Body dumping weight to make exercise easier??

sdraobs

There is great knowledge on this forum so i would be grateful if you could put an pub argument to rest.

I believe that in exercising, carrying weight running up a hill, or push ups, the body is naturally lazy and is looking to make it easier. One way is to build up muscles. Another way is for the body to see the exercise as strenous and will shed weight to make it easier. Less weight to carry up.

So its not that the exercise is burning up calories, but the body is trying to make running up mountains easier by reducing weight (which will be the fat). You could argue that it will maintain fat to keep as energy storage reserves for long distances, but the amount of fat would be quite low. so for a big person, the body will dump weight (no pun intended) to make exercise easier.

Thoughts??

Alf Veedersane

sdraobs wrote: »

There is great knowledge on this forum so i would be grateful if you could put an pub argument to rest.

I believe that in exercising, carrying weight running up a hill, or push ups, the body is naturally lazy and is looking to make it easier. One way is to build up muscles. Another way is for the body to see the exercise as strenous and will shed weight to make it easier. Less weight to carry up.

So its not that the exercise is burning up calories, but the body is trying to make running up mountains easier by reducing weight (which will be the fat). You could argue that it will maintain fat to keep as energy storage reserves for long distances, but the amount of fat would be quite low. so for a big person, the body will dump weight (no pun intended) to make exercise easier.

Thoughts??

I'm not sure how you think a body 'dumps weight' but it is that by exercising, the person is burning calories.

'Dumping weight' happens when you consume fewer calories than you burn,.

kob29

Eh?

So according to that dumping weight theory where would the body get the energy to run up the hill?

Calories are the measurement of the fuel source i.e. food you take in to make energy. Depending on what activity you're doing your body will make a supply of energy through different means either aerobically or anaerobically and you'll have a small amount stored in the body.

There's no dumping, there's burning. Whether you lose weight depends on how much you're taking in versus burning. You'll need an imbalance to lose it but if you find a way of "dumping it" tell the world- your fortune is in that!

Meantime research the human energy systems.

sdraobs

kob29 wrote: »

Eh?

So according to that dumping weight theory where would the body get the energy to run up the hill?

Calories are the measurement of the fuel source i.e. food you take in to make energy. Depending on what activity you're doing your body will make a supply of energy through different means either aerobically or anaerobically and you'll have a small amount stored in the body.

There's no dumping, there's burning. Whether you lose weight depends on how much you're taking in versus burning. You'll need an imbalance to lose it but if you find a way of "dumping it" tell the world- your fortune is in that!

Meantime research the human energy systems.

Ok, but as a corollary of that, if you look at federer/nadal on tv at the moment. they dont have six packs. they have bellys. Their body knows from experience they may need to play a 4 hour tennis match so has designed itself to store fat.

So i think the body is more complex than simply calories in/calories burned. Maybe it is that in my example of doing exercise, the body responds to carrying extra weight by increasing metabolism in order to as i say dump the excess fat that is causing it more work.

seamus

Tennis players may not have the "shredded" look because they don't eat & train with that aim in mind.

You're ascribing more agency and intelligence to the body's natural chemical processes than exists tbh. The notion that the body would strategically plan where and how to store energy based on the type of exercise being done, is not supported by any evidence.

Mellor

sdraobs wrote: »

There is great knowledge on this forum so i would be grateful if you could put an pub argument to rest.

You are wrong. Hopefully that puts the pub argument to rest for you.
But in case you need more info.

So its not that the exercise is burning up calories, but the body is trying to make running up mountains easier by reducing weight (which will be the fat)

There is no mechanism that I am aware of, that allows to body to shed significant body fat other than burning the fat as energy (ie using the calories)

sdraobs wrote: »

Ok, but as a corollary of that, if you look at federer/nadal on tv at the moment. they dont have six packs. they have bellys. Their body knows from experience they may need to play a 4 hour tennis match so has designed itself to store fat.

A small bit of belly fat is going to provide negligible energy over a 4 hour tennis match. Fat stores are for long term energy, not short term.
If actually causes you to burn more energy by making activity harder - which causes performance to suffer.

If your point has any truth to it, endurance athletes would have fat stores to get long events. But they don't.

sdraobs

thank you guys, i will do more investigating before.

However i continue to believe the human body is more complex and will adjust its weight to make it more efficient.

Mokuba

sdraobs wrote: »

thank you guys, i will do more investigating before.

However i continue to believe the human body is more complex and will adjust its weight to make it more efficient.

No it won't.

Mellor

sdraobs wrote: »

thank you guys, i will do more investigating before.

However i continue to believe the human body is more complex and will adjust its weight to make it more efficient.

