Obesity and Ozempic and more (4 Viewers)

[Terminalxylem]

Im being very robotic in my posts, tongue in cheek in a few. I respect @Terminalxylem a lot based on his history of posts. IIRC he is a medical professional. I think my notebook also says he is in Hawaii?

My hot take still stands - medical professionals know how to treat the severely ill and make them not severely ill. They do not know how to manage someone's healthy lifestyle.

Is your last name Attia by any chance? (This is the overarching theme of his book).

Beat you to it.

I agree preventative health training is lacking, but broad-stroking all HCP as clueless is about as oversimplified as calories in = calories out.

 

[JAA]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

It's an extrapolation. Vo2 max is better measured with respiratory methods, but none of us have that. So we extrapolate HR and some degree of exertion based on data from people that did measure their true vo2.

Same way we extrapolate body fat by stepping on a scale that passes current thru your legs.

Are you stating my Garmin watch does not use my HR to calculate my VO2 max?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it

Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich

Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work

Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China.

This doesnt work actually

Imagine a world where you only ate what tasted the best to you? You would die a horrible death.

Why? I thought it was just calories in = calories out?

And I loooove salmon, broccoli, dark chocolate, and passion fruit. I don’t think that would kill me, even if I ate some combo of the four every meal.

 

[JAA]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

1. Heart rate does influence vO2 max, inasmuch as the heart pumps oxygen-containing blood. But it isn’t a direct measure of heart rate over time; it’s a measure of oxygen consumption.

2. And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

3. There are other estimates which utilize sub-maximal and maximum exertion, but when it is actually measured in a lab, they’re looking at volume of gas exchanged. And yes, maximal exertion is needed to determine maximal oxygen use. But many other physiologic and environmental factors factor in as well, so describing it solely as average exertional HR is inaccurate.

1. You keep mentioning oxygen consumption in a vacuum. VO2 max is oxygen consumption over time within HR zones. O2 consumption in a vacuum, or at rest, without understanding exertion, ie elevated HR, is meaningless.

2. Which is it? HR matters in VO2 max calculations or not? You stated "vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all", but now you are making you case using HR. Which is it? Not only that, but you prove my point resting HR does not calculate VO2 max. Even with your calculation you need to know your max HR. How does someone know their max HR? They know their max HR by elevating their HR over time, which has been my point all along

3. Thank you again for making my point.

I am not a medical professional. I would argue medical professional should not care about VO2 max. They should care about really ill people.

 

[JAA]

But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.

I almost glossed over the BEST PART!!

So youre saying companies are producing foods (ie ask the FDA if sugar a food!) which create addiction through dopamine responses in our brain??? SAY IT AIN'T SO!! Then they put this "food" in what feels like 3 outa every 4 items for sale at the grocery store? THIS CANT BE TRUEZ!!??!!1!!11!

And it's crazy but some people don't get as addicted to the stuff in food as others. I know. Shocking.

Same thing with all addictions.

 

[JAA]

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal.

To be fair, the Cascadia Farms cereal is sugar-free ( @3C's ? ). We had a few posts earlier in the week about whether healthier, low-sugar cereal was priced way out of line compared to familiar sugary "kid" cereals. Looks like, broadly, they're not.

No added sugar. Dried fruit and date powder for sweetener.

Why bother with the date powder. Dates are an amazing super food IMO. So much fiber in them, I find they sustain energy very well. I believe they sustain energy well due to the maltose, which is a thicker sugar chain. Honey is another. IIRC honey is the only food which has all the sugar molecules in it.

 

[Terminalxylem]

My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?

34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

	Cascadia Farms Mixed Berry @ Costco	Post HoneyComb	Post Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg	$ 14.00	$ 5.29	$ 5.29
oz/pkg	34.00	12.50	11.00
price per oz	$ 0.41	$ 0.42	$ 0.48

Quaker Oats Old Fashioned Oats - 42oz

Read reviews and buy Quaker Oats Old Fashioned Oats - 42oz at Target. Choose from contactless Same Day Delivery, Drive Up and more.

www.target.com

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)

Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.

Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.

if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.

Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.

i missed the lead in,

But to answer your question i think it's multi-factored. The easiest answer is b/c mainly it takes effort. Learning to cook is prob the most important step, but also seeking out healthier options when go out. But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.

As someone who was raised on meat-and-potatoes (and eggs!), fried/processed foods, and soda, I found recalibrating my palate a lot easier than I had imagined. I guess I'm lucky not to have a brain/personality prone to addiction.

