Two calorie questions

seriassly · August 21st, 2009, 12:51 AM

Ok bare with me here.

Two guys are identical (John and Joe) , same height, weight, age, genetic make up, everything, Identical.

hypothetically
John burns 2000 calories a day and eats 2000 calories worth of well balanced meals. Joe burns 2000 caloires a day and eats 1800 calories of well balanced meals and 200 calories of suger water a day. Both burn and eat 2000 calories a day, does Joe gain more weight than John?

hypothetically
John and Joe both eat 2000 caloires a day of well balanced meals. John burns 3000 calories a day, 1000 of which is thourgh aerobic excersise. Joe burns 3000 calories a day, 1000 of which is thourgh anerobic excersise. Both burn 1000 calories more than they eat a day, does one lose weight faster than the other?

page19 · August 21st, 2009, 03:28 AM

For the second it's hard to say, are they burning those calories with the exercise alone? What about consideration for the effects to your body after the exercise, are you taking into account the increase in metabolism or so-called 'after-burn' effects, where additional calories are burned hours or even days after the activity?

**tooncesthecat** · August 21st, 2009, 07:08 AM

Strictly hypothetically, in the first scenario, neither of the two gain or lose weight as their caloric output and input are the same.

In the second, they are also equal.

Now, as Page19 mentioned, this is only hypothetically. In reality there would be critical nuances that could cause some variation.

**tidalwave** · August 21st, 2009, 10:28 AM

While the inputs vs outputs will give the best indication of the direction of the subjects' weight, I think it's important to consider where the deficit calories will come from. In the first scenario, the calories for John may come from fat storage more than Joe due to his sugar consumption. One also has to consider insulin effects, etc, which I don't feel qualified to answer.

The second scenario probably depends upon the intensity and % of muscle used to calculate the metabolic effects of the anerobic vs aerobic exercise. However, during a 24 hr. period, if both have an identical caloric deficit, then one must answer where the additional 1000 calories came from. Conventional wisdom would say that the aerobic exercise would be more catabolic and thus the calories would come from breaking down some muscle tissue (in addition to glycogen, fat, etc.). However, I'm not sure if this is a correct assumption.

**mooshue** · August 21st, 2009, 12:35 PM

firstly i had to read that post again and edit my response, i thought the 2nd guy was only eating sugar.

and secondly, WTF kind of first post is this? Are you planning to follow with some spam garbage to your bullshit website promoting another fad diet?

seriassly · August 21st, 2009, 02:39 PM

The reason for the question is concerning fat loss. For example they say for optimal fat loss you should excersise at a I beleive is, 60 to 70 percent of your ultimate heart rate. Now the answer to the question is important because if I'm trying to loss weight I sometimes would like the option of say doing weights instead of biking for a whatever the equivalent calorie output is. To burn the same amout of calories would take longer on the bike so it would be nice to know since I could be saveing myself time.

It would also be nice to know about the food so that I could not worry about what I eat so long as the total calories are at a range that would allow me to lose weight, ie output greater then input.

I don't thing its the same for both cases though. Aerobic activity is defined as work done in the presence of oxygen or rather work done at a rate slow enough so oxygen can be utilized to brake down fat cells and sustain the work for a long period of time. In anarobic activitiy fat isn't burned in the process, so its a hard question in my mind because it also makes sence that that if output and input equal that regardless of the means that there would be no weight loss. I just don't know.

**A1food4U** · August 21st, 2009, 02:55 PM

Weight loss is only assured by burning more than you take in. You are correct on heart rate being the indicator to good calorie burn.

Ask yourself this question; When I'm at my goal do I picture my body looking like that of a runner, a power athlete, or Body builder? each of these body types can be gained through a different regimen and once you decide your on your way.

If you simply wish to be leaner as fast as possible, eat less and run till you puke

sorry couldn't resist....

seriassly · August 21st, 2009, 03:51 PM

So why do they say the optimal fat burning heartrate is 60 to 70 percent of your max or whatever the percentage is, when I could according to you run/bike/swim... at a higher heartrate, burn more calories and therefore burn more fat?

**tooncesthecat** · August 21st, 2009, 06:16 PM

You are over simplifying your notion of working out and eating. Start by reading some of this

Bodybuilding.com - Huge Nutrition Article Database!

**gYmgIrL** · August 21st, 2009, 09:39 PM

I think I know what you're trying to ask, the guy who eats the sugar may take longer to put on muscle etc, he'll also be more hungry, and more tired, just slightly. I think that's what you meant! Still, the guy who doesnt eat the sugar may not be able to stick to the 'never eat sugar' regime and therefore may only stick to it for a couple of weeks, where as sugar man isnt craving foods because he's not completely denying himself. Theres like 700 gazzilion things to take into account.

