I burned 1,000 calories while playing eq this morning

[nom_fats]

bBiGg SstEpPs

[nom_fats]

I burned ober 27,000 calories playing eberquest the past 30 days

[Smoofers]

How many calories did you ingest while playing EQ, though?

[Bardp1999]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[pink grapefruit]

Have you guys heard of Dr. Herman Pontzer and his intriguing research concerning human metabolism? He's a biological anthropologist at Duke University. I read his provocatively titled book Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Stay Healthy, and Lose Weight, and while I'm not sure how settled the science is it really blew my mind. Super provocative statements made by researchers should be considered very carefully ofc.

A 2012 study he did using the doubly-labeled water method of measuring metabolic expenditure (the gold standard) of a group of tribal hunter-gatherers and then comparing the data with previous findings of Westerners with a variety of lifestyles indicated there may be no significant differences in the metabolic expenditure of these groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0040503

It's been a couple years since I read the study, but some of the data didn't quite support the hypothesis and I think they try to explain why that might be. Since the publication, he's continued to perform studies that do keep pointing to this possibly being the case.

Basically, what Pontzer believes is that total metabolic expenditure is not significantly impacted by physical activity- meaning that while exercise is beneficial for a number of reasons, it will not result in loss of adiposity due to "burning more kilocalories". Exercise may result in weight loss for other reasons, such as reduced opportunity to consume kcal while exercising and physical activity making a person more health-conscious overall, but he does not believe that exercise = burning more total kcal.

One hypothesis is that when we expend kcal on physical activity, our bodies become more metabolically "efficient," and expend fewer kcal on other metabolic processes- which may be part of why physical exercise is so health-promoting.

Take all of this with a grain of salt ofc, but this is so fascinating and it's the sorta thing I nerd out hard over.

[Rygar]

Originally Posted by pink grapefruit [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you guys heard of Dr. Herman Pontzer and his intriguing research concerning human metabolism? He's a biological anthropologist at Duke University. I read his provocatively titled book Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories, Stay Healthy, and Lose Weight, and while I'm not sure how settled the science is it really blew my mind. Super provocative statements made by researchers should be considered very carefully ofc.

A 2012 study he did using the doubly-labeled water method of measuring metabolic expenditure (the gold standard) of a group of tribal hunter-gatherers and then comparing the data with previous findings of Westerners with a variety of lifestyles indicated there may be no significant differences in the metabolic expenditure of these groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0040503

It's been a couple years since I read the study, but some of the data didn't quite support the hypothesis and I think they try to explain why that might be. Since the publication, he's continued to perform studies that do keep pointing to this possibly being the case.

Basically, what Pontzer believes is that total metabolic expenditure is not significantly impacted by physical activity- meaning that while exercise is beneficial for a number of reasons, it will not result in loss of adiposity due to "burning more kilocalories". Exercise may result in weight loss for other reasons, such as reduced opportunity to consume kcal while exercising and physical activity making a person more health-conscious overall, but he does not believe that exercise = burning more total kcal.

One hypothesis is that when we expend kcal on physical activity, our bodies become more metabolically "efficient," and expend fewer kcal on other metabolic processes- which may be part of why physical exercise is so health-promoting.

Take all of this with a grain of salt ofc, but this is so fascinating and it's the sorta thing I nerd out hard over.

I'm really against the notion of 'this is the answer for everyone' when it comes to dietary / exercise stuff. I have met people that exercise / diet healthy and remain large, and have met people that eat shit and are rail skinny. Certainly documented cases of conditions that make it extremely difficult to store fat in an individual.

Until "Genetic Metabolism anomaly 1- 439" can be quantified I'm a proponent of 'do what works for you'.

[pink grapefruit]

Originally Posted by Rygar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm really against the notion of 'this is the answer for everyone' when it comes to dietary / exercise stuff. I have met people that exercise / diet healthy and remain large, and have met people that eat shit and are rail skinny. Certainly documented cases of conditions that make it extremely difficult to store fat in an individual.

Until "Genetic Metabolism anomaly 1- 439" can be quantified I'm a proponent of 'do what works for you'.

Genetic metabolic anomalies can be quantified to an extent already, but no matter what it's always going to be, "do what works for you."

A portion of that book I mentioned spends some time discussing professional athletes, and in particular, the subset of that population that are genetic outliers in terms of metabolic expenditure. Pontzer's hypothesis is that many top-level endurance athletes would have high metabolic expenditure even living sedentary lifestyles, rather than the metabolic expenditure being high due to all the exercise. He doesn't suggest that everyone is the same, but rather that an adult individual's total energy expenditure is relatively consistent regardless of activity level- until around age 60, and with the understanding that certain pathologies can affect this as well.

