A violent Uprising? Arthur Schopenhauer, a preeminent 19th century philosopher, once said that truth isnâ€™t always as easily accepted as weâ€™d like it to be. Specifically, he stated: “Truth always goes in 3 stages. first it is ridiculed, then violently opposed, and finally accepted as self-evident.” Now, in this article, I intend to introduce the Testosterone nation to a new “truth.” Well, maybe thatâ€™s not the best way of saying it. But, because saying that I intend to introduce the T-Nation to my best guess at a theoretical model developed to discuss and predict a natural phenomenon will leave a few of you scratching your heads, letâ€™s stick with calling it a new truth. The “new truth” that I want to introduce you to today is a new view of the concept of energy balance. Although the ideas in this short article will suggest that the current view of the energy balance equation provides limited explanatory and predictive power and, as a result, needs revisions, I donâ€™t necessarily think that these ideas will stir uprisings, violent or otherwise.
First of all, the concepts in this short article are logical, supported by research, and have appeared in bits and pieces, albeit fragmented, elsewhere on this site in the work of myself and the Warrior Nerd, Dr Lonnie Lowery. second of all, Iâ€™m just not sure the concept of energy balance has the power to rouse violence. It always makes me chuckle when “experts” (in any field) parrot this Schopenhauer quotation, suggesting that the ridicule of their ideas actually somehow makes the ideas true! looking back through history, numerous much more ridiculed ideas have been shown to be false than have shown to be true.
So rather than testing the ideas in this short article against the barometer of ridicule and violent upheaval, letâ€™s just test them against a much much more objective standard’the available body of scientific and medical evidence.
The current view of energy Balance
Letâ€™s start out with a few pictures illustrating the current view of energy balance, or, at least, how many people view the relationship between “calories in” and “calories out.”
The first image below represents how many people perceive the energy balance equation during weight maintenance. As the diagram represents, when “calories in” are equivalent to “calories out,” body mass ought to remain constant.
The next image below represents the conventional view of the energy balance equation during weight gain. As the diagram represents, when “calories in” exceed “calories out” body mass ought to be gained.
The next image below represents the conventional view of the energy balance equation during weight loss. As the diagram represents, when “calories out” exceed “calories in,” body mass ought to be lost.
Now, in taking a look at these pictures itâ€™s essential to understand exactly what they represent. These pictures represent a scientific model, or in other words, a mental picture, or idealization, based on physical concepts and aesthetic notions that account for what scientists see concerning a particular phenomenon. and not only does a scientific model, as described above, discuss a particular phenomenon, it allows scientists to predict a future course for the phenomenon in question.
Therefore, if the energy balance model above (or as we understand it, based on the pictures) can consistently discuss body composition changes seen in those altering their exercise and nutritional habits, as well as predict how any particular change in either variable will impact body composition in the future, itâ€™s a valid model. If not, itâ€™s invalid (incomplete, misunderstood, or completely wrong).
From that perspective, letâ€™s take a few case studies of mine and see if the model above holds up under the explanatory and predictive scrutiny required for a scientific model to be valid.
Three Strikes and Youâ€™re Out In purchase to support my contention that the above-mentioned model of energy balance (or as we understand it, based on the pictures) is inadequate; here are 3 case studies for your examination.
*Case study #1: national level cross country Skier; female – 20y
Client information from September 2002: 5â€™6″ ; 160lb ; 22% fat (125lb lean, 35lbs fat)
Exercise Expenditure: ~1200kcal/day
Energy Intake: ~2500kcal/day 15% protein 65% carbohydrate 20% fat
Client information from December 2002: 5â€™6″ ; 135lb ; 9% fat (123lb lean, 12lbs fat)
Exercise Expenditure: ~1200kcal/day
Energy Intake: ~4000kcal/day 35% protein 40% carbohydrate 25% fat
Net result ‘ 12 weeks: 25lbs lost; -23lb fat; -2lbs lean
*Note that in case study #1, we enhanced energy intake by a whopping 1500 per day while energy expenditure remained the same. because the athlete Camiseta Real Betis Balompie was weight stable in September’prior to hiring me’you might have expected her to have gained weight during our 12 week program. However, as you can see, she lost 25lbs (while preserving many of her muscle mass). because the energy balance model above, as it appears, canâ€™t discuss this very interesting result, thatâ€™s one strike.
*Case study #2: Beginner Weight Lifter; male ‘ 23y
Client information from August 2003: 5â€™6″ ; 180lb ; 30% fat (126lb lean, 54lbs fat)
Exercise Expenditure: ~200kcal/day
Energy Intake: ~1700kcal/day 21% protein 57% carbohydrate 22% fat
Client information from October 2003: 5â€™6″ ; 173lb ; 20% body fat (138.5lb lean, 34.5lbs fat)
Exercise Expenditure: ~600kcal/day
Energy Intake: ~2200 – 2400kcal/day 35 – 40% protein 30 – 35% carbohydrate 30 – 35% fat
Net result ‘ 8 weeks: 7lb weight loss; -19.5lb fat, +12.5lb lean
*Notice that in case study #2, we enhanced energy intake by between 500 and 700 per day while enhancing energy expenditure by about 400 per day. Again, because the lifter was weight stable in June, prior to hiring me, you might have Camiseta Tottenham Hotspur expected him to have gained weight or at least remained weight stable during this 8 week program. However, as you can see, he lost 7 lbs. but thatâ€™s not the most interesting story. during the 8 weeks, he lost practically 20lbs of fat while acquiring practically 13 lbs of lean mass. because the energy balance model above, as it appears, canâ€™t discuss this very interesting result, thatâ€™s two strikes.
