calorie neutral diet + cardio + weights

Carl.Gustav

What would happen to your strength/physique under these conditions

say cardio 2/week weights 2/week calorie neutral diet

Hanley

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

What would happen to your strength/physique under these conditions

say cardio 2/week weights 2/week calorie neutral diet

IDBISHDI

I did it for a few weeks but with more cardio and more lifting. Lost quite a bit of fat, and not too much strength once my body realised what was going on.

At best you're creating a 2,000kcals deficit that way (500kcals for each session) so you won't really lose too mch weight too quickly.

Carl.Gustav

When I mean calorie neutral I'm including the exercise

So total calorie loss over the week = 0

Hanley

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

When I mean calorie neutral I'm including the exercise

So total calorie loss over the week = 0

well... then nothing at all will happen.

Carl.Gustav

Hanley wrote: »

well... then nothing at all will happen.

Weight loss wise nothing

but I was wondering about strength/physique

Hanley

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Weight loss wise nothing

but I was wondering about strength/physique

Nothing.

You'll gradually get stronger if you're training the right way. That's to be expected. You don't need to gain muscle or weight to increase your strength.

Weight gain wise, nothing will happen either. Muscle or fat. And if anything did happen, it'd be so outrageously marginal that it's not even worth thinking about.

Carl.Gustav

Hanley wrote: »

Nothing.

You'll gradually get stronger if you're training the right way. That's to be expected. You don't need to gain muscle or weight to increase your strength.

Weight gain wise, nothing will happen either. Muscle or fat. And if anything did happen, it'd be so outrageously marginal that it's not even worth thinking about.

So if we took two identical twins, both inactive but not overweight. One continued as usual, no exercise just sat on a couch and watched tv.

The second guy ran twice a week and did weights twice a week. both on a calorie neutral diet.

And we leave them both at it for a year. then put them side by side in shorts , would they look the same ?

the drifter

i give up....

Carl.Gustav

LOL

Background to stupid questions, I've been keeping myself fit but thought I might start doing weights at home to increase strength and improve my physique, however I'm unemployed and financial situation is very very bad, as it is I am just scraping by, not even that the credit card bill is slowly going up, I can't afford to buy 15% more food, unless i started selling tv's/computers and anything else that isn't nailed down.

I guess I'll stick to running and won't bother with the weights.
thx

Khannie

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

And we leave them both at it for a year. then put them side by side in shorts , would they look the same ?

Depends what they're like starting out, but no way they're gonna be the same IMO. Weights + cardio guy is gonna look better. I think you'll definitely see a body recomposition.*



*I may be completely wrong, but being on a calorie neutral diet in the medium term I think you would see times of fat loss and times of muscle gain leading to a more "desirable" physique.

Khannie

On the 15% more food thing: You can buy cheap high quality food for next to nothing. I would suggest you keep doing the weights.

TommyKnocker

In the 2 identical twin scenario. At the start they are both inactive. So when one starts to train, to stay calorie neutral, they would need to be eating more calories to support the training, therefore having a higher calorie intake then their sibling.

So IMO the training twin would look quite different to their sibling after a year. I would expect the training twin to be heavier then their sibling, with a better body composition.


M

Mellor

Why would you expect the training subling to be heavier?
He was eating more, he was burning more, so there should be substancial muscle growth, the minor growth is prob offset by fat loss.

I'd expect him to weigh about the same, and look better.

dartstothesea

This is just my thinking on it, just from using what I think is common sense:

It'll be nearly impossible to exactly eat only the amount of calories your body burns every day. You'll always be over or under by a little bit.

If you're resistance training and cardio training...

On days you eat slightly less than you burn, you will lose a small amount of fat weight (fat or muscle depending on what nutrients you got).

On days you eat slightly more than you need, you will gain a small amount of muscle weight (fat or muscle, again depending on what you ate).

So you'll probably very slowly add lean mass (or fat if you don't eat right) and lose some fat (or muscle if you don't eat right). Over a long enough period of time I'm sure it'd be noticeable.

The thing to remember is, if you're doing all this extra training but still just eating the same calories as before, you'll be under the amount you burn per day and will lose weight as a result, I'd imagine.

So yeah basically I'm just saying I don't think there's such a thing, in practice, as a calorie neutral diet. Just really small defecits or really small excesses.