People make the effort for alcohol, and coffee, so I know they can overcome things that don't taste great initially. Unfortunately, a healthy diet doesn't provide immediate enough rewards to incentivize behavioral change.

 

[JAA]

Yeah, I've come around to the idea that the best diet is one that is sustainable, while achieving a healthy weight.

Again, your opinion here is mis-guided. Calories in, calories out. That is all that matters, not weight. Everyone's size is different and attempting to label some sort of "healthy weight" is completely misguided.

Yes, but all calories aren’t created the same. So the types of food you eat matter.

And we’ll have to agree to disagree about the existence of healthy weight. It’s not the only thing that matters, but weight, like BMI, is one proxy for overall health.

Show me any study which explains how all calories are not created the same with respect to metabolism.

Every study I have read (maybe 3?) is calories in, calories out is all that matters for conversion of energy and storage of fat. If you take in 1500 calories of table sugar vs 1500 calories of crisco, your body will convert to energy and store the same deficit/excess of calories. However, the time it takes to convert may be different, the high level metabolic process is the same.

If you want to discuss sustained energy and fiber, which is prolly where you are going, but that has nothing to do with calories and metabolism.

 

[Sand]

And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

That estimate puts me at a VO2Max of 62, which seems crazy high. Not close to the estimate from the Garmin 965 I wear.

 

[culdeus]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

It's an extrapolation. Vo2 max is better measured with respiratory methods, but none of us have that. So we extrapolate HR and some degree of exertion based on data from people that did measure their true vo2.

Same way we extrapolate body fat by stepping on a scale that passes current thru your legs.

Are you stating my Garmin watch does not use my HR to calculate my VO2 max?

??? HR vs perceived exertion is basically all it's doing.

 

[JAA]

Im being very robotic in my posts, tongue in cheek in a few. I respect @Terminalxylem a lot based on his history of posts. IIRC he is a medical professional. I think my notebook also says he is in Hawaii?

My hot take still stands - medical professionals know how to treat the severely ill and make them not severely ill. They do not know how to manage someone's healthy lifestyle.

Is your last name Attia by any chance? (This is the overarching theme of his book).

Beat you to it.

I agree preventative health training is lacking, but broad-stroking all HCP as clueless is about as oversimplified as calories in = calories out.

Im sorry to say, but this is where you will be embarrassing yourself.

As I mentioned in my previous post, no one in the triathlon world has found a single study which shows anything different and these wanna-be professional athletes talk about it. all. day. long. I look forward to being an incorrect know-it-all blowhard. I do not look forward to a respected medical professional having to admit they were wrong.

 

[JAA]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

It's an extrapolation. Vo2 max is better measured with respiratory methods, but none of us have that. So we extrapolate HR and some degree of exertion based on data from people that did measure their true vo2.

Same way we extrapolate body fat by stepping on a scale that passes current thru your legs.

Are you stating my Garmin watch does not use my HR to calculate my VO2 max?

??? HR vs perceived exertion is basically all it's doing.

What I heard from what you wrote is that my Garmin uses my average HR and extrapolates my VO2 max based using someone else who actually had their VO2 max tested as a reference value. Did I misunderstand your post?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

1. Heart rate does influence vO2 max, inasmuch as the heart pumps oxygen-containing blood. But it isn’t a direct measure of heart rate over time; it’s a measure of oxygen consumption.

2. And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

3. There are other estimates which utilize sub-maximal and maximum exertion, but when it is actually measured in a lab, they’re looking at volume of gas exchanged. And yes, maximal exertion is needed to determine maximal oxygen use. But many other physiologic and environmental factors factor in as well, so describing it solely as average exertional HR is inaccurate.

1. You keep mentioning oxygen consumption in a vacuum. VO2 max is oxygen consumption over time within HR zones. O2 consumption in a vacuum, or at rest, without understanding exertion, ie elevated HR, is meaningless.

2. Which is it? HR matters in VO2 max calculations or not? You stated "vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all", but now you are making you case using HR. Which is it? Not only that, but you prove my point resting HR does not calculate VO2 max. Even with your calculation you need to know your max HR. How does someone know their max HR? They know their max HR by elevating their HR over time, which has been my point all along

3. Thank you again for making my point.

I am not a medical professional. I would argue medical professional should not care about VO2 max. They should care about really ill people.

You can estimate max HR without getting out of bed. The most crude, yet common estimate is 220-age. Using that number and my watch measured resting HR, I can estimate my vO2 max within 5% of the watch's calculation. But the latter is an estimate, too. Same goes for your Garmin.

