"nutrition" professor tells students you must burn caffeine before calories...

[McFarland]

I don't see how the calories would change.  A calorie is just a measure of the amount of heat it takes to raise 1g of water 1 degree celcius.  A Calorie with a capital C, is 1kg of water 1 degree celcius. 

I can't imagine that the contractions involved in any given workload would require an appreciable change in calorie consumption. 
The amount energy required to move X amount of workload is going to be the same for that X amount no matter the circumstances.  The methods of contraction (Na/K pump) is extremely efficient.  I would imagine that as a necessity of survival, it would be effecient. 

There's going to be MUCH greater variance in the storage capacity of the body.  A glycogen depleted body may have as much as a 4,000 excess calorie consumption variance.....assuming 1,000g of glycogen storage potential. 

I would argue that stimulation of the 'fight or flight' mechanisms in the body would have a greater caloric impact.  The body is going to be less interested in anabolism in a state of nervous system stimulation....the caloric amount that could be varied by that (how much muscle won't be built due to the decreased emphasis on anabolism, how much glycogen won't be stored due to the decreased glycogenesis in a state of nervous system stimulation) is going to be much more than any potential decrease/increase in neural effeciency.



And...in the end, it won't matter. 
The person that stays on their diet and remains focused is going to progress the best.  One cheat, mishap, splurge...one skipped session of cardio, one bite of candy, etc., is going to cause more of a caloric change than the above could ever cause. 

So let's say you haven't done any ephedrine or caffeine in ages and you do 12 sets of calves with 30 minutes of cardio.  Let's say the next time you do calves and cardio, you take an ephedrine and drink a cup or 2 of coffee beforehand and you get pretty wired which is standard when just starting up on them again.  If you do the same weight, sets, reps, speed, incline level, etc, have you just burned the same amount of calories as you did last time even though the workout is perceived as far easier than the last one?    

[troponin]

I actually did a study in college on ECA ingestion on rating of perceived exertion, VO2, and time to exhaustion on BRUCE protocol GXT. 

The test subject was a soccer player at the school.  The first study was done after 4 hours NPO, with no caffeine ingestion for 12 hours before the test. 

The second study was done 4 hours NPO and 60min after ingestion of 40mg of standardized ephedrine alkaloids and 400mg of caffeine (2 servings of ripped fuel was the dose). 

In the second study, with the ECA, the subject's time to exhaustion was slightly longer on the BRUCE by around 30 seconds or so. 
His rating of perceived exertion was lower at all stages of the protocol, even at maximum exertion, he only rated a peak RPE of 19 out of 20...still thinking he could go a bit more as he was failing to keep up with the treadmill. 

His heart rate response and VO2 was higher for all stages of the test (peak heart rate was the same, although with ECA it was reached earlier and maintained for X amount of time....I don't remember the time)

So, in this case, WITH the ECA his caloric expenditure would have been HIGHER as his VO2 and Heart Rate response was higher for the duration of the test. 

Add to the fact that he exercised longer and each second longer was done at the highest MET level of the test.....AND the fact that the Ephedrine was binding to Beta3 receptors, increasing lipolysis...along with caffine increasing lipolysis through the mechanisms already talked about in this thread.....the ECA would definitely show to be more effective at fat loss.

[McFarland]

I actually did a study in college on ECA ingestion on rating of perceived exertion, VO2, and time to exhaustion on BRUCE protocol GXT. 

The test subject was a soccer player at the school.  The first study was done after 4 hours NPO, with no caffeine ingestion for 12 hours before the test. 

The second study was done 4 hours NPO and 60min after ingestion of 40mg of standardized ephedrine alkaloids and 400mg of caffeine (2 servings of ripped fuel was the dose). 

In the second study, with the ECA, the subject's time to exhaustion was slightly longer on the BRUCE by around 30 seconds or so. 
His rating of perceived exertion was lower at all stages of the protocol, even at maximum exertion, he only rated a peak RPE of 19 out of 20...still thinking he could go a bit more as he was failing to keep up with the treadmill. 

