not that calorie dense, and you need to eat 20 to get to about 2100 calories, and you clearly say to only eat rice in moderation, and ideally not every day. Same for legumes and nuts/seeds. I just find Paleo bullshit really irritating.
Moving on to 3, the most important one. The study you posted was cute and all, but it highly counts as scientific consensus. First of all its a thesis, not a published paper, from a student who doesn’t even have an M.S. on her name let alone M.D. or PhD, and she’s from Colorado State, not exactly Harvard medical school. Again, it was only 11 subjects. The weight loss was achieved by a standard hypo-caloric diet, not high flux dieting. The high flux part was four whole days! That’s not enough to conclude high flux dieting as the ultimate weapon against obesity. That’s not enough to conclude anything, really. She just found that subjects reported more satiety (duh), and there was a “slight” increase in RMR (her word). Sorry if I’m not bowled over by this “paper”.
Finally, I also speak from experience. I have done high flux dieting. I used run for an hour every day, and ate ad libitum according to hunger. I did this for around 7 months. I lost about 3 pounds, and when this unsustainable regimen inevitably collapsed, the resulting binge gave me everything back plus tax. I have done many diets, and every single time the body shuts the weight loss down at some point. Can you honeslty say that people who need a 100+ pound weight loss will do so easily in a steady stream of progress, with no stops and no plateaus?
@Skeptic You said “The study you posted was cute and all, but it highly counts as scientific consensus. First of all its a thesis, not a published paper, from a student who doesn’t even have an M.S. on her name let alone M.D. or PhD, and she’s from Colorado State, not exactly Harvard medical school. Again, it was only 11 subjects. The weight loss was achieved by a standard hypo-caloric diet, not high flux dieting. The high flux part was four whole days! That’s not enough to conclude high flux dieting as the ultimate weapon against obesity. That’s not enough to conclude anything, really. She just found that subjects reported more satiety (duh), and there was a ‘slight? increase in RMR (her word). Sorry if I’m not bowled over by this ?paper?.”
I love your condescension as you simultaneously show that you missed the bulk of the data.
Here are the studies discussed:
Bell, Christopher, et al. “High energy flux mediates the tonically augmented ?-adrenergic support of resting metabolic rate in habitually exercising older adults.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 89.7 (2004): 3573-3578.
Bullough, Richard C., et al. “Interaction of acute changes in exercise energy expenditure and energy intake on resting metabolic rate.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 61.3 (1995): 473-481.
Foright, Rebecca. A high energy flux state attenuates the weight loss-induced energy gap by acutely decreasing hunger and increasing satiety and resting metabolic rate. Diss. Colorado State University, 2014.
Goran, Miachel I., et al. “Effects of increased energy intake and/or physical activity on energy expenditure in young healthy men.” Journal of Applied Physiology 77.1 (1994): 366-372.
Rarick, Kevin R., et al. “Energy flux, more so than energy balance, protein intake, or fitness level, influences insulin-like growth factor-I system responses during 7 days of increased physical activity.” Journal of Applied Physiology 103.5 (2007): 1613-1621.
______________
So yes, there are numerous well-controlled and valid studies on this subject, and YES, they are all in agreement about their conclusions. A conclusion, which, by the way, is in direct contradiction to your claims (about there being “no proof” of benefit of higher flux, and of a caloric deficit being sensed by the body as the same regardless of flux).
So again, prior to condescending towards me based on your own misunderstanding of the science on this subject (thinking that I’m just referring to a single study and then saying things like “it’s just a thesis” and “only 11 subjects” and “only 4 days”), why not read and research more thoroughly and educate yourself first?
And then maybe hold off on assuming that doing 10 minutes of google research makes you an authority on a subject and rushing to authoritative conclusions based on your own lack of knowledge on the subject (e.g. “there’s no proof” that caloric flux has an impact on negative metabolic adaptations, and “The brain will detect the loss of fat regardless of the size of the deficit or flux.”)
Understand that you’re making claims here. You’re making very definitive claims actually.
Now understand that there actually *ARE* FIVE studies on this very subject–testing the thing you’re claiming.
You cannot find a single study that supports your claim.
ALL FIVE of those studies contradict your claim.
So if you wish, you can still insist that you’re still right and that “there’s no proof” that caloric flux matters and “The brain will detect the loss of fat regardless of the size of the deficit or flux.”
But every study on the subject that has tested that claim contradicts you.
So if you still wish to insist that, that’s called willful ignorance. (Or scientific illiteracy).
OK I apologize for my tone. Debates get heated sometimes.