When vO2 max is actually measured, they're just looking at inhaled/exhaled gas, both oxygen and carbon dioxide, while someone runs on an inclined treadmill. While heart rate is monitored during the procedure, technically it doesn't need to be.

 

[Terminalxylem]

And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

That estimate puts me at a VO2Max of 62, which seems crazy high. Not close to the estimate from the Garmin 965 I wear.

Yeah, it's just an estimate. You've already commented your resting HR is unusually low, so it doesn't work well with your numbers. Not sure how accurate the Garmin's estimates are.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Yeah, I've come around to the idea that the best diet is one that is sustainable, while achieving a healthy weight.

Again, your opinion here is mis-guided. Calories in, calories out. That is all that matters, not weight. Everyone's size is different and attempting to label some sort of "healthy weight" is completely misguided.

Yes, but all calories aren’t created the same. So the types of food you eat matter.

And we’ll have to agree to disagree about the existence of healthy weight. It’s not the only thing that matters, but weight, like BMI, is one proxy for overall health.

Show me any study which explains how all calories are not created the same with respect to metabolism.

Every study I have read (maybe 3?) is calories in, calories out is all that matters for conversion of energy and storage of fat. If you take in 1500 calories of table sugar vs 1500 calories of crisco, your body will convert to energy and store the same deficit/excess of calories. However, the time it takes to convert may be different, the high level metabolic process is the same.

If you want to discuss sustained energy and fiber, which is prolly where you are going, but that has nothing to do with calories and metabolism.

Read about the thermic effect of food/specific dynamic action. Also, you need to consider differences in satiety induced by different foods, and accessibility of their nutrients (in part due to fiber content).

At a cellular level, calories in may equal calories out, but in the real world, it's a lot easier to consume a 2000 calorie burger than 2000 calories of broccoli.

 

[JAA]

Lets list some links:

• https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150
• https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

1. Heart rate does influence vO2 max, inasmuch as the heart pumps oxygen-containing blood. But it isn’t a direct measure of heart rate over time; it’s a measure of oxygen consumption.

2. And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

3. There are other estimates which utilize sub-maximal and maximum exertion, but when it is actually measured in a lab, they’re looking at volume of gas exchanged. And yes, maximal exertion is needed to determine maximal oxygen use. But many other physiologic and environmental factors factor in as well, so describing it solely as average exertional HR is inaccurate.

1. You keep mentioning oxygen consumption in a vacuum. VO2 max is oxygen consumption over time within HR zones. O2 consumption in a vacuum, or at rest, without understanding exertion, ie elevated HR, is meaningless.

2. Which is it? HR matters in VO2 max calculations or not? You stated "vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all", but now you are making you case using HR. Which is it? Not only that, but you prove my point resting HR does not calculate VO2 max. Even with your calculation you need to know your max HR. How does someone know their max HR? They know their max HR by elevating their HR over time, which has been my point all along

3. Thank you again for making my point.

I am not a medical professional. I would argue medical professional should not care about VO2 max. They should care about really ill people.

You can estimate max HR without getting out of bed. The most crude, yet common estimate is 220-age. Using that number and my watch measured resting HR, I can estimate my vO2 max within 5% of the watch's calculation. But the latter is an estimate, too. Same goes for your Garmin.

When vO2 max is actually measured, they're just looking at inhaled/exhaled gas, both oxygen and carbon dioxide, while someone runs on an inclined treadmill. While heart rate is monitored during the procedure, technically it doesn't need to be.

The formula doesnt work for me, hence my 35863498746123879 hours of research. That formula puts my max HR at 172 (cause Im 48), which is not in the same solar system of my actual max HR. Hence my point, which has been the same all along, to measure VO2 max you must measure HR, during exertion, over time.

This is from a 5k I ran recently, data copied right out of TrainingPeaks

BPM Peak 5 sec:  206
BPM Peak 10 sec:  206
BPM Peak 12 sec:  206
BPM Peak 20 sec:  205
BPM Peak 30 sec:  204
BPM Peak 1 min:  203
BPM Peak 2 min:  201
BPM Peak 5 min:  200
BPM Peak 6 min:  199
BPM Peak 10 min:  197
BPM Peak 12 min:  196
BPM Peak 20 min:  194

Based on that data, what is my max HR? So no, that calculation is rubbish for me.

Spoiler

HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT HOW INEFFICIENT MY HEART IS!!11!1!!

 

[JAA]

Yeah, I've come around to the idea that the best diet is one that is sustainable, while achieving a healthy weight.

Again, your opinion here is mis-guided. Calories in, calories out. That is all that matters, not weight. Everyone's size is different and attempting to label some sort of "healthy weight" is completely misguided.

