alek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:20 pm
If you haven't read his [Pontzer’s] book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.
Can confirm.
I almost want to see some good evidence against his constrained expenditure model, because it is so contrary to everything we “know” about exercise and calories. But his evidence and claims are pretty convincing.
It’s how I now approach dieting/recomp for myself and others.
Yeah, I thought his model was wild at first, but the more he presented that supported it, the more I gestalted.
The evidence that the Hadza and Americans have the same TDEE—essentially—was jarring.
A huge debate ensues (see the summary), Lustig shows up in the comments and gets shredded by Alan. In his last post he argues that he has a lot of Youtube views, therefore his theory is credible. Good stuff.
A huge debate ensues (see the summary), Lustig shows up in the comments and gets shredded by Alan. In his last post he argues that he has a lot of Youtube views, therefore his theory is credible. Good stuff.
Wow! That was an epic read! Lustig is such a tool.
alek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:20 pm
If you haven't read his [Pontzer’s] book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.
Can confirm.
I almost want to see some good evidence against his constrained expenditure model, because it is so contrary to everything we “know” about exercise and calories. But his evidence and claims are pretty convincing.
It’s how I now approach dieting/recomp for myself and others.
I have heard about this from a few SBS podcasts but I don't remember the details very well.
Is the point you refer to here that TDEE adjustments through NEAT are important? (So for example you might give particular focus to keeping your level of activity up on a cut.)
alek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:20 pm
If you haven't read his [Pontzer’s] book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.
Can confirm.
I almost want to see some good evidence against his constrained expenditure model, because it is so contrary to everything we “know” about exercise and calories. But his evidence and claims are pretty convincing.
It’s how I now approach dieting/recomp for myself and others.
I have heard about this from a few SBS podcasts but I don't remember the details very well.
Is the point you refer to here that TDEE adjustments through NEAT are important? (So for example you might give particular focus to keeping your level of activity up on a cut.)
The additive energy model is what most people think happens--if I eat this 400 calorie thing, then I'll do 400 calories of exercise to burn it off. What Pontzer postulates is a constrained energy model where it's not as simple as burning off the calories you consume.
In his book, he cites a couple of studies where people do exercise long term--like 18 months to 2 years--under the observation of the researchers. IIRC, the participants initially lost a bit of weight when they started exercising, but by the end of the studies, they were the same weight as when they started even though they were burning so many calories from the exercise.
Pontzer claims that the body will adapt to the exercises, somehow "knowing" that you're going to do 400 calories worth of cardio every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So what the body will do is reserve those 400 calories from other body processes to be ready to do the exercise. That's why the people in the studies above end up not losing any weight. Pontzer speculates that those "other body processes" that are robbed to be ready for exercise are things that are unnecessary and can actually cause harm--inflammation, high blood pressure, etc. This is likely why exercise is great for health but not necessarily great for weight loss.
Now, if you end up doing too much exercise, then your body will rob from necessary body processes--reproductive function is usually the first to go in humans. What's funny, he talked about how in mice, reproductive function was the last body process to see dysfunction when the mice were starved.
Anyway, it really is a great read, and your local library should be able to get you a copy. I highly recommend it.
alek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:20 pm
If you haven't read his [Pontzer’s] book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.
Can confirm.
I almost want to see some good evidence against his constrained expenditure model, because it is so contrary to everything we “know” about exercise and calories. But his evidence and claims are pretty convincing.
It’s how I now approach dieting/recomp for myself and others.
I have heard about this from a few SBS podcasts but I don't remember the details very well.
Is the point you refer to here that TDEE adjustments through NEAT are important? (So for example you might give particular focus to keeping your level of activity up on a cut.)
The additive energy model is what most people think happens--if I eat this 400 calorie thing, then I'll do 400 calories of exercise to burn it off. What Pontzer postulates is a constrained energy model where it's not as simple as burning off the calories you consume.
In his book, he cites a couple of studies where people do exercise long term--like 18 months to 2 years--under the observation of the researchers. IIRC, the participants initially lost a bit of weight when they started exercising, but by the end of the studies, they were the same weight as when they started even though they were burning so many calories from the exercise.
Pontzer claims that the body will adapt to the exercises, somehow "knowing" that you're going to do 400 calories worth of cardio every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So what the body will do is reserve those 400 calories from other body processes to be ready to do the exercise. That's why the people in the studies above end up not losing any weight. Pontzer speculates that those "other body processes" that are robbed to be ready for exercise are things that are unnecessary and can actually cause harm--inflammation, high blood pressure, etc. This is likely why exercise is great for health but not necessarily great for weight loss.
Now, if you end up doing too much exercise, then your body will rob from necessary body processes--reproductive function is usually the first to go in humans. What's funny, he talked about how in mice, reproductive function was the last body process to see dysfunction when the mice were starved.
Anyway, it really is a great read, and your local library should be able to get you a copy. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for that, it both reminded me of what I had learned from SBS and also added a lot. The book sounds very interesting.
alek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 7:20 pm
If you haven't read his [Pontzer’s] book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.
