Interesting article.
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/121/114092.htm

If I do nothing but wind sprints all day, I am sure I can eat just about anything I can keep down.

If I eat 5 apples a day, I am positive I don't have to ever do a damn thing as far as cardio goes.

Both will allow you to loose weight.


What is the average monkeys' maintenance? Do they respond in the same way to calories as humans do (I know dogs do not)?

A bit too much is left out.

Did the monkeys that ate little and didn’t exercised gain more, less or the same amount of weight as the monkeys that were eating a lot and didn’t exercise either?

The opposite as well. The monkeys that were active, did they maintain their weight better than the same monkeys that ate more but were just as active?


I would say, on average diet dictates exercise, but both are equally needed.



That last bit about metabolism is bunk as well. I know a kid that does NOTHING but play X-box all damn day long. He eats like crap all day long, with god only knows how many calories. And the kid weighs a buck o5 soaken’ wet.

Isn't there a direct connection to your metabolism and your energy level? I always thought that was a factual statement.

Further more, why are people able to lose weight then? If I weigh 400 lbs, by this study I should never be able to lose 250 and become a world class runner. But there are people out there that have done just that (maybe not the latter, but you get my point).

Interesting article indeed, but these are monkeys.

another thing to keep in mind is that monkeys do not have the same emotional attachments to food which many people have. humans have more complex mental processes which cause them to eat when they're bored, crave junk food, etc. and i'm pretty sure the monkeys weren't given food choices like candy, cookies, and fast food... just that crap they buy in bags.

the only articles i trust are the ones published in well known medical journals.

another thing to keep in mind is that monkeys do not have the same emotional attachments to food which many people have. humans have more complex mental processes which cause them to eat when they're bored, crave junk food, etc. and i'm pretty sure the monkeys weren't given food choices like candy, cookies, and fast food... just that crap they buy in bags.

the only articles i trust are the ones published in well known medical journals.
(slightly off-topic)
I'm not so sure that's true. From what little I know about monkeys they have complex social structures. They display a fairly high I.Q. and exhibit a wide range of emotions. So given time, they would probably display individual likes and dislikes (if we were smart enough to pick up on it). I'm betting they can have attachments to food just like people. Not much separates man from ape.
Sorry for the slight derailment.

Yes, eating 5 apples a day will make you lose weight, both fat and muscle, but that is an extreme case.

In reality, dieting lowers metabolism. The point of the article is that eating at maintenance and then burning off 500 calories through exercise is more effective than dieting.

I think this principle may apply to myself as my work makes my lifestyle very sedentary. I have been dieting and losing very little weight. Perhaps I will eat at maintenance, or slightly below, and then exercise a lot more.

Isn't Tom Venuto's whole eBook about burning the fat and feeding the muscle? That is different than starving the fat and starving the muscle.

Interesting study, but I tend to disagree with the conclusions, especially with the deduction toward people. I'm pretty sure we could have the monkeys who ate a lot lose more weight by spreading their meals over the day. I'm certain sedentary people can lose weight by dieting, because I've been forced by a bad knee and my study to do so myself. I lose weight faster when I'm able to do cardio, but I can still lose weight without almost any cardio whatsoever.
If metabolism isn't an influence, how could some monkeys eat more at the same activity level, and not gain more weight? That to me looks like an argument FOR differing metabolisms.

The study reminds me of a high school science experiment and is equally as useful.

When I was training for a marathon, putting in 30+ miles/week I put on a few lbs of fat because I ate too much. A year earlier, running about 10 miles/week I lost weight because I was diligent with diet.

All this study found is that metabolism changes from monkey to monkey (wow, didn't know that!) and that generally active people are thinner (wow!). The thing about monkies getting fat when inactive, regardless of food intake, is simply impossible. They may be eating less, but they are still eating too much for their metabolic needs, and hence they get fat. Put them on 3 calories/day, let them sleep if you like, and see how fat they get :)

(slightly off-topic)
I'm not so sure that's true. From what little I know about monkeys they have complex social structures. They display a fairly high I.Q. and exhibit a wide range of emotions. So given time, they would probably display individual likes and dislikes (if we were smart enough to pick up on it). I'm betting they can have attachments to food just like people. Not much separates man from ape.
Sorry for the slight derailment.

You are probably right. The main thing is probably that they don't have the resources to emotionally eat in nature. And they're not given them in most laboratory settings either.

The study reminds me of a high school science experiment and is equally as useful.

When I was training for a marathon, putting in 30+ miles/week I put on a few lbs of fat because I ate too much. A year earlier, running about 10 miles/week I lost weight because I was diligent with diet.

