White Zombie
pfm Member
Wise words.
Carbs is dependant on type in my experience. The carbs from a vegetable don't work the same as those from a slice of toast. But aye sound advice to me.
Don't Try to Lose Weight by Exercising
- Thread starter Vinny
- Start date
Wise words.
Carbs is dependant on type in my experience. The carbs from a vegetable don't work the same as those from a slice of toast. But aye sound advice to me.
gustav_errata
pfm Member
You deny that the microbiome is of fundamental importance, yet research shows its influence on an ever wider range of physiological systems (and we haven't even gotten into the mouth microbiome, skin microbiome, lung microbiome). You mention that, yes, it has an influence on "general health", yet I don't think that acknowledges just how wide its influence is. If your frame of reference for the function of a microbiome is ruminant food digestion, then your point of view is outdated.
If I am wrong in my interpretation and if you want me to understand your post better, you will have to elaborate.
You might be surprised. Read about gut microbe transplantation. There are peer reviewed papers out there documenting people who have undergone this after an illness and changed body mass significantly afterwards. There is a hypothesis that this is a direct result of the new microbiome changing the body and (my thoughts) crucially the mind's response to food. I have not yet made up my mind about this hypothesis.
While there are certain givens, one being that if you eat fewer calories than you need you will lose weight, there are a number of confounding factors that are generally disregarded.
Seanm
pfm Member
I don’t think I’d ever given it a lot of thought until I read the book, but he gives quite a convincing account as to why it probably is a bit more complicated than that! He’s got some interesting ideas above why we’re getting fatter as a society. Although in terms of how it all cashes out for individuals the advice doesn’t seem to be that complicated: eat as diverse a diet as you can, high fibre, less crap.
I’d definitely recommend the book. I read it for insight into a gut disorder rather than for weight loss but it’s changed the way I eat (and cook for the family) and I feel better for it.
Look after your microbiomes my friends!
Really?
I would suggest that you read and try to better uderstand my original post.
Yes, read and heard about it many times. Does it fundementally affect what happens calorie intake, burn due to exercise etc. etc. etc. for Joe Average? No.
Is it going to make the difference between Joe weighing 11 stone or 22 stone? No.
Classic, possibly first, experiment was the one looking at gastric ulcers, which are often linked to one certain bacteria. Get rid of the bacteria and the ulcers clear up. One researcher specifically dosed himself with the bacteria and developed ulcers PDQ, dosed himself with an antibiotic and they cleared.
gustav_errata
pfm Member
"I’m increasingly coming to the view that gut flora are fundamentally important in many ways, weight control being just one of them."
"Gut and general health and a few trace nutrients yes. Otherwise, no - we are not ruminants."
Define "general health" and explain what "otherwise" encompasses.
I agree with the first statement: gut flora are fundamentally important in many ways, as supported by a swath of literature over the past 10 years thanks to advances in metagenomics. You appear to dismiss its admitted effect on "general health" in your first statement as a minor side-effect, on par with "a few trace nutrients". However, by and large ("otherwise"), you think that gut flora are not of fundamental importance. That is a bold statement that needs to be supported and it is the main reason I view your knowledge as outdated.
In my opinion "general health" is huge, and "otherwise, no - we are not ruminants" is such a tiny exception, referring to a highly specialized role of gut flora in some species that is of absolutely no relevance to discussion of humans, that there is no point in even mentioning it. Since you mention it, it must be of strong rhetorical importance. I'm just trying to figure out what the hell that importance is.
mikemusic
pfm Member
Biggest change I had was when I started cycling to work. 8.5 miles each way.
That was a one off 15.5 stone down to 14.5 stone
Biggest change recently was going vegan which coincidentally meant dropping 3 items with sugar which may be the key.
Summation
Exercise is good.
Eating less is the way for most, most of the time
That was a one off 15.5 stone down to 14.5 stone
Biggest change recently was going vegan which coincidentally meant dropping 3 items with sugar which may be the key.
Summation
Exercise is good.
Eating less is the way for most, most of the time
gustav_errata
pfm Member
Inform yourself:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443745/
This is much more complex than "calories in / calories out".
Oh yes it does. Oh yes it is borne out by research. Why else do athletes have to eat more than the rest of us?
