51–60 of 60 posts
The "energy blockages" means the affects of the stress on the body. (tight shoulders, abs etc..) And some mindful streching exercises (like QiGong and Yoga) aims to release this tension on the body (hence the reverse the effect of the stress) and be "healthy"
Lets agree for the sake of argument that if the body does not have enough energy to do what it needs that causes harm. Then why not eat more food to deal with the problem? I think this model is missing a critical component: the bodies ability to use energy effectively is limited by having the proper nutrients available. The easiest example being a deficiency of B vitamins since they are used for energy metabolism. Ma…
- the human body seems designed to be able to produce more power for physical exertion when needed by consuming more energy (in addition to making long-term adaptations to make energy usage more efficient). Most top athletes are retiring around 35. Their bodies are ruined like those who need to physically work hardly every day. They look elder as well. We are not machines that will do more when given more sources wit…
This isn't a true statement. Just turn on golf or bowling or cycling or marathon running or triathlons for a few hours. People retire from sports early for lots of reasons. The ones whose bodies are wrecked are overwhelmingly the ones in impact sports.
But athletes also retire because they're no longer competitive. A 40 year old, on average, can't jump as high or run as fast as as 27 year old. You're not going to be a successful 50 year old basketball player when you're up against people decades younger than you.
The human body can't be simplified down to a candle, where once you've burned through it, it's done and over.
I think this study is related to two books I read this summer: Burn , by Herman Pontzer, presents his "constrained energy expenditure hypothesis," and Exercised , by Daniel E. Lieberman, discusses his "costly repair hypothesis." Together, they try to explain why exercise can force your body to stop using its energy to destroy itself (inflammation, autoimmune diseases) and instead use its energy to restore itself (rel…
there are more good critique online, sorry busy right now to find it.
But please don't spread this myth.
it sounds like the authors are suggesting that additional energy usage caused by stress can, in isolation from other causes, be a mechanism for disease. But that doesn’t make much sense: - our metabolisms are adaptable, so why wouldn’t this increase in energy use simply be offset by an increase in energy production? It can’t be that people who are stressed in general aren’t getting enough energy, because that would c…
>Okay, so that means that no matter how stressed we get, there’s a cap to the energy we can use. But how is that relevant, since it also applies to exercise or other energy utilization by the body? Why does a limited capacity to consume energy only apply to stress? It doesn't. That limited capacity to consume energy applies to exercise, brain activity, thermogenesis, digestion, and every other biological process as w…
What energy are we talking about here exactly? ATP?
I think this study is related to two books I read this summer: Burn , by Herman Pontzer, presents his "constrained energy expenditure hypothesis," and Exercised , by Daniel E. Lieberman, discusses his "costly repair hypothesis." Together, they try to explain why exercise can force your body to stop using its energy to destroy itself (inflammation, autoimmune diseases) and instead use its energy to restore itself (rel…
this book is pseudoscience though. https://mynutritionscience.com/p/exercise-weight-loss there are more good critique online, sorry busy right now to find it. But please don't spread this myth.
Thank you for the link to the nutritionist's article. I'll read it with interest.
This paper reminds me of the “insight” / factoid that all mammals are basically born with the same rough number of heartbeats, and then they die. Smaller animals like mice have shorter lifespans and faster heartbeats. Larger ones like whales and elephants have slower heartbeats and longer lives. The humorous (and obviously false, though apparently not if this paper is out there) corollary is that any exercise and non…
Naked mole rats live over 30 years, because they have additional copies of a gene known to protect against DNA damage.
I think this study is related to two books I read this summer: Burn , by Herman Pontzer, presents his "constrained energy expenditure hypothesis," and Exercised , by Daniel E. Lieberman, discusses his "costly repair hypothesis." Together, they try to explain why exercise can force your body to stop using its energy to destroy itself (inflammation, autoimmune diseases) and instead use its energy to restore itself (rel…
this book is pseudoscience though. https://mynutritionscience.com/p/exercise-weight-loss there are more good critique online, sorry busy right now to find it. But please don't spread this myth.
