I like how I say, “you can follow along with my mouse/cursor” and then I use the wrong screen to point things out so nothing shows up on the recording. #fail Hope it was easy enough to follow along, regardless.
It reminds me of the saying, "You cannot outwork a bad diet". That has definitely been my experience. No matter how much I exercised my weight loss was very consistent. It completely changed my mindset on exercise so that I do it for general health (heart and lungs) but I do not do it for weight management. It helped me to stop compulsively exercising as I was doing earlier in my weight loss journey. Now I try to consider it more as lifestyle activity, like I enjoy walking, bike riding or hiking outside in nature in fresh air and sunlight and not on a treadmill or machine in a building.
This was one of the best YT’s and (for me) perfect timing (2yrs later). I lost 70lb .. diet and running .. then got my RMR measured .. 1600 .. so I can assume that is 1600 compensated calorie burn .. excellent. Apparently Siim Land didn’t get the memo .. he recently said his measured RMR was 3200 … holy f*** … as he ages he might actually be the first documented case,of spontaneous human combustion… I hope he has his GoPro rolling ..
Your body doesn't care why you are in a deficit, whether it is from exercising or eating less, it adapts in the same way to the deficit. It's well known that it is easy for slim people to lose weight because it is a small amount and little time. For very overweight people 99.5% will fail because the body will compensate long before they get the weight off. So there is nothing surprising in the study really at least as far as results go.
Being obese and a long time calorie restricted with a high fiber, high carbohydrate, low fat and moderate protein diet, I found myself in a situation when Friday I would eat moderate calorie restricting vegan meals (1200cal from the recommended 2300 for maintenance) and then do a series of yoga, aerobics and power lifting at an intensity I thought might be around 1200 calories (4.0 for considerable effort times 300 pounds) and I would spend the next two or three days not being able to move with no appetite and clue what was wrong. Eventually I learned that this probably wasn't good and eating something helped alleviate my ill feelings and ability to move. It would be helpful for me to know how much energy I can expend without impacting my ability to do light work. I think the last model might be a guide to explain my past troubles.
Wow this is a great study, very illuminating. You explained it very well. On the individual side, if a person has a deficit in their rest state metabolism, does the body give signals for that? What does it feel like? Lethargic, weak, hunger or no hunger, aches? All of these things? Should people be taking substances (over the counter or otherwise) to quiet this down or should we be listening to these signals more?
Thanks for the great insight! What is your take on different intensities of physical activity, aerobic vs anarobic, for instance and the role it might play in the compensation model and it's relationship to the basal metabolic expenditure?
This is only one study. I’m pretty sure Pontzer has many more examples in his book. I know it’s probably a lot to ask to look at that, but if he’s right, this is really big information. As you said, it does not negate a value, in fact, a lot of value, for exercise, but not for weight loss. At least one person asked how long the study lasted, but I got the sense from Pontzer from his book that it’s irrelevant. Energy expenditure is more consistently related to size than to activity. It’s just distributed differently.
I wonder if this mechanism is due to a surplus in calorie intake that the body needs to expend either by external instruments (e.g., exercise) or an internal one (i.e., BMR)? After all, isn't there a limit to the storage of energy in the form of fat as shown by research where the participants consume exorbitant amount of calories with a disproportionate weight increase?
how was this study conducted? over what period of Time, and frequency of exercising? is it possible that the reason the more weighing People experienced a greater decrease in basal metabolism was because They lost some weight, which resulted in lesser demand for Energy over Time? provided that their dietary intake would have stayed stable, I would assume that the bigger the Person, the more weight (S)He would have lost. or is it possible that, provided that the Study-Subjects remained the same weight over the duration of the study, the more weighing People experienced a greater decrease in basal metabolism exactly due to greater demand for Energy than in smaller, lighter People, thus in order to cater to the existing adipose cells to maintain them[??]. regards.
Im just going throw this crazy idea, what if exercise drops BEE to same level for both fit and fat people, but because fat people have higher BEE they lose more %. Lets say fit person has BEE of 2.5k and fat BEE 3k. And when both exercise both BEE drops to 2k. One lose 500, other lose 1k.
