Since I started biking about every night, I seem to be eating more. I guess this makes sense, more output requires more input. However, I think I now eat a lot more than I used to. I am not really sure if I feel better since the start of exercising, but I am wondering if exercise might be counter productive in the long run as I could eat less without exercising or light exercising (walking).
Exercise vs. Calorie Restriction
#1
Posted 01 March 2008 - 04:42 AM
Since I started biking about every night, I seem to be eating more. I guess this makes sense, more output requires more input. However, I think I now eat a lot more than I used to. I am not really sure if I feel better since the start of exercising, but I am wondering if exercise might be counter productive in the long run as I could eat less without exercising or light exercising (walking).
#2
Posted 01 March 2008 - 07:26 PM
#3
Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:45 PM
You're also upping your expenditure. So, as long as you're not gaining weight, why would you think this matters?
Higher calorie intake relative to when I was not exercising (besides walking). I mean, I could walk for 30 minutes per day and eat less food, but I would not be burning as many calories either.
#4
Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:59 PM
You're also upping your expenditure. So, as long as you're not gaining weight, why would you think this matters?
Perhaps he is referring to CR issues. I too have found that when exercising a lot it is very very hard to limit calorie intake, insane hunger, but when not exercising a lot it is very easy not to eat much (above and beyond the difference in expenditure).
Note that I have no need to nor ever had any need to lose weight, my body fat has always been under 10%, usually around 7% (calipers, hydrostatic weighing) regardless of what my diet or exercise status has been) so my interest in IF or CR is purely for life extension.
So if one was trying to do CR or some modified verison of it, IF or whatever, the increase in appetite that some people get when exercising a lot might make this more difficult. Remember the effects of CR or IF are about complex metabolic changes, not weight loss or bodyfat.
Edited by edward, 01 March 2008 - 10:00 PM.
#5
Posted 01 March 2008 - 10:00 PM
#6
Posted 01 March 2008 - 11:18 PM
I don't eat much. I think about 1700-1800 cal/day. I burn around 600This comes to the basic question I also have. Is CR about just reducing calorie intake or carefully balancing calorie intake towards the needs that depend on ones activities?
cal/day doing exercise. Balance 1800-600=1200 cal/day. Is that
equivalent to a person who does CR with 1200 cal/day ? I don't think
so.
In CR less glucose (or equivalents) have to be processed. Less NAD+
is used up in the cycle. The spared NAD+ can then be used (together
with sirtuins) in deacetylation and other LE pathways.
So I understand that CR would be good for me. But I like my exercise
(endorphin rush?).
#7
Posted 02 March 2008 - 05:21 AM
#8
Posted 02 March 2008 - 06:13 AM
This comes to the basic question I also have. Is CR about just reducing calorie intake or carefully balancing calorie intake towards the needs that depend on ones activities?
I guess it really depends on your accepted theory of aging. Metabolic stability seems to make a lot of sense to me, so you would want to exercise and eat more to maintain the same deficit. Although, just being a human means stability is already pretty good, so the picture isn't as pretty as others.
#9
Posted 13 March 2008 - 09:36 PM
#10
Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:33 PM
I'm thinking that selective exercise is best (namely, don't exercise regularly, but only exercise when you feel as if your blood glucose levels are high or something [I *think* I can feel it when my blood glucose is higher than it is for comfort].
So, instead of going for a run....can I just take some insulin?
That would be the best diet ever.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users