All those studies are short term, and they use modest terms like “attenuates metabolic slowdown” and “improves satiety”. But how long does this effect last? What if you have a 130 pounds to lose, something that takes about 2 years from my personal experience? I find it highly improbable that the high flux method, or any method, can sidestep the inevitable plateau and halt of weight loss. Any obesity scientist will tell you this.
As for the brain detecting fat loss, this is well understood. I didn’t provide links but you’re more experienced in researching this so look it up. The hypothalamus is the head of the operation, in charge of energy homeostasis, and constantly analizes different things like hormones, blood glucose, adipose tissue, etc. People with damage/tumors in this area have non-stop hunger, low metabolism, and morbid obesity.
Despite my reservations I still look forward to reading your book and giving high flux a chance.
@Skeptic…
We are in full agreement that negative compensatory metabolic adaptations to forced caloric deprivation DOES occur. As you know, I have written extensively about that topic, so obviously I don’t disagree with that.
The point is whether caloric flux has any relationship to a person’s metabolic rate, hunger, energy levels, etc.
This is a concept which can be tested. You test it by looking at, for example, by having two groups establish the same caloric deficit but different levels of flux, and then look at whether there were or were not any differences in RMR, fatigue, hunger etc between the groups.
These studies have been done, and they all point to the same conclusion–which is that FLUX DOES MATTER. (Which again, is the opposite of your claim that it doesn’t matter. All known science on this subject–despite it’s imperfections, that come with most science–show the opposite conclusion of your assertions.)
Should longer-term studies be conducted? Absolutely! Should we still conduct more research? Absolutely.
But as of now, we have several short-term, well-conducted RCTs, and PLENTY of observational evidence all pointing to the same conclusion.
Moreover, it’s also worth mentioning here that if this were a topic that has already been studied in 100 experiments and had already been definitively determined to be a key factor in fat loss and was well known by everyone in the industry, then I probably wouldn’t be writing a book on it claiming it to be some cutting-edge concept, now would I? :)
Take care, Skeptic. :)
1.21 gigawatts!
I’d be interested to see what Ari has to say about calorie flux. I think there might be something to eating and using an abundance of fuel, as opposed to limiting fuel and while attempting to thrive.
Even though studies seem to indicate that there is not an “obesity epidemic”, and I’m not convinced about the food palatability theory, I do think Ari’s observation that humans were meant to be leaner rather than fatter seems accurate. I also think it should be unconscious.
I’ve seen exercise slim friends down without a change in diet; usually large amounts of cardio such as running or biking. The problem for them was that it was unsustainable, or it was only done seasonally (e.g soccer). My partner slimmed down by simply moving the New York — a big cultural change. The weight loss was unintended, and she figures it was because she walked all over Manhattan everyday.
The most I ever lost with just exercise was 5lbs early one summer doing 10 hrs a day of landscaping. I did put on a decent amount of muscle as well, but never lost the gut. All the other times I lost weight was with dieting, or a combo of dieting and exercise — which felt brutal each time.
Maybe increasing NEAT is needed to stay healthy? Or simply increasing non-intense types of exercise like walking, swimming, MovNat, Yoga, Pilates; I dunno.
Anyone have success staying lean by eating intuitively and having high levels of NEAT?
“Caloric flux” is a mish-mash of terms and theories which makes my brain hurt to read. Surely whoever (recently) started using it to describe thermal flux measurement in relation to theoretical dietary so called calorie content probably thought it was a cute name for ….something. Perhaps s/he was remembering Einstein’s mass-energy equations and forgetting that a calorie is a measurement of a static substance without mass. Anyway, the measuring of the heating ability of a given food using Cal or kilocal is still officially unofficial and therefore it seems like buying into the diet industry lifestyle etiquette to quibble over this made-up and questionable terminology.
I’m in partial agreement for sure Mary. It does seem like a fancy name for nothing, but because it bears just a close likeness to the Flux Capacitor in Back to the Future, I’m powerless against it, haha.
I agree with Mary. I don’t claim to know anything about caloric flux. I do, however, know that the mineral content of our modernized food supply is not sufficient to allow one to eat much in the way of manufactured food without damaging the metabolism. For instance, about 6 years ago Elena Less, a researcher at the Cleveland Zoo, realized the that the gorilla biscuits, supposedly manufactured from “healthy” ingredients, were causing gorillas in American zoos to become obese and to develop heart disease before age 30. Abstract from her doctoral dissertation. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:52694
Dr. Less mistakenly thought the gorilla biscuits contained excessive saturated fat when in fact the only fat ingredient in the biscuits was soybean oil (6.5%). That, along with an unknown quantity of sugar, appears to have been sufficient to cause the gorillas to develop obesity and eventually symptoms of heart disease.