His heart rate response and VO2 was higher for all stages of the test (peak heart rate was the same, although with ECA it was reached earlier and maintained for X amount of time....I don't remember the time)

So, in this case, WITH the ECA his caloric expenditure would have been HIGHER as his VO2 and Heart Rate response was higher for the duration of the test. 

Add to the fact that he exercised longer and each second longer was done at the highest MET level of the test.....AND the fact that the Ephedrine was binding to Beta3 receptors, increasing lipolysis...along with caffine increasing lipolysis through the mechanisms already talked about in this thread.....the ECA would definitely show to be more effective at fat loss.

Yeah I follow you but you were still measuring 2 different workouts, the second one you just cited he was doing more because he could, so of course he's gonna have burned more calories.  I'm suggesting that if he did the exact same workout on ECA that he had not on anything that he might have actually burned fewer calories...like had he not ran the extra 30 seconds or faster at any point in the trial.  I know you could theorize that the added resting heart rate, twitching, scratching and overall fidgeting that might accompany the ECA like when he was waiting between sets or whatever might actually increase the calories burned but that's not what I'm talking about and I think these factors would still prove largely inconsequential, especially if you're not really that prone to "fidgeting."  I'm thinking that loaded up on ECA you would burn fewer calories doing the same workload as when doing it without ECA...lending credence to what the professor at the start of this thread was suggesting by his claim that the caffeine needs to be "burned off" before the regular calorie burning that you would normally expect to have would kick in. 

Going back to my original example of the calves/cardio workout, it would be entirely possible to do the same workout ON ECA without even breaking much of a sweat as compared to the exertion you experienced the first time, so I just don't think that a walk in the park workout like that could be said to burn the exact same amount of calories as the same workout NOT amped up.  It's like when you're training legs.  You can't always be just as strong on one leg day as you are on another...the same weight can feel much much "heavier" and it takes more out of you from one workout to the next...do you really think the "hard" days burn just as many calories as the easier days, especially if all weights/reps/sets are kept consistent with each other?     

[troponin]

Yeah I follow you but you were still measuring 2 different workouts, the second one you just cited he was doing more because he could, so of course he's gonna have burned more calories.  I'm suggesting that if he did the exact same workout on ECA that he had not on anything that he might have actually burned fewer calories...like had he not ran the extra 30 seconds or faster at any point in the trial.  I know you could theorize that the added resting heart rate, twitching, scratching and overall fidgeting that might accompany the ECA like when he was waiting between sets or whatever might actually increase the calories burned but that's not what I'm talking about and I think these factors would still prove largely inconsequential, especially if you're not really that prone to "fidgeting."  I'm thinking that loaded up on ECA you would burn fewer calories doing the same workload as when doing it without ECA...lending credence to what the professor at the start of this thread was suggesting by his claim that the caffeine needs to be "burned off" before the regular calorie burning that you would normally expect to have would kick in. 

Going back to my original example of the calves/cardio workout, it would be entirely possible to do the same workout ON ECA without even breaking much of a sweat as compared to the exertion you experienced the first time, so I just don't think that a walk in the park workout like that could be said to burn the exact same amount of calories as the same workout NOT amped up.  It's like when you're training legs.  You can't always be just as strong on one leg day as you are on another...the same weight can feel much much "heavier" and it takes more out of you from one workout to the next...do you really think the "hard" days burn just as many calories as the easier days, especially if all weights/reps/sets are kept consistent with each other?     

Rating of perceived exertion is independant of workload. 
Anything with psychoactive properties could alter how hard an exercise "feels."  That isn't going to be a direct causal relationship with the energy expenditure of that exercise. 

There are many products that increase "work tolerance." 
Hell, the child soldiers in African rebel armies are fed heroin ground with gun powder into open wounds.  This increases "work tolerance." 