Good or bad diet aside, whatever genetic components make it more likely for persons of hypothetical group B to store fat than persons of hypothetical group A seem likely to be responsible (in full or in part) for FURTHER inhibiting basal expenditure of energy upon the introduction of extrabasal activity. Interestingly, the strongest people in the world are consistently overweight in terms of fat stores and are therefore likely among that OTHER fifty percent whose basal metabolism does NOT decrease with an increase in extrabasal activity. Hypothetical group B therefore appears to pair off into subgroups, each with its own genetic profile, sharing only some overlap, which suggests either that the 'problem' subgroup has genetic markers not endemic to the 'advantaged' subgroup or, at minimum, that the advantaged subgroup has genetic markers which counter the unwelcome effects of some shared ones.
My guess is that when you make physical activity you usually are not adopting new diet. Which means same amount of proteins. With increased activity level and less nutrition awailable your body has no choice but to decrease metabolism. My speculation is that your total metabolism is limited to total nutrition. If you are low on proteins then your body decreases metabolism.
Wow thank you so much for covering this so quickly! You made my day. One question I have is if you exercise and burn say 100 calories and you compensate by even 50%, aren't you still netting out to 50 extra calories burned? Wouldn't that agree with the additive theory even if it's by a reduced amount? So overweight/obese people would have to just do more to get the same effect? I'm a very short person so already limited on how much of a deficit I can get from restricting my intake. I have added more strength training recently so I'm hoping that this will eventually help me to get where I want to be.
You can eat nutrients dense yet low "calories" whole foods, compress your feeding windows, feed your gut microbiota with real fibers again from whole foods, and if you must have carbs, then eat whole foods with low glycemic index.
@@Physionic but it sounds like I have a person doing more it’s still not going to have the effect that people think. They’ll simply reduce their basal metabolism rate by more. Are there any videos that show relationship between exercise and appetite control? My understanding is that aerobic exercise will at first increase, hunger signals, but that after a period of time that subsides and people more naturally eat less without intending it.
I think there is really a need for researching the underlying mechanism of the effect observed. I find it to be really astounding and I wonder whether it depends on e.g. the kind of activity? It's well known that physical activity will yield decoupling of mitochondria in skeletal muscle, so we really would expect BEE to increase when exercising? I very well know that one counterexample does not really count on a statistical basis, but as far as I'm concerned: I'm monitoring my basal metabolic rate via bio impedance measurement on a daily basis. I've lost about 54 kg in about 11 month and I'm following a strict exercise plan including resistance training, running, swimming, skating, bike, app. 12h a week. And as I expected my basic metabolic rate went from about 19.5 kcal/kg up to 22 kcal/kg it clearly increased. Of course the measurement is not precise, but I base my diet on these numbers and weight loss as expected shows that the BIA measurement of the basic metabolic rate is not too far off.
Could it be that overweight individuals are less fat adapted than lean people? I noticed that while prolong fasting, my energy wanes between day 3 and 4 and returns at 4. My brother is much less lean than I am and his energy returns after the 5th and 6th day. I'm thinking I'm able to process my fat a lot sooner and it burns more efficiently than he is able to.
Some time ago I saw an article about the Biggest Loser. It mentioned a follow-up study on the contestants showing that the people ending up with the slowest total metabolism were the most likely to have kept the weight off. Now combined with this evidence on basal metabolism I have several questions: Is having a higher basal metabolism a good or bad thing for the health of an individual? Did the fatter people in this study have a way higher basal metabolism to begin with compared to leaner people with the same lean mass and activity? Fringe theory: What if exercise "normalizes" the basal metabolism leading to a lower (more efficient?) lever and so fatter people's basal metabolism lowers more as it comes from a higher (less efficient) level? I personally have no clue, but I am intrigued.
I think I ran across that article, as well, but I never looked into it much, because time. As for your question, I'd say that having a higher basal metabolism is definitely preferred, assuming you are lean (not necessarily shredded, but just above average). No data on their metabolism compared to leaner individuals, unfortunately - it was all grouped together.
@@Physionic If a higher basal metabolism would be preferable for health (nice overused vague term, but I hope you will allow it) then what would be the lower and upper limit for health? Also: What evidence convinced you that a higher (than average) bmr would be preferable?
Stephen Phinney talks about that same article and concludes "don't fast for more than 3 days". In the absence of other info, I've taken his advice but I also don't know why the results showed that basal metabolism drops, potentially for months, after significantly long fasts.
@@ThingsYoudontwanttohear Generally, larger, leaner individuals means more muscle mass, and an active tissue like muscle tends to confer many health benefits, hence the reasoning.