Yes, but all calories aren’t created the same. So the types of food you eat matter.

And we’ll have to agree to disagree about the existence of healthy weight. It’s not the only thing that matters, but weight, like BMI, is one proxy for overall health.

Show me any study which explains how all calories are not created the same with respect to metabolism.

Every study I have read (maybe 3?) is calories in, calories out is all that matters for conversion of energy and storage of fat. If you take in 1500 calories of table sugar vs 1500 calories of crisco, your body will convert to energy and store the same deficit/excess of calories. However, the time it takes to convert may be different, the high level metabolic process is the same.

If you want to discuss sustained energy and fiber, which is prolly where you are going, but that has nothing to do with calories and metabolism.

Read about the thermic effect of food/specific dynamic action. Also, you need to consider differences in satiety induced by different foods, and accessibility of their nutrients (in part due to fiber content).

At a cellular level, calories in may equal calories out, but in the real world, it's a lot easier to consume a 2000 calorie burger than 2000 calories of broccoli.

I have read all of that speculation and frankly this is becoming a silly conversation.

This fact:

• Calorie Intake = Calorie Burn = stable weight
• Calorie Intake > Calorie Burn = weight gain
• Calorie intake < Calorie Burn - weight loss

It's that simple.

Show me a single study, anywhere, in the history of time, which disproves the above.

HINT: You won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I know most diets don't work, and people can lose weight eating cr@p. That doesn't prove that nutrition can be distilled to CICO.

I also know estimates don't apply to everyone. That doesn't negate their applicability for many/most people.

 

[culdeus]

Sub 20% guy…..

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?

I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...

My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.

Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.

Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.

I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?

It's an extrapolation. Vo2 max is better measured with respiratory methods, but none of us have that. So we extrapolate HR and some degree of exertion based on data from people that did measure their true vo2.

Same way we extrapolate body fat by stepping on a scale that passes current thru your legs.

Are you stating my Garmin watch does not use my HR to calculate my VO2 max?

??? HR vs perceived exertion is basically all it's doing.

What I heard from what you wrote is that my Garmin uses my average HR and extrapolates my VO2 max based using someone else who actually had their VO2 max tested as a reference value. Did I misunderstand your post?

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

 

[JAA]

I know most diets don't work, and people can lose weight eating cr@p. That doesn't prove that nutrition can be distilled to CICO.

I also know estimates don't apply to everyone. That doesn't negate their applicability for many/most people.

You throw in a word like nutrition there. Sneaky.

Regarding weight loss, its CICO. There is no study out there which shows otherwise.

 

[JAA]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

 

[Mister CIA]

IIFYM (NSFW)

 

[JAA]

IIFYM (NSFW)

What hilarious about this is how true it is!

Frosted Blueberry Pop Tart (1 pastry): 200 calories

So if you have a 2000 calorie daily intake, you can eat 10 of those per day. If someone can manage to only eat 9 of those as their entire daily intake, they will lose weight.

 

[3C's]

IIFYM (NSFW)

What hilarious about this is how true it is!

Frosted Blueberry Pop Tart (1 pastry): 200 calories

So if you have a 2000 calorie daily intake, you can eat 10 of those per day. If someone can manage to only eat 9 of those as their entire daily intake, they will lose weight.

If I ate more than 1 I'd puke (hey weight loss!) since they're f'n gross.

 

[culdeus]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

It's basically saying. If you run X mph with Y HR your vo2=f(x,y). your hr and speed are the largest variables but elevation is supposed to be factored.

Factoring height, stride, and height/weight ratio is supposed to be in the formula but to what extent is tbd.

 

[Sand]

And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

That estimate puts me at a VO2Max of 62, which seems crazy high. Not close to the estimate from the Garmin 965 I wear.

Yeah, it's just an estimate. You've already commented your resting HR is unusually low, so it doesn't work well with your numbers. Not sure how accurate the Garmin's estimates are.

I wish it was right. I'd be a beast. If I lose weight and get back to where I think I can be on the bike I should be able to break 50. 60 is dreamland - or possible with a double leg transplant. Maybe Cancellara's, those would be good.

 

[Terminalxylem]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

Nobody said this. I said vO2 max isn’t a measure of average HR. Even though it can be estimated using HR, the actual measurement doesn’t require any knowledge of precisely how fast your heart is beating.

All you need to know is the person is trying as hard as possible, and utilize an instrument to measure the volume of oxygen & carbon dioxide inhaled/exhaled during exertion.