*Case study #3: Mixed Martial Arts Trainer; male ‘ 35y
Client information from June 2004: 5â€™10″ ; 179lb ; 19% fat (148.6lb lean, 30.4lbs fat)
Exercise Expenditure: ~300kcal/day
Energy Intake: ~1100 – 1500kcal/day 48% protein 25% carbohydrate 27% fat
Client information from August 2004: 5â€™10″ ; 187lb ; 9% body fat (170.2lb lean, 16.8lbs fat)
Exercise Expenditure: ~600kcal/day
Energy Intake: ~2400 – 2600kcal/day 26 – 38% protein 28 ‘ 42% carbohydrate 22 ‘ 34% fat
Net results ‘ 8 weeks: 8lb weight gain; -13.6 lb fat, +21.6 lb
*Notice that in case study #3, we enhanced energy intake by between 1100 and 1300 per day while enhancing energy expenditure by only about 300 per day. Again, because the lifter was weight stable in June, prior to hiring me, you might have expected him to have experienced a large acquire in mass, both significant muscle and fat gains. However, as you can see, he gained 8 total lbs, having lost practically 14lbs of fat while acquiring nearly 22lbs of lean mass. While the energy balance equation might have predicted weight gain, itâ€™s unlikely that it would have predicted the radical shift in body composition seen in this individual. Yet another strike against the current view of energy balance, as it appears.
Simplicity and energy Balance
After taking a look at the case studies above, you might be wondering where the classic view went wrong. (You also might be wondering what these individuals were on in purchase to progress so quickly’well, actually, not one of them took steroids or any nutritional supplements much more powerful than Low-Carb Grow! Surge, and fish oil).
Although scientists are still trying to work out what types of metabolic “uncoupling” are going on in purchase to produce results like those results above, itâ€™s my belief that the current view of energy balance (depicted in the slides above) is just too easy to offer consistent explanatory and predictive power in the realm of body composition change. below are the three main reasons I believe this to be true:
1. Calorie restriction or overfeeding (in the absence of other metabolic intervention like drugs, supplements, or intense exercise) is likely to produce equal losses is lean body mass and fat mass (w/restriction) or equal gains in lean body mass and fat mass (w/overfeeding). and even if these gains or losses arenâ€™t necessarily equal, they still are in such a proportion that while body mass may be affected, individuals will only likely end up smaller or larger versions of the same shape. I call this the “body shape status quo”.(1)
2. many people assume too much simplicity by associating energy intake with calorie intake alone, and energy expenditure with exercise activity alone. This simplistic view can result in false assumptions about what causes weight acquire and weight loss.(2) Both sides of the equation are much much more complex and itâ€™s these interrelationships that are essential to physique mastery.
3. many people treat the energy intake and energy expenditure sides of the equation as independent. As a result, even if we could avoid reason #2 (the problem of simplicity) by matching energy intake against all the known forms of work that the body does in utilizing energy,
“â€¦Obesity can occur in the absence of calorie over consumption. In addition, opposite models can show how obesity can be prevented by enhancing expenditure to waste energy and stabilize body weight when challenged by hyperphagia (over consumption)”. (3)
Factors Affecting energy Balance
Now, when I say that many people assume too much simplicity by associating energy intake with calorie intake alone, and energy expenditure with exercise activity alone, Iâ€™m not shaking my finger at them. Obviously, of the elements playing into energy balance, these are the most readily Camiseta SL Benfica modifiable. But, assuming they are the only elements playing into energy balance is what gets people into trouble.
In the diagram below, Iâ€™ve described all the elements that we currently know to impact both the energy intake and energy expenditure sides of the energy balance equation.
Notice one thing, though. I donâ€™t mention hormones here. The reason: hormones donâ€™t impact energy expenditure directly. Rather, they signal a change in one of the elements noted on the energy expenditure side of the equation (or they result in an enhanced appetite, thus are two steps removed from affecting the energy intake side of the equation).
Obviously, this relationship is much much more complex than many people make it out to be. Sure, on the energy intake side of the equation, things are fairly simple. The “calories in” are mostly affected by the efficiency of digestion (90-95% of energy in). and we can control this side by volitionally choosing how much we stuff in our mouths.
However, on the energy expenditure side, weâ€™ve got three major “destinations” for our ingested energy; work, heat and storage. and all the energy coming in goes to one of those three destinations. From this perspective, although it seems a bit counterintuitive, weâ€™re actually always in “energy balance” regardless of whether weâ€™re acquiring or losing weight. The energy taken in is always balanced by the energy going toward work, heat and storage.
The interesting part is that during periods of over- or under feeding, the amount of energy in can influence many of the elements on the energy out side.
Relationships between energy In and energy Out
In purchase to add another touch of complexity to the discussion, as discussed above, many people treat the two sides of the energy balance equation as independent. Theyâ€™re not. but donâ€™t just take my word for it:
“The regulatory systems (of the body) control both energy input and output so that for a given stable state, compensatory changes on the input side are made if expenditure is challenged, or on the output side (expenditure or efficiency) if intake is challengedâ€¦Realizing human obesity is caused by the interaction of an obesigenic environment with a large number of susceptibility genes, successful treatment will require uncoupling of these compensatory mechanisms” (4).
“The critical issue in addressing the problem of alterations in body weight policy is not intake or expenditure taken separately, but the adjustment of one to the other under ad lib