@@Physionic I agree with this reasoning in this order as having more muscle mass has been shown to be a protective factor again several diseases and having more body mass increases bmr. However, there are always unhealthy ways to increase bmr like fever as you mentioned and I assume also fat mass gain would also increase bmr. There seem to be many people in the fitness/supplement industry (not you obviously) putting the cart in front of the horse by, for instance, selling supplements to increase bmr implying that a higher bmr is healthier independent of health factors like strength and muscle mass. So if bmr is more of a confounding factor to health would it be possible that there is an upper limit to where healthy factors can push bmr (controlled for lean body mass so let's say cal/day/lean mass) and only unhealthy factors can push bmr further over this limit?
wouldn't a reduction in basal metabolism mean that it would take less fuel to perform basic body functions? I mean if basal metabolism is based on how much energy you need for your liver, kidney, heart to function. And exercise improves the function of these organs doesn't that make the requirement reduced as well?
So many ideas come to mind, yet nothing special. I might watch this again. But Nic, please tell me your opinion. If I have a TEE of 1850 cal and go for a long bike ride with an estimate 3500 cal burned. What might happen to my BEE? Recovery for this wonderful deed will be a minimum of 2 days. Anyways, these physics models are nice and interesting, but the key to weight loss is somewhere between macros composition and hormone levels. Just my 2 cents.
You tell me, Horea. I just covered it in the podcast, so based on the compensation model, what would you expect to happen to your basal metabolism? On top of that, what would you expect to happen to your total metabolism? :)
@@Physionic i'm always skeptical of your models. regardless of evidence. i'm just not a believer. but i do know... those two days of recovery feel like a beautiful pain in the body. edit: ok, i'm a watch it again.
@@synsynsy With what model would you agree, then? I'd also add its a dangerous road to say, "regardless of evidence" - if you don't follow the evidence or explain the evidence, then why follow science?
To answer your original question, assuming you buy into any of the evidence presented, no matter what, eventually your overall metabolic demand (output) will overcome this phenomenon and be a benefit to you. So, even if your BMR dropped 500 calories and you were active for 1500 calories, you'd still see a substantial energy burn from exercise.
Yep, big *edit* I can already tell I am not going to like this one. I'm also probably going to say _"This doesn't apply to me as I track my calories to the gram, walk/swim 3-7 miles per day/30-90 minutes; actual swimming, in the ocean, not treading water in a pool) and am at the gym 5-6 hours per week. Let's see if I have to come back and edit this later. I do find that my exercise absolutely affects my weight loss. If I stop walking/swimming my daily deficit decreases by 300-650 calories/day and I'll only lose 1.5lbs as compared to an average of 2-2.5lbs/wk. Edit: OK, firs, were these studies done in a metabolic lab setting or were they done via surveys because this does not match *ANY* lab data I have ever read. None. I was expecting adaptation tot he exercise where 120 minutes of walking resulted in a 35% reduction in the expected calories burned based on weight loss, but a drop in their BMR by as much as 50%? Meaning the exercise was making them fatter? Ei they burned 350 calories on the treadmill but their BMR was slowed by 51% dropping it from 1800 to 893...This entire study is flawed beyond belief or something is missing in the presentation. You say the BMR, not the AMR, so you aren;t saying that the calories burned are cut by 51%, or the BMR adjusted down by 51% of the calories burned, but that the BMR went down that much in Obese people? That simply is not possible. The body is very adaptable, but not to that degree. Perhaps if they used to weight 500lbs and now weight 175lbs; but no. I love the channel but this is utter nonsense.
I find that most obese individuals respond rather poorly to heat in the Gym, it causes them fatigue way to easily and they need quite alot of recovery in between sets even for relatively light weights. Is there something going on with uncoupling proteins and suppression of them after work out. Mitochondria needs to generate ATP and too much heat and Uncoupling proteins seems reduce ATP. Also most can barely raise their exercise intensity by much, they have a higher baseline metabolic rate but as soon as they get heated up, they can't workout. Maybe something to do with pyruvate kinase being very temperature sensitive.
Or that their mitochondria produces so much ROS in the process of trying to generate ATP, that the ROS damages and impedes multiple metabolic cascades. I'm thinking about lipid metabolism by products like ceraminds peroxidised fatty acids that causes down stream inflammation that leads to leptin signaling interference. Maybe obese people need more antioxidants like alpha lipoic acid and may benefit from glutathione percursors like Gly Nac.