Plus their body weight, and a stopwatch. Again, the units of vO2 max are ml of oxygen per minute, per kg. It’s not ml oxygen per heartbeat, or average heart rate.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Why are Mommy and Daddy fighting?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have read all of that speculation and frankly this is becoming a silly conversation.

This fact:

• Calorie Intake = Calorie Burn = stable weight
• Calorie Intake > Calorie Burn = weight gain
• Calorie intake < Calorie Burn - weight loss

It's that simple.

Show me a single study, anywhere, in the history of time, which disproves the above.

HINT: You won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

I was pretty surprised to see such opposition to this.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I have read all of that speculation and frankly this is becoming a silly conversation.

This fact:

• Calorie Intake = Calorie Burn = stable weight
• Calorie Intake > Calorie Burn = weight gain
• Calorie intake < Calorie Burn - weight loss

It's that simple.

Show me a single study, anywhere, in the history of time, which disproves the above.

HINT: You won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

I was pretty surprised to see such opposition to this.

Way back in one of the million other threads we’ve had on this stuff, Maurile said something to the effect of “saying that you lose weight by burning more calories than you take in is kind of like saying that the way to win a football game is to score more points than your opponent.” Both those statements are clearly correct. I’m just not sure they’re very useful.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I have read all of that speculation and frankly this is becoming a silly conversation.

This fact:

• Calorie Intake = Calorie Burn = stable weight
• Calorie Intake > Calorie Burn = weight gain
• Calorie intake < Calorie Burn - weight loss

It's that simple.

Show me a single study, anywhere, in the history of time, which disproves the above.

HINT: You won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

I was pretty surprised to see such opposition to this.

Because it’s a gross misrepresentation of the complexities of nutrition. The interplay between the way the body processes nutrients and mediates satiety makes weight maintenance a lot more than CICO.

 

[Mitchie]

Tbh, not sure how someone can think it's just CICO, 200 calories from pizza is not the same as 200 calories from nuts. I'm surprised someone would argue against that.

It's time to bust the 'calories in, calories out' weight-loss myth

www.sydney.edu.au

Stop counting calories - Harvard Health

Calorie counting isn't the best way to lose weight. How a person's body burns calories depends on a number of factors, including the type of food eaten, metabolism, and even the type of organisms l...

www.health.harvard.edu

 

[Joe Bryant]

Tbh, not sure how someone can think it's just CICO, 200 calories from pizza is not the same as 200 calories from nuts. I'm surprised someone would argue against that.

It's time to bust the 'calories in, calories out' weight-loss myth

www.sydney.edu.au

Stop counting calories - Harvard Health

Calorie counting isn't the best way to lose weight. How a person's body burns calories depends on a number of factors, including the type of food eaten, metabolism, and even the type of organisms l...

www.health.harvard.edu

I think most people understand 2,000 calories from donuts is not the same as 2,000 calories from a healthy diet.

It's not an either or thing.

From the closing section of the Harvard article.

I'm no nutrionist, but I think combining the below with an understanding of calories in and out is the answer.

Diet Quality. For sure eating quality foods is important. But if a 175 pound person is eating 5000 calories a day of high quality food and not expending any calories from exercising, I doubt they'll be successful.

Successful weight management​

If counting calories isn't a dependable way to manage your weight, what can you do to shed extra pounds? Dr. Stanford recommends the following:

Focus on diet quality. When planning your meals, try to cut down on or eliminate processed foods, which can drive your body to consume more. Instead, focus on choosing unprocessed foods, including lean meats, whole grains, and lots of fruits and vegetables in their natural form.

Exercise regularly (as well as vigorously). Aim to get at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise each week. Moderate exercise is done at a level where you can talk, but not sing. "A lot of people think moderate exercise is a casual walk to the garden, but it's more like walking up a large hill," she says. While any movement is better than nothing, work toward achieving a more vigorous level of exercise when you can.

Sleep soundly. Poor sleep quality can lead to weight gain, as can a sleep schedule that is out of sync with the body's natural daily pattern, known as circadian rhythm. Your body wants to sleep at night and be awake during the day. "The Nurses' Health Study, which followed nurses for 20 years, found that those who worked the night shift gained more weight over time," says Dr. Stanford. The body gets perturbed when you disrupt its natural rhythm. The same is true if you are getting poor-quality sleep or not enough. A lack of sleep affects your weight in much the same way as hormonal shifts, making you want to eat more. So, addressing sleep problems with your doctor should be a priority.

Check your medications. Sometimes medication causes weight gain. Be aware if you start a new medication and you notice you're putting on weight. Your doctor may be able to prescribe an alternative that doesn't have the same side effect.