Also of interest is the fact that when the gorilla biscuits were eliminated the animals lost weight despite increased caloric intake. Page 119: “Institutions need to be prepared for weight loss even if kilocalories are doubled.” https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/case1322582620/inline
From my perspective the term caloric flux seems to be an ambiguous catch all phrase supposedly descriptive of the flow of calories and the release of energy throughout the body. I wonder, does the term have any practical usefulness?
Doc Brown! Good to see you ya old rascal.
I actually researched the increase in calorie intake and it seemed as if reduced calorie absorption from browse/foliage was primarily responsible for the discrepancies there.
Interesting that the only fat used was soybean oil. Of course, calorie-density and refined carbs took all the blame, but I’m not so quick to judge these days.
Yeah I know what you mean Matt. I’ve been reading a lot about omega 6s lately, especially linoleic acid, and I’m not so sure that they are the evil Bond villains I once thought they were. For example I came across this paper that found that increasing linoleic acid did not increase tissue arachidonic acid. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21663641
Go figure.
For more explanation on that, go read Inflammation Nation by Floyd Chilton. He basically states that only dietary Arachidonic Acid will significantly increase tissue concentrations of AA, while rodents are the ones that have their AA levels go off the charts when consuming lots of LA.
Masterjohn thinks that’s because we’re already at the saturation point for LA though, and that’s why. I believe he came in to comment when I discussed this in the past: http://180degreehealth.com/inflammation-nation/
Thanks for the link, that cleared it up for me. I’ll definately read that book. So the basics remain the same: a McDougall style starch based whole foods diet supplimented with sat. Fat for cooking and the meat of ruminants and fish.
And fruit. Many do great with fruit. Most do best with a combination of both starches and sugars in their diet.
To be clear, caloric flux is a long term phenomenon. One cannot go from low to high flux without a great deal of time and effort (to change ones BMR mainly).
Look at an athlete versus a longevity activist. Both invest majorly in getting the body to that state. Same deficit different flux. Then you tell me which one’s pipes are working correctly?
Both are going to have consequences. Clearly though high-flux is the better position to be in!
Indeed.
Lest we forget though, that there are also consequences of being in a chronic caloric surplus. :)
Perhaps the best situation might be, unsurprisingly, to have neither a chronic deficit or surplus, while operating at relatively higher caloric flux. :)
Matt, thanks for posting this. You certainly didn’t have to. Thank you :)
It’d be so cool if a caloric flux could be a real concept. If I could heat water by adding sugar to it or raise my body temp by sitting on a pile of (non-burning) firewood. If life was only that simple. A “calorie” measures a potential energy but that energy isn’t released without combustion. The energy release or heat generated by that combustion can then be observed in “flux” but it is by no means a one-to-one equation in real world circumstances. Even in a lab you can’t combust something in a vacuum.
Wow. I let my buttons show and then let them get pushed and then put it on line. That’s what happens to me when I read stuff on the computer when what I really want instead is a root beer float.
I’ve been focusing on getting away from the external voices about exercise and eating and shifting towards listening to my own body wisdom messaging, and for some reason this particular train of the conversation has triggered my old negative thinking patterns. That’s no excuse for being antagonistic or snarky but I just wanted to mention it knowing that if I feel that way so might someone else.
I just had a root beer float and feel much more relaxed. Next time I’ll count to 10 and do something that gets me hot before I start typing!
Mary,
What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue?
I’m reading Forever Fat Loss right now, in these days.
Great work, it’s helping me a lot for my sleep issues.
Anyway, I think that caloric flux is interesting to realize
how convenient/healthy our daily diet is. If we have a low caloric flux, our diet is poor even if we burn each calorie we eat.
As a chronic dieter, my personal goal is to stay healthy and lean (hopefully lean) eating more.
Glad to hear that, Eva!
I’ve read “Forever Fat Loss” recently. The concepts in the book are good, however a bit too restrictive for me. I’m sure fast food too often and not enough movement throughout the day may be detrimental to my health overall, but I don’t want to cross over into obsession and orthorexia again.
Hey Jeffrey,
We all need to find the balance that is appropriate and sustainable for us as individuals.
What is easy and effortless for one, another finds incredibly restrictive.
I find this extremely interesting and while there outlooks are a bit different I love both Matt and Ari’s work and can thank them for a big turn around in my health. As for the caloric flux thing, i’m not sure I totally grasp the whole thing but a good example of a high calorie flux would be someone like Durian Rider, the guy rides his bike a lot but eats a serious amount of carbohydrates. Although he is a bit whacky I find him hilarious and enjoy his videos. Looking forward to more of these posts, keep up the good work Matt and Ari :)
Awesome, Andy… glad to hear it :)
@Ari
Any ETA for the calorie flux book?