Can confirm.
I almost want to see some good evidence against his constrained expenditure model, because it is so contrary to everything we “know” about exercise and calories. But his evidence and claims are pretty convincing.
It’s how I now approach dieting/recomp for myself and others.
I have heard about this from a few SBS podcasts but I don't remember the details very well.
Is the point you refer to here that TDEE adjustments through NEAT are important? (So for example you might give particular focus to keeping your level of activity up on a cut.)
The additive energy model is what most people think happens--if I eat this 400 calorie thing, then I'll do 400 calories of exercise to burn it off. What Pontzer postulates is a constrained energy model where it's not as simple as burning off the calories you consume.
In his book, he cites a couple of studies where people do exercise long term--like 18 months to 2 years--under the observation of the researchers. IIRC, the participants initially lost a bit of weight when they started exercising, but by the end of the studies, they were the same weight as when they started even though they were burning so many calories from the exercise.
Pontzer claims that the body will adapt to the exercises, somehow "knowing" that you're going to do 400 calories worth of cardio every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. So what the body will do is reserve those 400 calories from other body processes to be ready to do the exercise. That's why the people in the studies above end up not losing any weight. Pontzer speculates that those "other body processes" that are robbed to be ready for exercise are things that are unnecessary and can actually cause harm--inflammation, high blood pressure, etc. This is likely why exercise is great for health but not necessarily great for weight loss.
Now, if you end up doing too much exercise, then your body will rob from necessary body processes--reproductive function is usually the first to go in humans. What's funny, he talked about how in mice, reproductive function was the last body process to see dysfunction when the mice were starved.
Anyway, it really is a great read, and your local library should be able to get you a copy. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for that, it both reminded me of what I had learned from SBS and also added a lot. The book sounds very interesting.
You're welcome. I first heard of Pontzer from the BBM podcast. He was a guest on episode 151; definitely worth a listen as a quick intro to his work.
@KyleSchuant This is an interesting rebuttal, with many good points. One part that (I think) is completely wrong though is
"I’m not too fond of the narrative that it’s too hard to increase TDEE by 300 – 600 kcal by exercising yet easy to reduce energy intake by 300 – 600 kcal by dieting. Maybe it sounds easier on paper to cut back on food (“just eat less bro”), but I’d be hesitant to provide strong, long-term evidence."
Anyone who has cut once in his life can attest to that. Think about it: reducing food by 600 kcal is roughly skipping a meal (breakfast or whatever) or skipping a few calorie laden snacks, whereas expanding 600 kcal will mean something like running for 45 minutes. And if you also do some actual weight training on top of your running for weight loss, well, good luck.
To me, whether Pontzer is right or wrong is not that important for practical applications (it's an intresting intellectual argument though, for sure), because losing weight through exercise is impractical.
I think either eating 600 fewer kCal daily or expending 600kCal daily through exercise are going to be tough for someone to keep up for a few months, but impossible for most people to keep up for a few years. So if you're talking about dropping 10-20lbs, okay that's manageable, do that and then ease back to maintain. But how about 100-200lbs? So I think the individual scale of the problem has to be looked at, too.
Assuming you're closer to the 10-20lbs person, what's probably more sustainable long-term is, rather than 600kCal of either dietary deficit or 600kCal of exercise, more like 200-300kCal of each. And this interestingly is what we see when most people do some sort of novice progression, whether with barbells or running or whatever.
There was an interesting study where they got a bunch of people to start running and walking, and gave them basically no dietary advice at all, just asked them to record what they ate recently at the start and end of 15 weeks. And the more people added exercise, the better their diets got - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-018-0299-3. More fresh fruit and vegies, less sugary snacks, etc.
In this study they didn't calculate the calories, but an hour of walking or half-hour of jogging is 150-250kCal, depending on the person's size and how hard they push themselves. And if you eat more fresh fruit and vegies and fewer snacks, it doesn't take much to have a 150-250kCal deficit compared to before, for example an apple is about 100kCal and a Mars bar is about 200, swap one for the other and that's 100 difference in your diet, do that every day and over the years it adds up.
Ask any trainer or coach - we see this a lot. Whether it's sustained or not depends on a lot of things, but basically once you get people doing it for close to 12 months, they're probably going to continue it indefinitely - it's all a bunch of new habits.
And the thing about habits is that you look for them to have more than just one effect. I discussed this stuff today with a doctor friend of mine, and he said, "Eating more fresh fruit and vegies and going for walks will improve your health even if you don't lose any weight."
Anyway, I liked this. "Exercise science is killing your gains."
It seems Ward agrees with Pontzer on several points, specifically about constraints, but disagrees mostly with Pontzer's statements about how exercise affects weightloss.
I will say a couple of things. One is that even before researchers perform any studies, they need to include a competent statistician in the research team. What little I know about biostatistics includes that statistics should not be performed by scientists not specifically trained in statistics. Stay in your lane so to speak.