I've re checked the paper. How comes that they plot MJ/day? And not MJ/day/kg? That's completely weird? Of course MJ/day decreases with increase in activity, but that's meaningless?
Genetic programming like there tribe 100k years ago had really lean times and needed to hold on to every bit of body weight to survive. Or maybe it's all just microbiom diversity 🤔
So, if I was overweight, I'd experiment with less layers of clothing and lowering the thermostat at home to nudge matters in my favour. Also adding another pinch of cayenne pepper to my coffee to, albeit temporarily turn up the heat by maybe a measurable quantity. I personally like to sleep with the window open in order to reduce core temperature. More time in bed might further lead to this having another favourable factor. Though, that's unlikely in real terms, these avenues might need to be explored to change the paradigm.
@@jaredhouston4223 Taking matters on a further left-field twist, it's maybe worth hearing what The Keto Naturopath has to say about omega 3/6 ratios and what damage he believes they wreak. He doesn't use the term, 'Hibernation Juice' lightly! Keeping an open mind, see what conclusions you make? Dietary evangelicalism not my honest intention.
@@robertrowan9893 "The Keto Naturopath" I'll look that up. I am interested in the omega 3/6 ratio, mostly because I don't fully understand it quite yet. I have gone very extreme with my diet (full carnivore) and it has taught me a lot about food and especially sugar. I respect it's power. I've tried many diets for good lengths of time, including veganism and keto. I find that carnivore is easy to stick to, because it's fool proof and I am a fool.
@@jaredhouston4223 First off, fools don't frequently tune into Physionic... So that's worthy of inclusion. Secondly, in broad strokes, it centres (UK dude) around pro (6) and anti-inflammatory (3) effects downwind of swallowing the oils in question. As you state carnivore diet, I'm of the opinion you might use the integral fat of the cuts instead of bathing everything in sunflower oil - as a cooking medium that is. If so, you're onto a winner. Anything that increases insulin sensitivity, promotes longevity and quality of life should be the cornerstone of a diet. Alas, overdoing omega 6s (it's a ratio after all) at the expense of omega 3s and your health is what's we seek to avoid. I hereby suggest you see what these oils break down into, stage by stage and draw your own conclusions. Maybe even get Saint Nic to validate them further, within the context of maintaining healthy weight. And with that, beam me up Scotty!
@@robertrowan9893 I will take the word of the wise and follow up on this and research more about omega 3 and 6. Glad I'm barking up the right tree with the carnivore diet. I do a lot of intense work during the day so I really want to make sure my down time is as short as I can get it while I build muscle. I think my biggest problem that I ran into was not getting enough animal fat (mood problems rise when I don't get enough). I don't touch plant oils, but I do have 6 olives with some cheese for a snack, today I woke up with inflammation in my hands for the first time in over a year, I probably need to cut the olives. I just reintroduced green olives because they are high in salt (pimento), I work in the desert and I drink lots of water during the day ~1gallon just at work and pee breaks are not often. I don't drink coffee. I am trying to keep the sodium in check and the fat in check. I do eat sardines every once in awhile for a vitamin kick in the pants and I make sure it's fresh water sardines and I drink the water ALWAYS. I think I will have a can tonight actually I haven't had one in over 2 weeks. I have to throw away those green olives.
Thanks this is so interesting. I always wondered about that phenomenon. I imagined there could be variation in TEE within thresholds and above a certain threshold of exercise basal compensation must happen - thus overtraining leading to immune reduction. But the BMI relationship is fascinating. How do they measure total energy expenditure in people who are exercising please? Is it through breath? They must somehow account for energy provided by body fat as well as food. Was this metabolism instantaneous during exxlercise or a cumulative effect over days (including after exercise)? Fascinating.
That's correct, Tony - they can either use direct or indirect calorimetry, but normally they'd use indirect with a gas capturing mask - no way of knowing the source (body fat or food) without labeling the molecules in some way, but it could be done. I imagine it was cumulative.
I like how I say, “you can follow along with my mouse/cursor” and then I use the wrong screen to point things out so nothing shows up on the recording. #fail
Hope it was easy enough to follow along, regardless.
It reminds me of the saying, "You cannot outwork a bad diet". That has definitely been my experience. No matter how much I exercised my weight loss was very consistent. It completely changed my mindset on exercise so that I do it for general health (heart and lungs) but I do not do it for weight management. It helped me to stop compulsively exercising as I was doing earlier in my weight loss journey. Now I try to consider it more as lifestyle activity, like I enjoy walking, bike riding or hiking outside in nature in fresh air and sunlight and not on a treadmill or machine in a building.