I know from my own personal experience that when I am carrying a bag over mountains I cannot eat enough to maintain my weight. I'm hardly fat, and certainly was not when I was a 9 stone something racing snake in my 20s, and either way I know that I have lost weight on EVERY Alpine holiday I have had, including the ones where every evening involved a big meal and a load of French supermarket lager and I actively tried to eat as much as possible.
You like your thermodynamics arithmetic. As a medium sized man, sedentary or minimally active, I need 2500kcal a day. Call it 100kcal an hour for cash. I can have a day in the mountains, big hills may be worth another 200kcal an hour. If I do 10 hours out, that's, very simplistically, 2000 more calories. All coming out of my basic 2500 is it, leaving 500 for the remaining 14 hours? Nope. I need more food.
It may be true that you can't burn off a Mars Bar with a 30 minute run. Nobody ever seriously suggested you could. However we all know that physical activity burns food calories. It can't not. Maybe 30 minutes on a treadmill gets lost in the noise, I can believe that. But get a job as a postman and it won't.
Bob McC
Living the life of Riley
It is utter bullshit.
Want to lose weight?
Eat less calories than you consume.
There were no overweight allied prisoners of war.
And you are mis reading your bike info.
mandryka
pfm Member
No, calories, though you did make me check. This morning I did 434 in 40 minutes -- I'm feeling very energetic at the moment -- it goes up and down quite significantly, though never below 500 in 40 minutes.
No. Correct. However I suspect that it might shift your appetite as a result of the change in gut bacteria changing the gut chemistry and the effect that that has on the mind. Have I any evidence? No. It's a hypothesis, one that doesn't clash with any known science.
An appetite shift most certainly will.
The bacterium is Helicobacter pylori, it's well known. This is different.
You seem to be missing the point of the resaerch that had me start this thread. I have not gone through any of that, but you seem to be using extreme examples to try to prove a general case. The research suggests that any normal person doing any reasonable exercise will burn very few extra calories compared to doing very little exercise - hence the thread title. He made no mention of elite atheletes or arduous exercise lasting several hours a day, every day.
Have a listen to online discussions, or read the book - I have done neither.
Me too. 2.5 hours/1000 calories is 400 cals an hour, you have to be very fit indeed to sustain that workrate for an hour on a bike.
gustav_errata
pfm Member
Yes and no. It's different in the sense that the original experiment was demonstrated with infection in mind. On the other hand with the microbiome you are generally talking about commensal species. It turns out, though, that in many cases H. pylorii is commensal in the stomach. So the problem becomes when an imbalance occurs and H. pylorii proliferates.
In a sense, that may be what happens in some cases of obesity. However, obesity is far more complex than ulcers, and the action of an unbalanced microbiome is dependent on interactions with many other systems.
John Phillips
pfm Member
Yes. But in the context of your gut microbiome, unless you arrange to change it for the better as part of your weight management, it's still (as the paper says) a matter of managing calories in minus calories out. And, as in the thread title, for most people it looks to me like calories consumed is a more important factor than calories expended by exercising.
White Zombie
pfm Member
Bob I like your allied POW comment. I was actually scared to make pretty much the same comment. As crude and exaggerated as it is there wasn’t one guy kicking about Auschwitz 15 stone because he had bad gut flora.
All this micro biome stuff may have its place but to 99.9% people of the overweight population it has no bearing. If they stopped eating garbage and started eating healthy I’m sure they’d see a difference.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I believe there have also been studies that link some mental health conditions, including depression, with the gut microbiome. The more we study it, the more we seem to be a community of organisms, rather than one organism.
When the factory was closing and I was made redundant in Devon, I was re-employed on the shop-floor. I worked 12 hour shifts, 4 days on two off. The job was loading batches of compnents into ovens, and then unloading an hour later. I was reasonably busy for the whole shift and shifted, around half a tonne into and half a tonne out of ovens, onto and off a washing machine conveyor, each shift.
I convinced myself that I'd lost weight (I have always almost never used scales, and still seldom use them). The shift sparkies chuckled when I mentioned it. I checked and I was the same weight as ever. I ate no more.
I convinced myself that I'd lost weight (I have always almost never used scales, and still seldom use them). The shift sparkies chuckled when I mentioned it. I checked and I was the same weight as ever. I ate no more.