Reduce your stress levels. Stress, like poor sleep, can lead to weight gain. Controlling stress can help you keep excess pounds at bay.

Consult a professional. "A lot of people believe it's a moral failing if they are unable to lose weight," says Dr. Stanford. But it's not. As with other medical conditions, many people will need help from a doctor. Successful weight loss may require more than just diet and exercise. "You may never have thought about using medications to lose weight. Only 2% of people who meet the criteria for the use of anti-obesity medications actually get them. This means that 98% of people who could be treated, aren't," she says. Some people may also need surgery to lose weight, she says. Don't be afraid to seek help if you need it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

But this comes back to what term is saying about the complex interplay between nutrition and satiety. You would struggle to eat 5,000 calories of high-quality, nutrient dense, balanced foods in a day. You would likely not feel hungry. We see this with professional athletes who often need their personal chefs to create meals to keep them from losing weight over a grueling season.

Very little popular diet advice really focuses on eliminating hunger and increasing satiety cues. There’s some, but not a lot.

I’ll give an example. Two big triggers for me are string cheese and milk. I crave that creaminess. Particularly at night and particularly if I’ve had a day where I’ve been really careful. And that tends to happen to me more in the winter than in the summer. I can have some pretty self destructive cheese binges. And yeah, I know what I’m doing intellectually. I could exercise more will power. Maybe track more carefully to help me override the craving.

Or I could take a D3 supplement and address the nutritional deficiency that is creating the hunger cues in the first place. Because doing that has been far more successful for me at eliminating that self-destructive behavior than any will power based program.

 

[steelerfan1]

IIFYM (NSFW)

What hilarious about this is how true it is!

Frosted Blueberry Pop Tart (1 pastry): 200 calories

So if you have a 2000 calorie daily intake, you can eat 10 of those per day. If someone can manage to only eat 9 of those as their entire daily intake, they will lose weight.

Do you believe the same type of body composition would be achieved? If I need 2500 calories to maintain and I ate 2000 calories of twinkies that would be a pound of weight lost. If the same 2000 calories would come from a Mediterranean type diet, I could still expect to lose a pound. Do you believe it would be the exact same thing. I think people focus too much on weight loss and not fat loss.

 

[massraider]

I think most people understand 2,000 calories from donuts is not the same as 2,000 calories from a healthy diet.

It's not an either or thing

I don't think most people understand that. If they did, we wouldn't still see people counting calories.

 

[WVU Alum]

I don’t count calories and have lost 40 pounds. I cut out red meat and pork, almost everything processed, and refined sugar. My diet could be described as Mediterranean, but I didn’t set out for it to be that way. I actually eat a lot of food, maybe more than when I was fat, but it is all “good” food. I need to lose another 10 pounds according to the ideal weight for my height. That range puts me below 184 and I am 6’
I’m in no hurry as my last blood test was good. I appear to be losing a little over one pound per month at this point.

 

[JAA]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

It's basically saying. If you run X mph with Y HR your vo2=f(x,y). your hr and speed are the largest variables but elevation is supposed to be factored.

Factoring height, stride, and height/weight ratio is supposed to be in the formula but to what extent is tbd.

I believe VO2 max is only exertion over time. Exertion which elevates HR which forces your body to work harder oxygenating.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think most people understand 2,000 calories from donuts is not the same as 2,000 calories from a healthy diet.

It's not an either or thing

I don't think most people understand that. If they did, we wouldn't still see people counting calories.

Maybe you're right.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Very little popular diet advice really focuses on eliminating hunger and increasing satiety cues. There’s some, but not a lot.

I don't know. I hear lots of people advocating for drinking lots of water on a diet. Beyond just hydration and specifically for a sense of satiety. I hear that a lot.

Same with other foods. It's popular (and accurate I think) to stress the 250 calories from a salad is better than the 250 calories from a donut not just for the nutrition benefits, but the sense of fullness.

 

[JAA]

No. You maybe don't realize that vo2 is measured from a mask typically so watches are just sort of curve fitting hr to that among a few other factors

Thats my point. Folks are saying VO2 max isnt calculated using HR. Since we were all talking about our watches, I assumed this was the discussion line.

I would have to dig out my mask based Vo2 max test, but I do not believe it had a specific number, though it could have. What I remember is just a range on a line with buckets.

Nobody said this. I said vO2 max isn’t a measure of average HR. Even though it can be estimated using HR, the actual measurement doesn’t require any knowledge of precisely how fast your heart is beating.

All you need to know is the person is trying as hard as possible, and utilize an instrument to measure the volume of oxygen & carbon dioxide inhaled/exhaled during exertion.