**orientalkid** · August 21st, 2009, 10:06 PM

My view is both case will result in a shift of body composition. With the 2nd case being more obvious. The guy doing aerobic will probably see a decrease in LBM along with bf and some water while the guy doing anerobic excersise will probably retain LBM while losing more fats. In other word, one would become more ripped while the other will look like a smaller version of himself.

For the first case, 200kcal of sugary drink isnt going to do any damage in the SHORT term as long as the other 1800kcal are good calories, however, if 2 identical guys with the same weight and metabolism consume the same amt of calories with one getting a balanced diet while the other eat crap all day long, even though both are not excerising, u can be sure the one eating crap will look like crap while the other guy would definitely look better.

my 2 cents

**wildstang** · August 22nd, 2009, 02:14 PM

the guy with the weightlifting versus the running will in turn burn more calorie do to the muscles consuming calories even after the workout is done. plain and simple. now with the calories mentioned its prob safe 2 say the body will still be shortened on sufficient calories to repair itself properly to gain sufficient lbm mass but would definitley look better more cut with more muscle mass definition. best of both worlds run in the morn b-4 breakfast and still lift weights later in the day and double your goals. this regimine a.m. running and afternoon or early eve workout have worked 4 keeping lbm at a good ratio 4 me. look at millitary p.t. its done a.m. 4 a reason!

page19 · August 22nd, 2009, 02:37 PM

Can I piggy-back on the first question with something it made me think of?
(Whatever you say, here I go anyway)

Lets say Joe is lifting a few times a week and looking to gain in strength and size. He's shooting for 4500 calories a day, and tracks his meals to keep himself in line. He realizes that today he is 1500 calories short, but can't seem to force himself to take another bite of real/healthy food, but sugary snacks and oh--lets say--deep fried mozzarella sticks seem to go down just fine. (I think we all know that feeling of trying to eat more and not being able to force yourself to chew through another bite)
So the question is, which is the lesser of two evils--Shall he end his day 1500 calories short, or take in some empty calories to approach his goal?

**pliny_2001** · August 22nd, 2009, 03:57 PM

I think that the best point to make is that total calories is often (and this is assuming that you're already talking about fit, healthy people) kind of a waste. For page19, if Joe gets all the fat, protein, and carbs that he needs from the 3000 calories so far, then the only time he'd need the extra calories is if he's going catabolic; I know from my own experience that I'll start to go catabolic if I'm running errands and will often eat a fast couple hundred calorie sugar snack just to spare muscle. But you're never going to be down 1500 calories at once - if you're shooting for 1500 calories above maintenance, then Joe's got too rich a diet. But the short/long answer is junk food to stay anabolic, but only in an emergency (it does bad things to your metabolism, so it's not without it's problems as a strategy).

**pliny_2001** · August 22nd, 2009, 04:08 PM

And seriassly - you need to learn a bit more background info before the answers to the question(s) will make sense. Interval training, thermic effect of food, etc. And it's not just "aerobic vs. anaerobic," rather it's their respective effects on glycolysis.

So your first hypotheticals were about diet, but your ultimate question is about training. So any points aren't necessarily going to be transferrable. But anyway, the weights in the first one will remain the same: the sugar-water drinking one will have a lower basal metabolism and will have to expend more calories throughout the day, though. If they simply had the same activity level, then the sugar-water drinking one would gain weight.

And their are too many variables in the second, but it's worth noting that no one's going to be able to burn 3000 calories anaerobically, so it's kind of a moot point. The transferrable point may be that a good diet will help you to lose weight. Cardio work will improve your health and help you be calorie-negative. And lifting weights will more effectively build lean body mass that will be more metabolically active in the future, so that you can eat more and stay leaner.

But even those short answers can easily be wrong with changes to the details.

**orientalkid** · August 24th, 2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Can I piggy-back on the first question with something it made me think of?
(Whatever you say, here I go anyway)

Lets say Joe is lifting a few times a week and looking to gain in strength and size. He's shooting for 4500 calories a day, and tracks his meals to keep himself in line. He realizes that today he is 1500 calories short, but can't seem to force himself to take another bite of real/healthy food, but sugary snacks and oh--lets say--deep fried mozzarella sticks seem to go down just fine. (I think we all know that feeling of trying to eat more and not being able to force yourself to chew through another bite)
So the question is, which is the lesser of two evils--Shall he end his day 1500 calories short, or take in some empty calories to approach his goal?

I will probably go with the latter but I will try to avoid sugary foods as filler calories, probebly would go with refine carbs or fats. (ie pizza, burger, fried chicken etc)