Not yet… maybe in a couple months. Working on a program called Superhuman Energy right now, so once that gets done, I will get on the Flux book :)
Seems interesting, something complementary to your other programs I guess.
Any Flux literature to recommend until you publish your own?
It seems like Ari has already written his FLUX ebook and is giving it for free in his most recent post on his website at ariwhitten.com/home/
Thanks Mr. Whitten!
The problem with the caloric hypothesis is that is has litle to no predictive power.
Science is a doubt factor. There are literally no scared truths in science. Nothing whatsoever is above question.
The conservation of energy is very supported principle of nature , but it does not at all address:
*Fat cell regulation/dysregulation specifically
* The numerous involuntary systems the body invokes to exert its control over energy balance
How energy is used, partitioned, handled, absorbed. Energy can be led to many different pathways.
*What form of matter is lost or gained sspecifically ( bone, organ muscle fat or all)
* Nor body composition specifically
The conservation of energy, while relevant to all life, is not nearly *sufficient, not even remotely , to “explain’ obesity any more than it can “explain” the super muscularity of Belgian cattle. It explains neither situation.
All this principle says is: “That there is a quantity that we call energy that dpes not change when Nature goes through her manifold changes.” That is all it means.
Energy is not a material thing. It is a number. Scientists do nto even knwo how much energy there is. Conservation laws are based on the Symmetry of Nature- Emmy Noether’s Theorems
We need to ask the right question in science. Can we infer from the conservation of energy the behavior of mammalian fat cells? That answer is a loud resounding definite “no.” This is a biochemical matter say top physicists. :)
In science, we use imagination and guess the new principles. We muist stretch our ideas far beyond their range into dangerous territory as Feynman noted. It is not often appreciated by layman that science is much more creative than it is procedural.
Guessing new laws is an art. All laws remain provisional and perfectible. Physicists fully expect modifications to be made to them in the future. They are our fallible models. hey are APPROXIMATIONS at very best. They can be outright wrong as Feynman noted too.
Here is a quote from Neils Bohr:
“It is wrong to think that the task of physcis is to find out how Nature IS. Rather, physics conserns what WE SAY about Nature.
All scientific models are perceived representations of reality – OURS. They are only the shadows on the wall of the cave of an underlying deeper reality.
Nobody actually “sees” the curvature of spacetime. Nobody “sees” the tiny discerete balls in the particle theory of matter. e perceive NOTHING as it really is , as David Deutsch correctly notes. :)
Take care, everybody.
Razz
The major problem is that the body can induce multiple involuntary measures which kick in over the long term and can exrt its control and iodea of what it wants us to weigh. Weight regain is biological, unfortunatley. Numerous involuntary defensive guards kick in at the same time. Well studied.
This is well studuied and replicated from A1 quality experimental work from Friedman and Rosenbaum et al. The “chemo-mechanic efficientcy” develops in the muscles. This effect persis the rest of our lives as far as scientists know. it is still going hellaciously strong at the 8 year mark with no sign of let up.
The news is not good unfortunatley. The body has its own agenda. Knowing this, though, scientists can develop things. Strategies are being thought of currently to reverse this over the very looong term.
The confined kinetic energy of quarks and gluons is responsible for humans’ body mass. We are pure energy.
This is directly from a Nobel Prize winning physicist kind enough to tell me. Also, Veritasium,of YouTube ,has an excellent video about how the Higgs is not responsible for most of our mass.He also explains how energy is responsible for our mass.
I thought you would like this, Matt. :)
Take care,
Raz
I realize this article is a few weeks old, but I have a question about metabolic rate that i was hoping Matt or someone on here could answer. I tried to find the info myself, but didn’t see anything that addressed my question directly.
I recently purchased a new phone that has a sensor on the back that can take pulse and Sp02 (blood oxygen saturation) levels. No idea how accurate it is, but I noticed that as my temps increase, my oxygen saturation decreases slightly. For example, just about an hour ago, maybe 45 minutes after eating lunch, my temp was up to 99.1 and my pulse rate was about 95. Meanwhile, my oxygen levels were around 90, which is about 4 or 5 points lower than it was earlier when my temps were closer to 98.5.
I read in a few places that increased metabolic rate increases the rate of oxygen consumption, which would logically lead to reduced 02 levels, while presumably increasing C02 (?). Or should my 02 levels rise with increased metabolic rate?
Any thoughts on this?
Hey Kyle,
Interesting observations for sure. Contact Danny Roddy about this and see what he says. He’ll be interested I’m sure.
