Nutritional Rules of Thumb

[terry]

I'd like to do a sanity check on some general rules of thumb. A sedentary person needs about 2000 calories per day (I'm presuming that you eat a balanced low fat diet with little or no junk food). The way I figure it you use up between 15 and 20 calories per minute when doing target heart rate aerobic exercise. There would be some metabolic variance for this of + or - 5%, but that's basically where you would wind up. So if you do, for example, 100 minutes of cardio@Thz (target heart zone) you would need to take in an extra 1500 calories, or 3500 calories.

Am I all wet here? Can somebody give me a sanity check on this?

In addition, isn't it true that your body gets used to operating at a certain metabolic rate? So, wouldn't it be a good idea to maintain a certain amount of consistency in total volume of exercise (on a weekly basis), or at least limit wild fluctuations?

Terry

[terry]

No takers, eh? Well, how about this quote:

"An athlete in training requires 1gm of protein per lb of body weight daily." --Tom Mannos (World's strongest man over 40.)

[eXcessiveForce]

I've been trying to study up on nutrition lately.

There is so much contradictory information it is hard to really get a good sense of what is good and what isn't.

From what I have seen a sedintary individual should probably consume no more that 1400 calories per day. An active adult 2000 a day, and athletic individuals will require more as their activity requires.

The main problem with nutrition is people turn to doctors who have very little training in nutrition. But since they are doctors many people take what they say as gospel.


When I have more time I will try to provide more feedback.



I just got one of those scales that estimates body fat. I'm obsessed, I check it like 50 times a day

[swan104]

Originally posted by eXcessiveForce
I've been trying to study up on nutrition lately.

There is so much contradictory information it is hard to really get a good sense of what is good and what isn't.

From what I have seen a sedintary individual should probably consume no more that 1400 calories per day. An active adult 2000 a day, and athletic individuals will require more as their activity requires.

The main problem with nutrition is people turn to doctors who have very little training in nutrition. But since they are doctors many people take what they say as gospel.


When I have more time I will try to provide more feedback.

I just got one of those scales that estimates body fat. I'm obsessed, I check it like 50 times a day

I had a quick look at a "slimfast" diet, and there advise you consume about 1200 calories, along with a bit of exercise. I'm sure that can't be good for you!

And the slimfast soup tastes like sh*t as well!!

Steven

[eXcessiveForce]

Numerous studies have shown there is a negative corrolation between the number of calories you consume and life span.

Apparently in the last study mice who were given less food lived much longer than mice fed at regular levels and much longer than overfed mice. This has also be done with other mammals with the same effect including primates and dogs and such.
Studies on humans have been limited but do show that this may also be the case with humans.

These studies do not advocate starvation diets or anything of that sort.

Just that most people really do not need the RDA 2000 calorie diet and really require much less.

Now if you are overweight and eating well over 2000 calories cutting to 1400 would not be advisable as you metabolism would slow greatly and you may not be able to sustain weight loss and could eventually lead to the gaining of more wieght if th diet were to be stopped.

[RBFC]

The body adjusts to reduced caloric intake by decreasing its Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). This is a mechanism to prevent starvation, wherein the body makes sure it can get by with less food. By monitoring bodyfat levels and overall weight, one can determine their "maintenance" caloric intake which will maintain their weight/body composition. By performing weightlifting, which can increase lean muscle mass, you can increase your "maintenance" level of calories since you now have more high-metabolism muscle tissue to feed. Muscle consumes up to 50 times the calories that fat tissue does! And, that muscle consumes those calories all day long, not just when you have achieved the elevated heart rate of aerobic exercise.

While long-duration aerobic exercise does indeed burn calories, it is a poor choice for maintaining body composition. High-level aerobic work causes decreases in muscle mass, and corresponding lowering of the body's caloric requirements. High-level aerobics are also associated with overuse injuries to joints, which does not bode well for performing these types of workouts into advancing age.

All this means that a reasonable program of aerobic work, preferably high-intensity intervals, coupled with a foundation of resistance training, will produce the best body composition/caloric requirement profile. When your body requires 2500 calories just to exist, eating 2500 calories is NOT overfeeding yourself. It all depends on how you structure your exercise/diet balance, and what athletic qualities are important in your chosen activity.

Lee

[terry]

Originally posted by RBFC
While long-duration aerobic exercise does indeed burn calories, it is a poor choice for maintaining body composition. High-level aerobic work causes decreases in muscle mass, and corresponding lowering of the body's caloric requirements. High-level aerobics are also associated with overuse injuries to joints, which does not bode well for performing these types of workouts into advancing age.

Yeah. In sub-competition level athletes the divergence between strength and endurance training it isn't so much of an issue, but it seems to become a problem at competition level. The more advanced you get the more specialized you get in terms of becoming either a strength athlete or an endurance athlete.

I've got a couple of power lifter friends that got into marathon and triathalon training--and ran off 20 pounds of muscle each preparing for competition. They switched back to power lifting, and it took them a year to get back to world-class competition level in power lifting. Similarly, I've know a guy who has stopped training for BJJ competition (for a time) and backed off on his cardio because he says it screws up his power lifting. He'll be the first to tell you that strength helps in BJJ, but the extra 20% strength that you get from optimizing as a pure strength athlete costs a lot of endurance.

I think what is going on in such cases is that an elite athlete's body needs so much recovery time from the intense workouts that it cannot deal with the additional work load of the other sport. Certainly, when you look at the daily routines of olympic weight lifters you see that when they're not working out that they're basically at rest.