Hanley

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

So if we took two identical twins, both inactive but not overweight. One continued as usual, no exercise just sat on a couch and watched tv.

The second guy ran twice a week and did weights twice a week. both on a calorie neutral diet.

And we leave them both at it for a year. then put them side by side in shorts , would they look the same ?

Does anyone know what it's called when someone goes to the absolute most extreme example available in an argument in an attempt to prove their point?? It really annoys me when people do it.

dartstothesea wrote: »

This is just my thinking on it, just from using what I think is common sense:

It'll be nearly impossible to exactly eat only the amount of calories your body burns every day. You'll always be over or under by a little bit.

If you're resistance training and cardio training...

On days you eat slightly less than you burn, you will lose a small amount of fat weight (fat or muscle depending on what nutrients you got).

On days you eat slightly more than you need, you will gain a small amount of muscle weight (fat or muscle, again depending on what you ate).

So you'll probably very slowly add lean mass (or fat if you don't eat right) and lose some fat (or muscle if you don't eat right). Over a long enough period of time I'm sure it'd be noticeable.

The thing to remember is, if you're doing all this extra training but still just eating the same calories as before, you'll be under the amount you burn per day and will lose weight as a result, I'd imagine.

So yeah basically I'm just saying I don't think there's such a thing, in practice, as a calorie neutral diet. Just really small defecits or really small excesses.

In my experience, and I'm sure most people will agree, you only tend to gain/lose an appreciable amount of weight if you're above/below maintenance kcals by a decent enough amount for sustained periods of time. Say +/- 500kcals for 7-14 days. Otherwise there seems to be a limbo point where you don't really gain OR lose.

dartstothesea

Hanley wrote: »

Does anyone know what it's called when someone goes to the absolute most extreme example available in an argument in an attempt to prove their point?? It really annoys me when people do it.



In my experience, and I'm sure most people will agree, you only tend to gain/lose an appreciable amount of weight if you're above/below maintenance kcals by a decent enough amount for sustained periods of time. Say +/- 500kcals for 7-14 days. Otherwise there seems to be a limbo point where you don't really gain OR lose.

Well, like you said, it probably won't be an appreciable amount, but the weight gain/loss should still happen to some degree.

SpookyBastard

Hanley wrote: »

Does anyone know what it's called when someone goes to the absolute most extreme example available in an argument in an attempt to prove their point?? It really annoys me when people do it.



In my experience, and I'm sure most people will agree, you only tend to gain/lose an appreciable amount of weight if you're above/below maintenance kcals by a decent enough amount for sustained periods of time. Say +/- 500kcals for 7-14 days. Otherwise there seems to be a limbo point where you don't really gain OR lose.

Something like a reductio ad absurdum argument you mean?


OP - I think, especially if you consider that our bodies don't burn all our food for calories with 100% efficiency, you would have to have a significant difference to ensure a noticeable change. Reckon the limbo area Hanley mentions is where you are technically taking in less food but your body might burn it more efficiently and make up the difference or vice versa. You'd probably need to be a few hundred calories worth of food either way before you're body's varying efficiency doesn't just even it out. Sure as a theory it might sound logical on paper (the twins example) but it's not really testable in real world or lab situations. You can't really work out the level of calories required to be neutral accurately enough. How much do you need for maintenance... not a person of your height, weight etc but you specifically. So the twin who we assume is calorie neutral may be burning more % cals (even if we try and account for the training) or less than the other twin. Interesting but not practical.

Reckon you can keep doing the weights though and try an eat better/more with the same money. I'm unemployed myself so know where you're coming from but found I could save a little bit on this and that (changing brands, hunting special offers on things like cereal etc) and that meant spare money for extra food.

Mellor

dartstothesea wrote: »

Well, like you said, it probably won't be an appreciable amount, but the weight gain/loss should still happen to some degree.

Your body doesn't tote up all your cals at the end of a day, and +/- weight depending on what you ate. Days overlap, you store and burn all fuel over a long enough period. As long as you were roughly neutral over a week, then you won't change much.
Even 100g fat loss, which is tiny, would be 900 cals under.

SpookyBastard wrote: »

Something like a reductio ad absurdum argument you mean?

That is sort of the opposite really.

I know what he means, an extreme example, that is absurd trying to prove something logically.