You do a lot of self promotion, and get a lot of bad press from other guys, but I have to say, your articles are worth reading. I am trying to increase my caloric intake without an initial weight gain, is that possible?
Sure. That happens for a lot of people. A certain percentage of people will even start to immediately get leaner as they increase caloric intake.
This concept is of interest for endurance athletes (especially aging athletes) who clearly need a high caloric flux. Is it possible to train at a requisite high volume, re-fuel adequately, and still stay appropriately lean with a healthy metabolism? Or should we give up the sport we love and adopt a “Primal” lifestyle?
Tim Van Orden would have thought the answer to your first question was “yes.” That is, until his teeth rotted out and he was practically crippled, lol. Depends on how you define endurance exercise. If you’re exercising at a high heart rate for more than a couple hours at a go, you’re probably putting yourself at great risk. If you really love your endurance sports, I wouldn’t let fear of what might happen to you in the future get in your way. If at some point you can no longer pursue endurance exercise, I’m sure you’ll find something else interesting to do with your life.
Mr. Van Orden’s teeth (and I believe he has some nice new ones) notwithstanding, I am very interested in the question posed in the final paragraphs of Ari’s message above.
Yes, there are many risks in endurance sports. Fir instance, the sport of cycling always carries a high risk of crashing. Velonews recently had a scary feature article about then effects of the long-term training on the heart. However, my current concern is your domain of expertise: the metabolism.
I understand that a sustained calorie deficit is harmful to the metabolism, with or without exercise. Some say that cardiovascular activity in of itself is harmful, but my guess is that most people who over-exercise do it at least partially for weight loss, so it is probably normally combined with a calorie deficit. I also understand the difference between weight training, and HIIT for endurance sports.
In the cycling world, the “time-crunched” approach was popularized by Chris Carmichael in his book. The idea is to minimize training volume by replacing volume with intensity. This is somewhat at odds (and likely less effective for longer events) with the high-volume approach termed “polarized training” where one does roughly 20% at high intensity and 80% at low intensity.
For people who like to compete, the holy grail would appear to be finding the right balance between volume and intensity, and incorporating proper refueling in such a way that maintains lean body mass without compromising the endocrine system. Hopefully, this question is addressed in Ari’s new book.
Maybe check out Anthony Colpo’s site. I think I recall him talking about riding a fixed gear bike for exercise, not sure what kind of intenduty/duration though, which seems to be the important factor when it comes to long term damage from excessive endurance training.
I’m not sure your question will be addressed in Ari’s book. I’m happy to discuss it with you a little bit here.
In my personal experience, losing body mass and lowering metabolic rate are great assets for endurance exercise. Endurance exercise is all about power to bodyweight ratio, and that ratio is much easier to increase by losing bodyweight. Tour de France winners and Kenyan marathon champions are about as emaciated as you can get.
On the metabolism front, a lower body temperature allows you to exercise harder at high temperatures and burn through fewer calories per mile of exercise.
And in terms of nutrition for endurance exercise, carbs = speed and fat = endurance. But burning fat for fuel forces people to work at such a low heart rate that a better approach is to try to enhance carbohydrate burning by eating tons of carbs in general and during the race at frequent intervals.
If you’ve ever eaten an uber high carb, low protein, low fat diet you’ll also note tremendous recovery capacity, resistance to injury, immediately improved speed, etc.
Anyway, I appreciate your intent to keep your metabolism high AND perform endurance exercise at a competitive level, but I do think the two are either slightly or completely at odds with one another. You might get in contact with CJ Rydzabike on Facebook to discuss this stuff further. The two of us have discussed this at length. He was quoted in this post, one of several that discuss endurance exercise on 180D: http://180degreehealth.com/marathon-training-diet-performance-and-protection-2/
I have no interest in endurance exercise. However I sometimes wonder if this ‘cardio is bad for metabolism’ idea has become a bit too fixed, too unquestionable. I realize that this idea has been gleaned by study after study, but I wonder how many of those have controlled for or included a group with a fuel:output closer to optimal.
To be clear, I think light physical activity should be maximal for maximal health. “Cardio” (say, 70% of VO2 max or higher) starts to get into a level of higher intensity work output where damage starts to occur, but it’s probably only problematic when the duration exceeds a certain amount of time. I don’t know what that time is, but I’d guess doing 70% VO2 max exercise or above for more than an hour or two on a regular basis is probably where the threshold is crossed. The health outcomes for ultraendurance athletes is downright scary. But Ari and I would both agree that we should all be spending as many hours as possible in the 50%-ish VO2 max range. Going on walks, doing physical work in and out of the house, and generally living a physically active life without attributing the word “workout” to that physical activity.