Weight Loss for the Lifter | Robert Santana

[stef]

In a country where nearly half of the population suffers from excess adiposity, it is only reasonable that many of its citizens are interested in reversing this trend. Excess adiposity, or “fatness” as most of us know it, is a complex first world issue that has led many people towards voluntary physical activity, exercise, and training. The interplay between adiposity and strength training is one that is poorly understood in the mainstream culture...

Read more

[J.D. Shipley]

One thing that has confused me is the concept of metabolic efficiency which was mentioned in herein. On episode #29 of Baker's podcast somewhere around the 16min mark, Santana discusses this concept and defines it in a way that is completely counterintuitive to me. Ie. an old man is more metabolically efficient because things slow down and don't function as they used to so the body gets more efficient (at burning what? fat?) as opposed to a younger kid who may have to eat double the amount of carbs to move less weight.

A Google search of "metabolically efficient" yields this definition.

"Metabolic efficiency refers to the body’s ability to utilize its on-board (non-supplemental) stores of carbohydrate (glycogen) and fat more efficiently during rest and across different intensities of exercise. It’s essentially the ability to preserve glycogen and burn fat as fuel."

So the old guy who's training doesn't need to eat as many carbs because, due to his increased metabolic efficiency over his younger counterparts, he can satisfy a portion of the energy demand by drawings from his fat supplies? Whereas a younger kid would just burn all his carbs off (implying the increased need for them) because he's "metabolically more inefficient"?

Looks like I just answered my question above but wouldn't this equate to more lean older men and fatter kids? From observation the opposite is the case.

Can someone help me understand this please?

[Maybach]

The amount you burn is the denominator in the efficiency equation. It's not that the older guy gets more calories out of his fat reserves, it's that young kid burns more calories doing less, and an old guy burns less doing more. This is partl because younger people have a bunch of bonus shit going on in the background (growing, violent sexual fantasies, etc.) that old guys don't. It's also partly because an old guy is more adapted to the task of living: his body is better at existing than a young kid, because it's been doing it longer.

Definitionally this means the old guy will use more fat as a relative proportion of their fuel, because fat is a high efficiency, low speed fuel source. However, the old guy will still use less, which means he will put on more weight than the kid for the calories consumed.

[Robert Santana]

One thing that has confused me is the concept of metabolic efficiency which was mentioned in herein. On episode #29 of Baker's podcast somewhere around the 16min mark, Santana discusses this concept and defines it in a way that is completely counterintuitive to me. Ie. an old man is more metabolically efficient because things slow down and don't function as they used to so the body gets more efficient (at burning what? fat?) as opposed to a younger kid who may have to eat double the amount of carbs to move less weight.

A Google search of "metabolically efficient" yields this definition.

"Metabolic efficiency refers to the body’s ability to utilize its on-board (non-supplemental) stores of carbohydrate (glycogen) and fat more efficiently during rest and across different intensities of exercise. It’s essentially the ability to preserve glycogen and burn fat as fuel."

So the old guy who's training doesn't need to eat as many carbs because, due to his increased metabolic efficiency over his younger counterparts, he can satisfy a portion of the energy demand by drawings from his fat supplies? Whereas a younger kid would just burn all his carbs off (implying the increased need for them) because he's "metabolically more inefficient"?

Looks like I just answered my question above but wouldn't this equate to more lean older men and fatter kids? From observation the opposite is the case.

Can someone help me understand this please?

That is not the same definition I am going by, and one that sounds like it was pulled out of the author's ass. This is the definition I was referring to:

Obesity and metabolic efficiency - PubMed

It means the opposite of what you think it would mean. Think of a Prius vs a Sports Car. The former is more fuel efficient than the latter. The Prius is going to go the same distance as the sports car using less gas. If you hold onto more fuel (fat) for a given activity than someone else doing the same activity you are more metabolically efficient.

[Richard Seaman]

Robert, thanks for the article and your contributions to this site.

You say "Calorie restriction must be maintained for 7 consecutive days at a time to elicit fat loss." For clarification, I would assume you mean you must maintain a net calorie deficit for 7 days as opposed to a calorie deficit on each day for 7 days? ie. 5 days out of 7 with a deficit that produces an overall deficit for the 7 days would still elicit some fat loss?

[mpalios]

Robert, to add to this question for clarification….if I have a 1000 calorie deficit for 5 consecutive days and my protein intake is adequate (200g) each of those days, you’re saying I would not lose any fat. I would need to go for a full 7 days to realize any actual fat loss. Is that correct?

Robert, thanks for the article and your contributions to this site.

You say "Calorie restriction must be maintained for 7 consecutive days at a time to elicit fat loss." For clarification, I would assume you mean you must maintain a net calorie deficit for 7 days as opposed to a calorie deficit on each day for 7 days? ie. 5 days out of 7 with a deficit that produces an overall deficit for the 7 days would still elicit some fat loss?

[Robert Santana]

Robert, thanks for the article and your contributions to this site.

You say "Calorie restriction must be maintained for 7 consecutive days at a time to elicit fat loss." For clarification, I would assume you mean you must maintain a net calorie deficit for 7 days as opposed to a calorie deficit on each day for 7 days? ie. 5 days out of 7 with a deficit that produces an overall deficit for the 7 days would still elicit some fat loss?

Trying to "game the math" doesn't seem to work in practice. I couldn't tell you why because I am relying on self reported data but something about "I'll play with the numbers to get a net deficit for the week" tends to result in weight maintenance when that happens. My best guess is when a human gives himself permission to do that the higher days end up being too high.

Robert, to add to this question for clarification….if I have a 1000 calorie deficit for 5 consecutive days and my protein intake is adequate (200g) each of those days, you’re saying I would not lose any fat. I would need to go for a full 7 days to realize any actual fat loss. Is that correct?

As a practical matter, when someone maintains a low calorie level for 7 days in a row he tends to lose weight. When he games the math it tends to stay on or sometimes increase.

[GeneralMountain]

Great article, thanks for writing.

I’m 50 years old, 6’ 1”, usually drift between 210 and 220 and would be considered on this board an intermediate lifter with good muscle mass.

Your article is about untrained BMI. What adjustment would you make for trained BMI? In my case, I notice blood pressure reduces, and I generally feel a bit better when closer to 200 lbs - but like being strong and not overly worrying about abs. However, when I just eat and lift, I also tend to start climbing and could keep going on BMI. Is there a generalized rule of thumb BMI you have for a strong person with gray hair?