Pontzer contends “[exercise] just won’t do much for your weight" because "we naturally compensate for exercise by reducing non-exercise activity expenditure (NEAT) and resting metabolic rate (RMR)". That excercisers exercise less when they're not specifically exercising.
Ward says Pontzer underestimates exercise's role, misinterprets energy compensation and overemphasis anecdotal evidence, and cherry-picks data by choosing studies that primarily show minimal changes in Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) and weight loss with increased physical activity.
Ward points to a broader range of studies that demonstrate significant increases in TDEE and weight loss in individuals who engage in moderate to high levels of exercise, arguing that this evidence indicates exercise can be a substantial factor in energy expenditure and weight management.
Ward specifically points out
Pontzer told me “the distinction between confounders and mediators is largely conceptual” and “They would be treated the same in stats analysis such as the one used”, but any statistician would argue the differences are defined and vitally important. Confounders interfere with the causal pathway we’re interested in; mediators are part of the causal pathway we’re interested in. Hence, when statistically adjusting and removing the effect of different variables, we do this for confounders, not mediators – thus removing the interference.Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Okay, so that means that no matter how stressed we get, there’s a cap to the energy we can use. But how is that relevant, since it also applies to exercise or other energy utilization by the body? Why does a limited capacity to consume energy only apply to stress? It doesn't. That limited capacity to consume energy applies to exercise, brain activity, thermogenesis, digestion, and every other biological process as w…
I absolutely don't doubt you but can you provide some accessible education resources or some sports science/biochemistry papers for the claim around "That limited capacity to consume energy applies to exercise, brain activity, thermogenesis, digestion, and every other biological process as well. It is a fundamental aspect of cellular biology and a major focus in the field of exercise physiology." ? What energy are we…
You can start with the Wikipedia article for Metabolism or search for "metabolic scope" and "metabolic efficiency".
Well, this should be the main hypothesis of QiGong/TaiChi/Yoga. The "energy blockages" means the affects of the stress on the body. (tight shoulders, abs etc..) And some mindful streching exercises (like QiGong and Yoga) aims to release this tension on the body (hence the reverse the effect of the stress) and be "healthy"
TaiChi/QiGong/Yoga is about eliminating incidental tension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely don't doubt you but can you provide some accessible education resources or some sports science/biochemistry papers for the claim around "That limited capacity to consume energy applies to exercise, brain activity, thermogenesis, digestion, and every other biological process as well. It is a fundamental aspect of cellular biology and a major focus in the field of exercise physiology." ? What energy are we…
Yes. Metabolism is rate limited by countless chemical reactions. Energy sources need to be broken down and moved around the body. Waste products need to be removed. Mitochondria only work at a certain rate. You can increase the number of mitochondria but that hits a practical ceiling as well. You can start with the Wikipedia article for Metabolism or search for "metabolic scope" and "metabolic efficiency".
Please can you expand a little more. I am a novice so I'm sure there must be something here I have missed, and would love to know what that is:
What I am a little confused about is that the consumption of energy is not done at the same time as consumption, unless I am wrong?
For example when muscles are used or repair during hysteresis, the mitochondria produced the ATP used in that reaction long before the event.
I suppose you can argue any energy consumption via chronic stress effects that. However, because it is local, distributed and there are a few forms of stored energy in essence and uses of it (e.g. mitosis/DNA nucleotide production), it's not like having one singular energy total that goes down, is it?
It's feasible that each area of the body can upscale production and produce their different kinds of energy/energy store more efficiently over time, since most of the time the body is not producing ATP at peak rate. Is the argument that doing that would wear out parts of the cells we have faster or something, due to the chronic stress, compared to what they typically see?
I struggle to buy this argument because we know that heavily overweight people consume much more calories (and thus more ATP Synthase etc) for their number of cells but they don't necessarily die much younger until you reach severe levels of being obese.