Secondly, when discussing the weightloss studies, Ward says "...the actual TDEE increases equated to ~66% (in both groups) of the predicted values based on the additive energy expenditure model..." as a means of rebutting Pontzer's claims about exercise and weightloss. I think that quote kinda reinforces what I believe one of Pontzer's claims to be--that there is a constraint on the energy model, and in these studies Ward talks about, only 66% is explained by the additive model, which leaves 1/3 unaccounted for.
I believe another statement/claim that Pontzer makes about those specific studies relates to something along the lines of given how much exercise the participants were doing, then if the additive model were true, then they should have lost tons of weight, but they lost comparatively very little to none.
I think by Pontzer's own admission, there's still a lot to figure out, but on the whole, his model, or a version of it, seems to better explain energy expenditure.
I've yet to watch that Bromley video; maybe I'll give it a watch.
@KyleSchuant I mean if we're talking about people who have a lot of weight to lose, for long term success, they will have to periodize the diet by eating at a small deficit say 600 kcal for say 3 months (losing about 12 lbs), then maintain weight for 3 months and then do that again. I didn't come up with this, this is the recommendation from RP, and I think it's pretty good. So for the person who has 60 lbs to lose, the whole process would take about 2 to 3 years. I think that weight loss should always be seen as an infinitely sustainable process because it is not. This also aligns with my personal experience: more than a few months in a deficit and I start to lose my mind.
@alek I think that a more honest (but a bit less sensationalistic) way of presenting Pontzer's results is that for every kcal that is expended by exercising, the TDEE only increases by X kcal, with X probably in the range of 0.5 kcal, and affected by a myriad of factors. I mean sure you can increase your TDEE by 500 kcal by running, but you'll have to run to burn about 1000 kcal (good luck !). At least to me, this is enough to dissuade me from running to achieve weightloss.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:32 am
About Bromley's video. Why is athlean-lol next to all these serious people ? Also who's the skinny dude on the right ?
I just watched the intro, and will listen to the rest while driving .... but I think the premise of the video is all "The Science" and the whole "evidence based fitness gurus are .... are .... well, The Science is just getting in the way. IOW: Much bullshit. So majoring-in-the-minors.
So as much as athlean-douche gets it wrong, for as much as he is accidently right, he might not be much better or worse than some of the other Top Experts shown in that thumb nail.
So I'm guessing thats why he's in there.
I think Isratel, and Matt Reynolds, and some others have said #1 factor for long term gains is just consistently hitting the gym with good-effort and just a modicum of proper nutrition (enough protein and calories).
Programming details, volume, technique, split type, recovery, supplements, etc (aka The Science) .... really aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:32 am
About Bromley's video. Why is athlean-lol next to all these serious people ? Also who's the skinny dude on the right ?
Mate, I can't keep track of all the gurus. Like I've always said, the real money isn't in actually training people. That's why I'm sitting here in a dusty garage on a 37C day writing programmes for tonight while these other guys are in condos. Last Nuckols said they had over 10,000 subscribers to MASS, and that's USD29 a month. They write 120 pages and there are several people involved, but still - there's no way actually training people can compete with that, unless you're someone training action stars. So they go guru, if they can.
mbasic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:27 am
So as much as athlean-douche gets it wrong, for as much as he is accidently right, he might not be much better or worse than some of the other Top Experts shown in that thumb nail.
Athlean-rofl reccomends 10 sets of 10 with 80% of your e1RM. He also recommends to breathe out before you descent on your squat. So no, I don't think that he's "not much better of worse" than Nuckols, Israetel or somebody comparable.
mbasic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:27 am
I think Isratel, and Matt Reynolds, and some others have said #1 factor for long term gains is just consistently hitting the gym with good-effort and just a modicum of proper nutrition (enough protein and calories).
I've had many periods of hitting the gym with good effort, high consistency, and proper nutrition, and no progress. So I also disagree with that.
CheekiBreekiFitness wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:32 am
About Bromley's video. Why is athlean-lol next to all these serious people ? Also who's the skinny dude on the right ?
Mate, I can't keep track of all the gurus. Like I've always said, the real money isn't in actually training people. That's why I'm sitting here in a dusty garage on a 37C day writing programmes for tonight while these other guys are in condos. Last Nuckols said they had over 10,000 subscribers to MASS, and that's USD29 a month. They write 120 pages and there are several people involved, but still - there's no way actually training people can compete with that, unless you're someone training action stars. So they go guru, if they can.
I mean I think it's good if so called "gurus" make money. The more the better, as long as they provide good information. If Nuckols, Israetel and whoever else buys a Bugatti, good for them. I take an issue with people who make money from being gurus but put out retarded information. The crazy thing about the fitness industry is that, after a certain threshold, the more money you make the more retarded your recommendations are. Every time Nuckols buys a Bugatti, some bing bong with 10 million subscribers is buying a yacht. And the yacht probably has a Bugatti inside.