Plus their body weight, and a stopwatch. Again, the units of vO2 max are ml of oxygen per minute, per kg. It’s not ml oxygen per heartbeat, or average heart rate.

Maybe I misread your post below?

And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

To be more specific: exertion = elevated HR. You can't have physical exertion without elevated HR. Therefore, VO2 max is a measure of HR over time. Meaning, if I have a VO2max of 44, I can tell you exactly what HR zones will achieve this based. Even more specifically, if I am not in a "proper HR zone", VO2 max will not be properly calculated. This is the exact reason I opened with "you cant calculate VO2 max at resting HR". This is the entire concept behind the TrainingPeaks website and TSS/IF.

Some reading if folks would like to learn about this science:

• VO2 Max: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-lt-and-vo2-max/
• Heart Rate zones: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/
• TSS: https://help.trainingpeaks.com/hc/en-us/articles/204071944-Training-Stress-Scores-TSS-Explained

And no, my name is not Joe either

 

[JAA]

I have read all of that speculation and frankly this is becoming a silly conversation.

This fact:

• Calorie Intake = Calorie Burn = stable weight
• Calorie Intake > Calorie Burn = weight gain
• Calorie intake < Calorie Burn - weight loss

It's that simple.

Show me a single study, anywhere, in the history of time, which disproves the above.

HINT: You won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

I was pretty surprised to see such opposition to this.

Way back in one of the million other threads we’ve had on this stuff, Maurile said something to the effect of “saying that you lose weight by burning more calories than you take in is kind of like saying that the way to win a football game is to score more points than your opponent.” Both those statements are clearly correct. I’m just not sure they’re very useful.

Not useful?

FWIW comparing the game of football and choosing what food in your mouth doesn't match IMHO. Especially when everyone knows what they should eat and how much of it already. That would be like saying "If we just run plays a,b,c all game we know we will win", then continue to run plays d, e, and f .

Everyone knows the right answer here, its just they:

1. Don't like the taste
2. Cant handle being hungry

Back in the caveman days, 1 and 2 above were not choices.

 

[JAA]

I have read all of that speculation and frankly this is becoming a silly conversation.

This fact:

• Calorie Intake = Calorie Burn = stable weight
• Calorie Intake > Calorie Burn = weight gain
• Calorie intake < Calorie Burn - weight loss

It's that simple.

Show me a single study, anywhere, in the history of time, which disproves the above.

HINT: You won't find one, because it doesn't exist.

I was pretty surprised to see such opposition to this.

Because it’s a gross misrepresentation of the complexities of nutrition. The interplay between the way the body processes nutrients and mediates satiety makes weight maintenance a lot more than CICO.

Misrepresentation? Please explain what is being misrepresented or over simplified.

If you eat less than you burn you will lose weight. Never in the history of the world has this been disproven

 

[JAA]

IIFYM (NSFW)

What hilarious about this is how true it is!

Frosted Blueberry Pop Tart (1 pastry): 200 calories

So if you have a 2000 calorie daily intake, you can eat 10 of those per day. If someone can manage to only eat 9 of those as their entire daily intake, they will lose weight.

Do you believe the same type of body composition would be achieved? If I need 2500 calories to maintain and I ate 2000 calories of twinkies that would be a pound of weight lost. If the same 2000 calories would come from a Mediterranean type diet, I could still expect to lose a pound. Do you believe it would be the exact same thing. I think people focus too much on weight loss and not fat loss.

Calories are calories. To answer your question regarding weight loss, yes.

Body composition is something completely different. If you would like to be specific, I would need specifics. Things like age, height, weight, fitness level, current workout plan and current non-workout lifestyle, etc.

 

[JAA]

Tbh, not sure how someone can think it's just CICO, 200 calories from pizza is not the same as 200 calories from nuts. I'm surprised someone would argue against that.

It's time to bust the 'calories in, calories out' weight-loss myth

www.sydney.edu.au

Stop counting calories - Harvard Health

Calorie counting isn't the best way to lose weight. How a person's body burns calories depends on a number of factors, including the type of food eaten, metabolism, and even the type of organisms l...

www.health.harvard.edu

Thanks for sharing the op-ed pieces. Neither of those are studies and neither of those are anything more than opinion. They arent studies because they aren't proven. They aren't proven because they can't. be. proven.

I get it that you want to believe them and they make sense to you. However, they are simple misdirections of the real issue here: eat less calories to lose weight or exercise more to keep eating the same amount of calories

That's it, there is nothing more to it.