I enjoy walking on my threadmill watching sports on you tube
This was one of the best YT’s and (for me) perfect timing (2yrs later). I lost 70lb .. diet and running .. then got my RMR measured .. 1600 .. so I can assume that is 1600 compensated calorie burn .. excellent.
Apparently Siim Land didn’t get the memo .. he recently said his measured RMR was 3200 … holy f*** … as he ages he might actually be the first documented case,of spontaneous human combustion… I hope he has his GoPro rolling ..
Great break down of the study, such an interesting finding
Thanks, Jonathon. Hope you've been well.
Your body doesn't care why you are in a deficit, whether it is from exercising or eating less, it adapts in the same way to the deficit. It's well known that it is easy for slim people to lose weight because it is a small amount and little time. For very overweight people 99.5% will fail because the body will compensate long before they get the weight off. So there is nothing surprising in the study really at least as far as results go.
Being obese and a long time calorie restricted with a high fiber, high carbohydrate, low fat and moderate protein diet, I found myself in a situation when Friday I would eat moderate calorie restricting vegan meals (1200cal from the recommended 2300 for maintenance) and then do a series of yoga, aerobics and power lifting at an intensity I thought might be around 1200 calories (4.0 for considerable effort times 300 pounds) and I would spend the next two or three days not being able to move with no appetite and clue what was wrong. Eventually I learned that this probably wasn't good and eating something helped alleviate my ill feelings and ability to move. It would be helpful for me to know how much energy I can expend without impacting my ability to do light work. I think the last model might be a guide to explain my past troubles.
Wow this is a great study, very illuminating. You explained it very well.
On the individual side, if a person has a deficit in their rest state metabolism, does the body give signals for that?
What does it feel like? Lethargic, weak, hunger or no hunger, aches? All of these things? Should people be taking substances (over the counter or otherwise) to quiet this down or should we be listening to these signals more?
Excellent content... thanks for science bro...❤❤
What about EPOC? Does intensity effect Basel metabolism? Does increasing frequency of workouts have the same effect of reducing BMR?
Thanks for the great insight!
What is your take on different intensities of physical activity, aerobic vs anarobic, for instance and the role it might play in the compensation model and it's relationship to the basal metabolic expenditure?
How long was the study? Would basal metabolism start to go back up if the physical activity stays constant over time? Food for thought.
This is a retrospective study, not prospective, so there is no study length. That's a good question, they don't look into that.
Doesn’t sound likely, all other things being equal.
This is only one study. I’m pretty sure Pontzer has many more examples in his book. I know it’s probably a lot to ask to look at that, but if he’s right, this is really big information. As you said, it does not negate a value, in fact, a lot of value, for exercise, but not for weight loss. At least one person asked how long the study lasted, but I got the sense from Pontzer from his book that it’s irrelevant. Energy expenditure is more consistently related to size than to activity. It’s just distributed differently.
Does "physical activity" include standing and walking?
Walking, not standing.
Thanks!
My pleasure.
I wonder if this mechanism is due to a surplus in calorie intake that the body needs to expend either by external instruments (e.g., exercise) or an internal one (i.e., BMR)? After all, isn't there a limit to the storage of energy in the form of fat as shown by research where the participants consume exorbitant amount of calories with a disproportionate weight increase?
thank You.
how was this study conducted? over what period of Time, and frequency of exercising? is it possible that the reason the more weighing People experienced a greater decrease in basal metabolism was because They lost some weight, which resulted in lesser demand for Energy over Time? provided that their dietary intake would have stayed stable, I would assume that the bigger the Person, the more weight (S)He would have lost. or is it possible that, provided that the Study-Subjects remained the same weight over the duration of the study, the more weighing People experienced a greater decrease in basal metabolism exactly due to greater demand for Energy than in smaller, lighter People, thus in order to cater to the existing adipose cells to maintain them[??]. regards.
Im just going throw this crazy idea, what if exercise drops BEE to same level for both fit and fat people, but because fat people have higher BEE they lose more %. Lets say fit person has BEE of 2.5k and fat BEE 3k. And when both exercise both BEE drops to 2k. One lose 500, other lose 1k.
That might be the case if the values weren't relative and presented as absolute numbers. I like the thinking.