The body can become more efficient by shedding fat, growing muscle, shedding muscle. But it's not so much autonomous recomposition, it's a direct effect of the physical stresses. Massive amounts of cardio exercise is catabolic, tissue is consumed. But consumed it key. The laws of physics still apply, and the energy must be accounted for. The calories are burned.

brownej

Mellor wrote: »

The body can become more efficient by shedding fat, growing muscle, shedding muscle. But it's not so much autonomous recomposition, it's a direct effect of the physical stresses. Massive amounts of cardio exercise is catabolic, tissue is consumed. But consumed it key. The laws of physics still apply, and the energy must be accounted for. The calories are burned.

Phfft Physics.

Ah now mellor, you are clearly underestimating the bodys ability to be an engine to speed up entropy. Must be quantum mechanics or something.

Bob Harris

What the OP is arguing is that the body makes a conscious decision to lose bodyweight to make future physical exercise easier. Now if I was wearing a backpack and running up a hill my brain would tell me to take it off and make it easier. I don't think the body tells itself to take the weight off. It's a response. I don't think your body is thinking 'fook them hills are tough, I'll lose a few pounds to make it easier the next day'.

Mokuba

Your body can think whatever it likes but if you consume more calories than you burn in a day you will gain weight, regardless of climbing a hill or Mount Everest. If you eat consume less than you burn then you will lose weight.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Bob Harris wrote: »

What the OP is arguing is that the body makes a conscious decision to lose bodyweight to make future physical exercise easier. Now if I was wearing a backpack and running up a hill my brain would tell me to take it off and make it easier. I don't think the body tells itself to take the weight off. It's a response. I don't think your body is thinking 'fook them hills are tough, I'll lose a few pounds to make it easier the next day'.

Yeah, but now you're up a hill and don't have your back pack?

Bob Harris

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Yeah, but now you're up a hill and don't have your back pack?

Stooopid brain. Should have listened to my body.

sdraobs

Mokuba wrote: »

Your body can think whatever it likes but if you consume more calories than you burn in a day you will gain weight, regardless of climbing a hill or Mount Everest. If you eat consume less than you burn then you will lose weight.

I think you are oversimplying the body response.

I think the human body as Bob Harris (who fully understands what i am saying without necessarily agreeing) says, sees this weight as a metaphorical back pack and decides to remove it. It may turn up the methabolism or decide it doesnt want to eat food?

I recall now the conversation started in the pub based on the press-ups argument. Does doing pressups only strengthen your arms, or will you lose body weight in your upper body region as the body doesnt like the effort of pushing the body up and so sheds the pounds up there to make it easier.

Thanks for the discussion guys. I realise that since no-one has agreed with me, and you guys seem to know what you are talking about, im talking through my h0le. Much appreciated.

freemenfitness

I think your somehow correlating athletes physical attributes to the sport they do.

I am 6'5 and 90kg most of my training has been gymnastic based for the past few years no matter how hard I try my body wont "dump" weight and give me the stats of a 5'8 gymnast.

Most of what you see in athletes is genetics and years of training and diet tailored to their pursuit. Yes your body might crave a different calorie intake to suit your sport eg high intensity wanting higher calories or long distance runners wanting to eat less to carry less weight, but your body wont lose weight due to some internal thought process.

Otherwise anyone with a weight problem would simply take up some random activity with the parameters you outlined and somehow get thin as a result.

wirelessdude01

Such rubbish, never heard such a silly statement mm in all my life.

Keyzer

I'm not really sure what you're on about to be honest.

Bandana boy

sdraobs wrote: »

I think you are oversimplying the body response.

I think the human body as Bob Harris (who fully understands what i am saying without necessarily agreeing) says, sees this weight as a metaphorical back pack and decides to remove it. It may turn up the methabolism or decide it doesnt want to eat food?

I recall now the conversation started in the pub based on the press-ups argument. Does doing pressups only strengthen your arms, or will you lose body weight in your upper body region as the body doesnt like the effort of pushing the body up and so sheds the pounds up there to make it easier.

Thanks for the discussion guys. I realise that since no-one has agreed with me, and you guys seem to know what you are talking about, im talking through my h0le. Much appreciated.

It would be great if this was true , then we could work on "fooling " the signal and all lose loads of weight but if it was true surely it would switch on for obese people who are putting vital organs under pressure .

Mokuba

You can't spot reduce fat. You can't lose fat in a specific place.

If you do press ups you will activate various muscle groups such as your pecs triceps, shoulders, delts (and more).

Doing these will not make you lose fat unless you are in a caloric deficit, or you do enough of these (unlikely) to put you in a caloric deficit.

If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose fat from your whole body over time. Some people are genetically predisposed to carrying more fat in certain areas.

sdraobs

ok, thanks, i stand corrected.

CramCycle

sdraobs wrote: »

Ok, but as a corollary of that, if you look at federer/nadal on tv at the moment. they dont have six packs. they have bellys. Their body knows from experience they may need to play a 4 hour tennis match so has designed itself to store fat.

I am not sure what matches you have watched where Nadal and Federer have not been ripped beyond belief.
They have access to a range of high energy foods at courtside so I find it very unlikely they are storing fat for energy needs during a match