All this study found is that metabolism changes from monkey to monkey (wow, didn't know that!) and that generally active people are thinner (wow!). The thing about monkies getting fat when inactive, regardless of food intake, is simply impossible. They may be eating less, but they are still eating too much for their metabolic needs, and hence they get fat. Put them on 3 calories/day, let them sleep if you like, and see how fat they get :)

For the most part that is true. However, over time, someone can gain weight on 1000 calories a day of bad, nutritionless food and no activity and lose on 2000 with proper weights and a little [or no cardio]. This is because, when they START they may be at a greater deficit on the 1000 calorie, exercise-free nutritionless plan-, but their metabolism is likely to slow down to a snails pace. So eventually, instead of being at a deficit, they're at a surplus. Metabolism is a dynamic system and can vary EXTREMELY even in a given individual depending on what they put in and do with their body. I think most people here realize this but they may underestimate the degree and impact.

another thing to keep in mind is that monkeys do not have the same emotional attachments to food which many people have.

the only articles i trust are the ones published in well known medical journals.

I don't know that monkeys don't have emotional attachments to food; although it seems likely they aren't the same as many people.

In this case, the work is to be published in the American Journal of Physiology, so it's essentially a medical journal.

You are probably right. The main thing is probably that they don't have the resources to emotionally eat in nature. And they're not given them in most laboratory settings either.
That's true...."hmmm, what'll it be today, bugs, branches or bananas?"

Maybe the bugs and grubs are more of a delicacy than the bananas. We'll never know :lol:

I think the conclusions are too over-simplified and maybe the researchers don't go far enough in coming to a conclusion.

My kids are classic examples.... They are only 1.5 years apart. Both have roughly the same activity level. One enjoys a high amount of carbs the other enjoys a more balanced diet leaning towards higher protein content (bigtime meat-eater).

The oldest is ecto-meso'ish...skin and bones...huge appetite and has a dessert in the evening (icecream, cake, cheesecake etc...). He's the typical growing 6.5 year and can eat anything and barely put on a pound because his activity level is go hard from sun-up to sun-down.

The youngest is endo. Barrel chested....strong, stocky, big legs, stores fat much easier, eats about the same relative quantity, plays just as hard but likes breads, pastas etc... more. Eats dessert and sweets about half as often.

Very different body types but the difference is noticeable. There's a height difference but the oldest outweighs the youngest by only 5 pounds.

In this case, the work is to be published in the American Journal of Physiology, so it's essentially a medical journal.
Was it peer reviewed? :D

:lol: That's why I workout...so I can cheat and eat on the weekends!

That's true...."hmmm, what'll it be today, bugs, branches or bananas?"

Maybe the bugs and grubs are more of a delicacy than the bananas. We'll never know :lol:

Maybe some were combining fat and carbs and others weren't? I heard that you can't eat fruit on a cut if you wanna get seriously ripped out so those monkeys are gonna have to loose the fruit.

:p

Maybe some were combining fat and carbs and others weren't? I heard that you can't eat fruit on a cut if you wanna get seriously ripped out so those monkeys are gonna have to loose the fruit.

:pA bit OT, but that's untrue. I'm currently eating two pieces/fruit a day, plus the ever-evil milk and I'm having about the most successful fat loss I've ever had. I am now as thin as I've been in a decade with no appreciable strength loss, all while training for a triathlon, so doing around 6-7 hours/week of cardio on top of the weights. Calories remain king; everything else is minutiae.

another thing to keep in mind is that monkeys do not have the same emotional attachments to food which many people have. humans have more complex mental processes which cause them to eat when they're bored, crave junk food, etc. and i'm pretty sure the monkeys weren't given food choices like candy, cookies, and fast food... just that crap they buy in bags.

the only articles i trust are the ones published in well known medical journals.

Like the ones that said eggs are bad...no wait a minute eggs are good...no they are bad...no they are good etc., etc.

A bit OT, but that's untrue. I'm currently eating two pieces/fruit a day, plus the ever-evil milk and I'm having about the most successful fat loss I've ever had. I am now as thin as I've been in a decade with no appreciable strength loss, all while training for a triathlon, so doing around 6-7 hours/week of cardio on top of the weights. Calories remain king; everything else is minutiae.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Like you my friend I am 1) training for a tri, 2) eating fruit often, 3) drinking milk often, 4) losing fat while getting stronger all the time.

I just couldn't find the sarcasm smilie!!!

This kinda reminds me of the argument that elephants just eat plants therefore I can be as strong as an elephant and just eat vegetables.
There's something fundamentally flawed.