There are many genetic factors that influence level of adiposity, and obviously energy expenditure ("high" vs "low" metabolism) is one of them, but I currently believe that this one factor gets too much credit. A factor deserving more consideration is imo genetic variation of hunger/satiation cues. A simple example of this being genetic differences in production of (or responsiveness to) ghrelin (the "hunger hormone") and leptin (the "satiation hormone").

There are of course also factors beyond the genetic- including social, psychological, environmental, etc. that all affect adiposity. Each individual is unique, and we all need individualized approaches to support our health. In light of our modern food environment, aggressive treatment with prescription medications, psychotherapy, and dietetic consultation may all be required for many to maintain a healthy weight.

I feel like telling someone with adiposity-based chronic disease to "eat less and move more" is about as effective as telling a person with major depression to "cheer up."

[Rager and Quitter]

Originally Posted by pink grapefruit [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Genetic metabolic anomalies can be quantified to an extent already, but no matter what it's always going to be, "do what works for you."

A portion of that book I mentioned spends some time discussing professional athletes, and in particular, the subset of that population that are genetic outliers in terms of metabolic expenditure. Pontzer's hypothesis is that many top-level endurance athletes would have high metabolic expenditure even living sedentary lifestyles, rather than the metabolic expenditure being high due to all the exercise. He doesn't suggest that everyone is the same, but rather that an adult individual's total energy expenditure is relatively consistent regardless of activity level- until around age 60, and with the understanding that certain pathologies can affect this as well.

There are many genetic factors that influence level of adiposity, and obviously energy expenditure ("high" vs "low" metabolism) is one of them, but I currently believe that this one factor gets too much credit. A factor deserving more consideration is imo genetic variation of hunger/satiation cues. A simple example of this being genetic differences in production of (or responsiveness to) ghrelin (the "hunger hormone") and leptin (the "satiation hormone").

There are of course also factors beyond the genetic- including social, psychological, environmental, etc. that all affect adiposity. Each individual is unique, and we all need individualized approaches to support our health. In light of our modern food environment, aggressive treatment with prescription medications, psychotherapy, and dietetic consultation may all be required for many to maintain a healthy weight.

I feel like telling someone with adiposity-based chronic disease to "eat less and move more" is about as effective as telling a person with major depression to "cheer up."

I'll openly admit that I actually read very little of what you wrote, but I will say as someone that was rather large when I was younger from eating more and moving less, I found a plethora of excuses as to why I was the size I was, but until I woke up an realized that I needed to change my diet and become more active, nothing changed.

Sure, there are many reasons why someone is the size they are, but there are too many convenient excuses and too many enabling voices that may be coming from a place of compassion, but all result in the continuity of detrimental health. Eating healthier (by whatever degree possible) and becoming more active (by whatever degree possible) is far more beneficial to the person than to suggest they're just the way they are, and that's what it is.

Nothing is more empowering than an individuals making significant life changes and seeing the result of those changes regardless of the starting or ending point. I'm now in the mid-teens percentage body fat, I can lift heavy weights with the big boys, and my body has never looked or felt better. Empowering people to make whatever changes are right for them in the direction of more healthy living should be the primary goal, regardless of the economic or genetic hurdles they might face.

No more excuses. No more complacency.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by pink grapefruit [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Genetic metabolic anomalies can be quantified to an extent already, but no matter what it's always going to be, "do what works for you."

A portion of that book I mentioned spends some time discussing professional athletes, and in particular, the subset of that population that are genetic outliers in terms of metabolic expenditure. Pontzer's hypothesis is that many top-level endurance athletes would have high metabolic expenditure even living sedentary lifestyles, rather than the metabolic expenditure being high due to all the exercise. He doesn't suggest that everyone is the same, but rather that an adult individual's total energy expenditure is relatively consistent regardless of activity level- until around age 60, and with the understanding that certain pathologies can affect this as well.

There are many genetic factors that influence level of adiposity, and obviously energy expenditure ("high" vs "low" metabolism) is one of them, but I currently believe that this one factor gets too much credit. A factor deserving more consideration is imo genetic variation of hunger/satiation cues. A simple example of this being genetic differences in production of (or responsiveness to) ghrelin (the "hunger hormone") and leptin (the "satiation hormone").

There are of course also factors beyond the genetic- including social, psychological, environmental, etc. that all affect adiposity. Each individual is unique, and we all need individualized approaches to support our health. In light of our modern food environment, aggressive treatment with prescription medications, psychotherapy, and dietetic consultation may all be required for many to maintain a healthy weight.

I feel like telling someone with adiposity-based chronic disease to "eat less and move more" is about as effective as telling a person with major depression to "cheer up."

Is there a reason you read so much about losing weight? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[pink grapefruit]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is there a reason you read so much about losing weight? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2005 - 2009 era xanga

those of us who survived will forever bare our scars.