Good or bad diet aside, whatever genetic components make it more likely for persons of hypothetical group B to store fat than persons of hypothetical group A seem likely to be responsible (in full or in part) for FURTHER inhibiting basal expenditure of energy upon the introduction of extrabasal activity. Interestingly, the strongest people in the world are consistently overweight in terms of fat stores and are therefore likely among that OTHER fifty percent whose basal metabolism does NOT decrease with an increase in extrabasal activity. Hypothetical group B therefore appears to pair off into subgroups, each with its own genetic profile, sharing only some overlap, which suggests either that the 'problem' subgroup has genetic markers not endemic to the 'advantaged' subgroup or, at minimum, that the advantaged subgroup has genetic markers which counter the unwelcome effects of some shared ones.
My guess is that when you make physical activity you usually are not adopting new diet. Which means same amount of proteins. With increased activity level and less nutrition awailable your body has no choice but to decrease metabolism. My speculation is that your total metabolism is limited to total nutrition. If you are low on proteins then your body decreases metabolism.
Super interesting!
Wow thank you so much for covering this so quickly! You made my day.
One question I have is if you exercise and burn say 100 calories and you compensate by even 50%, aren't you still netting out to 50 extra calories burned? Wouldn't that agree with the additive theory even if it's by a reduced amount? So overweight/obese people would have to just do more to get the same effect?
I'm a very short person so already limited on how much of a deficit I can get from restricting my intake. I have added more strength training recently so I'm hoping that this will eventually help me to get where I want to be.
My pleasure, Elizabeth. That's correct - no matter what, exercise helps, but I still never recommend it as the exclusive fat loss tool.
You can eat nutrients dense yet low "calories" whole foods, compress your feeding windows, feed your gut microbiota with real fibers again from whole foods, and if you must have carbs, then eat whole foods with low glycemic index.
@@Physionic but it sounds like I have a person doing more it’s still not going to have the effect that people think. They’ll simply reduce their basal metabolism rate by more. Are there any videos that show relationship between exercise and appetite control? My understanding is that aerobic exercise will at first increase, hunger signals, but that after a period of time that subsides and people more naturally eat less without intending it.
I think there is really a need for researching the underlying mechanism of the effect observed. I find it to be really astounding and I wonder whether it depends on e.g. the kind of activity?
It's well known that physical activity will yield decoupling of mitochondria in skeletal muscle, so we really would expect BEE to increase when exercising?
I very well know that one counterexample does not really count on a statistical basis, but as far as I'm concerned: I'm monitoring my basal metabolic rate via bio impedance measurement on a daily basis. I've lost about 54 kg in about 11 month and I'm following a strict exercise plan including resistance training, running, swimming, skating, bike, app. 12h a week. And as I expected my basic metabolic rate went from about 19.5 kcal/kg up to 22 kcal/kg it clearly increased.
Of course the measurement is not precise, but I base my diet on these numbers and weight loss as expected shows that the BIA measurement of the basic metabolic rate is not too far off.
Could it be that overweight individuals are less fat adapted than lean people? I noticed that while prolong fasting, my energy wanes between day 3 and 4 and returns at 4. My brother is much less lean than I am and his energy returns after the 5th and 6th day. I'm thinking I'm able to process my fat a lot sooner and it burns more efficiently than he is able to.
Some time ago I saw an article about the Biggest Loser. It mentioned a follow-up study on the contestants showing that the people ending up with the slowest total metabolism were the most likely to have kept the weight off. Now combined with this evidence on basal metabolism I have several questions: Is having a higher basal metabolism a good or bad thing for the health of an individual? Did the fatter people in this study have a way higher basal metabolism to begin with compared to leaner people with the same lean mass and activity?
Fringe theory: What if exercise "normalizes" the basal metabolism leading to a lower (more efficient?) lever and so fatter people's basal metabolism lowers more as it comes from a higher (less efficient) level?
I personally have no clue, but I am intrigued.
I think I ran across that article, as well, but I never looked into it much, because time. As for your question, I'd say that having a higher basal metabolism is definitely preferred, assuming you are lean (not necessarily shredded, but just above average).
No data on their metabolism compared to leaner individuals, unfortunately - it was all grouped together.
@@Physionic If a higher basal metabolism would be preferable for health (nice overused vague term, but I hope you will allow it) then what would be the lower and upper limit for health?
Also: What evidence convinced you that a higher (than average) bmr would be preferable?