 

[JAA]

But this comes back to what term is saying about the complex interplay between nutrition and satiety. You would struggle to eat 5,000 calories of high-quality, nutrient dense, balanced foods in a day. You would likely not feel hungry. We see this with professional athletes who often need their personal chefs to create meals to keep them from losing weight over a grueling season.

Very little popular diet advice really focuses on eliminating hunger and increasing satiety cues. There’s some, but not a lot.

I’ll give an example. Two big triggers for me are string cheese and milk. I crave that creaminess. Particularly at night and particularly if I’ve had a day where I’ve been really careful. And that tends to happen to me more in the winter than in the summer. I can have some pretty self destructive cheese binges. And yeah, I know what I’m doing intellectually. I could exercise more will power. Maybe track more carefully to help me override the craving.

Or I could take a D3 supplement and address the nutritional deficiency that is creating the hunger cues in the first place. Because doing that has been far more successful for me at eliminating that self-destructive behavior than any will power based program.

This is spot on. Our issue with calories is satiety. Satiety is achieved through fiber.

Guess what big food companies can't* produce? That's right, fiber. Guess what doesn't sit on the shelf for long(est) periods of time? That's right, fiber. Finally, guess what takes up more storage space per sq/ft than processed white flour? That's right, fiber.

Guess why we eat too many calories? Not enough ... wait for it ... fiber in the foods we do eat.

In conclusion, there is no profit in fiber and thus it isn't pushed by big food companies. There is tons of profit (and calories) in processed white flour and saturated (used to be trans) fats.

 

[JAA]

I think most people understand 2,000 calories from donuts is not the same as 2,000 calories from a healthy diet.

It's not an either or thing

I don't think most people understand that. If they did, we wouldn't still see people counting calories.

I accept this from the position regarding chemical makeup of the food.

However, you body counts donuts the same as broccoli from a caloric perspective. Your gut and blood sugar considers them differently.

 

[JAA]

I don’t count calories and have lost 40 pounds. I cut out red meat and pork, almost everything processed, and refined sugar. My diet could be described as Mediterranean, but I didn’t set out for it to be that way. I actually eat a lot of food, maybe more than when I was fat, but it is all “good” food. I need to lose another 10 pounds according to the ideal weight for my height. That range puts me below 184 and I am 6’
I’m in no hurry as my last blood test was good. I appear to be losing a little over one pound per month at this point.

There is no losing when you eat real food vs processed food. We feel full and dont want to eat as much. COMPLETELY different to eating pop tarts and being hungry 30 minutes later.

 

[SoBeDad]

It is mostly CICO, laws of thermodynamics. That was shown with a sample size of 1, by a nutrition professor at KSU, Mark Haub, who went on the "twinkie diet." He's 6 feet tall, started around 214 lbs (BMI=29) and lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks going down to 177 lbs (BMI=24). From overweight and near obese to the upper end of normal. His lipid profile went from elevated CVD risk to normal. He restricted his intake to 1800 calories, about 1000 were twinkies and similar snack cakes. About 500 were milk and protein shakes. He said he ate veggies around his kids. He took multivamins and he started exercising between 1 to 2 hours a week. This was in 2010. Reducing calories isn't easy. There are lots of food choices and food is relatively cheap compared to decades ago. McDonald's was a rare treat when I was a kid.

Mark Haub's Snack Food Diet

Mark Haub, over a period of one month, will be eating a diet of mainly snack foods. The Kansas State University professor of human nutrition is attempting to...

youtu.be

 

[Mitchie]

Tbh, not sure how someone can think it's just CICO, 200 calories from pizza is not the same as 200 calories from nuts. I'm surprised someone would argue against that.

It's time to bust the 'calories in, calories out' weight-loss myth

www.sydney.edu.au

Stop counting calories - Harvard Health

Calorie counting isn't the best way to lose weight. How a person's body burns calories depends on a number of factors, including the type of food eaten, metabolism, and even the type of organisms l...

www.health.harvard.edu

Thanks for sharing the op-ed pieces. Neither of those are studies and neither of those are anything more than opinion. They arent studies because they aren't proven. They aren't proven because they can't. be. proven.

I get it that you want to believe them and they make sense to you. However, they are simple misdirections of the real issue here: eat less calories to lose weight or exercise more to keep eating the same amount of calories

That's it, there is nothing more to it.

Here's your research paper, took me about two minutes to find, I'm sure there are plenty others

The calories in, calories out concept is 'tragically flawed,' new research suggests

A new paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition offers an alternative model to the eat-less-move-more message.

www.today.com