Stephen Phinney talks about that same article and concludes "don't fast for more than 3 days". In the absence of other info, I've taken his advice but I also don't know why the results showed that basal metabolism drops, potentially for months, after significantly long fasts.
@@ThingsYoudontwanttohear Generally, larger, leaner individuals means more muscle mass, and an active tissue like muscle tends to confer many health benefits, hence the reasoning.
@@Physionic I agree with this reasoning in this order as having more muscle mass has been shown to be a protective factor again several diseases and having more body mass increases bmr. However, there are always unhealthy ways to increase bmr like fever as you mentioned and I assume also fat mass gain would also increase bmr. There seem to be many people in the fitness/supplement industry (not you obviously) putting the cart in front of the horse by, for instance, selling supplements to increase bmr implying that a higher bmr is healthier independent of health factors like strength and muscle mass.
So if bmr is more of a confounding factor to health would it be possible that there is an upper limit to where healthy factors can push bmr (controlled for lean body mass so let's say cal/day/lean mass) and only unhealthy factors can push bmr further over this limit?
wouldn't a reduction in basal metabolism mean that it would take less fuel to perform basic body functions? I mean if basal metabolism is based on how much energy you need for your liver, kidney, heart to function. And exercise improves the function of these organs doesn't that make the requirement reduced as well?
Very good
Thank you, Matheus.
So many ideas come to mind, yet nothing special. I might watch this again.
But Nic, please tell me your opinion.
If I have a TEE of 1850 cal and go for a long bike ride with an estimate 3500 cal burned. What might happen to my BEE? Recovery for this wonderful deed will be a minimum of 2 days.
Anyways, these physics models are nice and interesting, but the key to weight loss is somewhere between macros composition and hormone levels. Just my 2 cents.
You tell me, Horea. I just covered it in the podcast, so based on the compensation model, what would you expect to happen to your basal metabolism? On top of that, what would you expect to happen to your total metabolism? :)
@@Physionic i'm always skeptical of your models. regardless of evidence. i'm just not a believer.
but i do know... those two days of recovery feel like a beautiful pain in the body.
edit: ok, i'm a watch it again.
@@synsynsy With what model would you agree, then?
I'd also add its a dangerous road to say, "regardless of evidence" - if you don't follow the evidence or explain the evidence, then why follow science?
To answer your original question, assuming you buy into any of the evidence presented, no matter what, eventually your overall metabolic demand (output) will overcome this phenomenon and be a benefit to you. So, even if your BMR dropped 500 calories and you were active for 1500 calories, you'd still see a substantial energy burn from exercise.
Yep, big *edit*
I can already tell I am not going to like this one. I'm also probably going to say _"This doesn't apply to me as I track my calories to the gram, walk/swim 3-7 miles per day/30-90 minutes; actual swimming, in the ocean, not treading water in a pool) and am at the gym 5-6 hours per week. Let's see if I have to come back and edit this later. I do find that my exercise absolutely affects my weight loss. If I stop walking/swimming my daily deficit decreases by 300-650 calories/day and I'll only lose 1.5lbs as compared to an average of 2-2.5lbs/wk.
Edit: OK, firs, were these studies done in a metabolic lab setting or were they done via surveys because this does not match *ANY* lab data I have ever read. None. I was expecting adaptation tot he exercise where 120 minutes of walking resulted in a 35% reduction in the expected calories burned based on weight loss, but a drop in their BMR by as much as 50%? Meaning the exercise was making them fatter? Ei they burned 350 calories on the treadmill but their BMR was slowed by 51% dropping it from 1800 to 893...This entire study is flawed beyond belief or something is missing in the presentation. You say the BMR, not the AMR, so you aren;t saying that the calories burned are cut by 51%, or the BMR adjusted down by 51% of the calories burned, but that the BMR went down that much in Obese people? That simply is not possible. The body is very adaptable, but not to that degree. Perhaps if they used to weight 500lbs and now weight 175lbs; but no. I love the channel but this is utter nonsense.
I find that most obese individuals respond rather poorly to heat in the Gym, it causes them fatigue way to easily and they need quite alot of recovery in between sets even for relatively light weights. Is there something going on with uncoupling proteins and suppression of them after work out. Mitochondria needs to generate ATP and too much heat and Uncoupling proteins seems reduce ATP. Also most can barely raise their exercise intensity by much, they have a higher baseline metabolic rate but as soon as they get heated up, they can't workout. Maybe something to do with pyruvate kinase being very temperature sensitive.
Or that their mitochondria produces so much ROS in the process of trying to generate ATP, that the ROS damages and impedes multiple metabolic cascades. I'm thinking about lipid metabolism by products like ceraminds peroxidised fatty acids that causes down stream inflammation that leads to leptin signaling interference. Maybe obese people need more antioxidants like alpha lipoic acid and may benefit from glutathione percursors like Gly Nac.
I've re checked the paper. How comes that they plot MJ/day? And not MJ/day/kg? That's completely weird? Of course MJ/day decreases with increase in activity, but that's meaningless?
Genetic programming like there tribe 100k years ago had really lean times and needed to hold on to every bit of body weight to survive. Or maybe it's all just microbiom diversity 🤔
So, if I was overweight, I'd experiment with less layers of clothing and lowering the thermostat at home to nudge matters in my favour. Also adding another pinch of cayenne pepper to my coffee to, albeit temporarily turn up the heat by maybe a measurable quantity. I personally like to sleep with the window open in order to reduce core temperature. More time in bed might further lead to this having another favourable factor. Though, that's unlikely in real terms, these avenues might need to be explored to change the paradigm.
interesting take on this information, I didn't even think of these things.
@@jaredhouston4223 Taking matters on a further left-field twist, it's maybe worth hearing what The Keto Naturopath has to say about omega 3/6 ratios and what damage he believes they wreak. He doesn't use the term, 'Hibernation Juice' lightly!
Keeping an open mind, see what conclusions you make? Dietary evangelicalism not my honest intention.
@@robertrowan9893 "The Keto Naturopath" I'll look that up. I am interested in the omega 3/6 ratio, mostly because I don't fully understand it quite yet. I have gone very extreme with my diet (full carnivore) and it has taught me a lot about food and especially sugar. I respect it's power. I've tried many diets for good lengths of time, including veganism and keto. I find that carnivore is easy to stick to, because it's fool proof and I am a fool.
@@jaredhouston4223 First off, fools don't frequently tune into Physionic... So that's worthy of inclusion.
Secondly, in broad strokes, it centres (UK dude) around pro (6) and anti-inflammatory (3) effects downwind of swallowing the oils in question. As you state carnivore diet, I'm of the opinion you might use the integral fat of the cuts instead of bathing everything in sunflower oil - as a cooking medium that is. If so, you're onto a winner.
Anything that increases insulin sensitivity, promotes longevity and quality of life should be the cornerstone of a diet.
Alas, overdoing omega 6s (it's a ratio after all) at the expense of omega 3s and your health is what's we seek to avoid. I hereby suggest you see what these oils break down into, stage by stage and draw your own conclusions. Maybe even get Saint Nic to validate them further, within the context of maintaining healthy weight. And with that, beam me up Scotty!
@@robertrowan9893 I will take the word of the wise and follow up on this and research more about omega 3 and 6. Glad I'm barking up the right tree with the carnivore diet. I do a lot of intense work during the day so I really want to make sure my down time is as short as I can get it while I build muscle. I think my biggest problem that I ran into was not getting enough animal fat (mood problems rise when I don't get enough). I don't touch plant oils, but I do have 6 olives with some cheese for a snack, today I woke up with inflammation in my hands for the first time in over a year, I probably need to cut the olives. I just reintroduced green olives because they are high in salt (pimento), I work in the desert and I drink lots of water during the day ~1gallon just at work and pee breaks are not often. I don't drink coffee. I am trying to keep the sodium in check and the fat in check. I do eat sardines every once in awhile for a vitamin kick in the pants and I make sure it's fresh water sardines and I drink the water ALWAYS. I think I will have a can tonight actually I haven't had one in over 2 weeks. I have to throw away those green olives.
Thanks this is so interesting. I always wondered about that phenomenon. I imagined there could be variation in TEE within thresholds and above a certain threshold of exercise basal compensation must happen - thus overtraining leading to immune reduction.
But the BMI relationship is fascinating.
How do they measure total energy expenditure in people who are exercising please? Is it through breath? They must somehow account for energy provided by body fat as well as food.
Was this metabolism instantaneous during exxlercise or a cumulative effect over days (including after exercise)?
Fascinating.
That's correct, Tony - they can either use direct or indirect calorimetry, but normally they'd use indirect with a gas capturing mask - no way of knowing the source (body fat or food) without labeling the molecules in some way, but it could be done. I imagine it was cumulative.