The workload remains the same.   As long as the workload remains the same, the energy expenditure to produce that workload is going to be the same, and remain independant of the "sense of difficulty" of that workload. 

Anything that produces euphoria, alters neurotransmitter reuptake production or oxidation, and/or alters pain perception is going to alter the sense of difficulty of a task.  But, the workload and energy expenditure to perform the workload is going to remain the same.


If you want to talk about changing the workload, then there are going to be too many variables to run a proper experiment.....and the caffeine is more than likely going to increase the workload (and consequently increase the energy expenditure) if that is an allowable variable. 





If you were to assume a potential null hypothesis of this, you'd have to say that taking a "workload reducer" would cause an increase in energy expenditure. 

I'm sure that if you took some strong sedatives and excited the pain receptors in the body before an exercise, it would "feel" much harder....but again, if the workload remains the same, given what is known about human physiology....the energy expenditure would remain the same. 


I'm a big fan of theoretic application.....I had an article on "Gamma linolenic acid as a fat burner via the activation of Brown Adipose tissue" turned down by T-nation.com because it was "all theory and no practical application" (the article was then published by www.elitefts.com and well received there). 

I just don't see any evidence to the hypothesis here.

[troponin]

There are going to be many minor variants that can alter the outcome. 

I remember reading something a long time ago about anorectics potentially lowering metabolism.  I have no idea what the mechanism was, or if I even read it right as it was many years ago. 
I believe the study showed that this metabolic decline was more than made up for by increased activity and reduced caloric intake by those taking the anorectics. 

You could potentially argue that the reduction in fluid intake that is often seen with stimulant intake, combined with the dehydration creating nature of stimulants could reduce the potential for fat burning as well. 

But, assuming "all things being equal" (including workload), the energy expenditure should not be lower.

[McFarland]

Is there any known (or theorized) calorie-to-neural energy conversion?  Can't you measure neural signals in terms of milliVolts?  So how many calories would it take to result in a reserve of "x" amount of neural reserve, perhaps as measured in milliVolts?  Ever hear of adrenal burnout?  At that point increased calories and rest are always understood to help remedy the situation. How many calories are used to create the electric charges we use in the nervous system?  You could venture to guess that will more milliVolts (or with a generally stronger neural signal available,) that it wouldn't require so much ATP synthesis.  Amped all to hell you can do more workload on fewer calories over a prolonged period of time, so how do you explain that?  At what point is food eaten used to generate that electricity?  Ephedrine/caffeine do not have calories but they enable higher workloads...I assume you are saying that it is only because of the body's eventual increased ability to tap into it's stored glycogen/protein/fat with ephedrine/caffeine/stimulants in general?  Maybe so but I'm not convinced that you wouldn't have more workload left in you completely depleted of everything calorie-wise if you were loaded up on stimulants at that point as opposed to not.  I've been wondering about this stuff for forever.

[Camel Jockey]

What's the low down on cocaine?  Will you burn more calories after hitting a few lines before chest mondays?

[McFarland]

What's the low down on cocaine?  Will you burn more calories after hitting a few lines before chest mondays?

Well I could just picture you in particular ready to ask that as I was typing that last response and here you are...   Yeah I almost added at the end "it's like when Tony Montana keeps on taking bullets and keeps shooting after coking himself into the stratosphere at the end of Scarface...I doubt at any point that that would have come down to how many calories he had in reserve for that..."

[McFarland]

What's the low down on cocaine?  Will you burn more calories after hitting a few lines before chest mondays?

I'd actually theorize that you would burn fewer calories if you did the exact same chest workout ON coke as you would have OFF...but the whole thing becomes a moot point when you consider that you're gonna do about 5-10 more sets coked up with more weight for more reps, miss at least 2 meals that day and fuck your girlfriend for an additional 2-3 hours over the course of that day.  Candidizzle may have some additional input on this one... 

[Camel Jockey]

Well I could just picture you in particular ready to ask that as I was typing that last response and here you are...   Yeah I almost added at the end "it's like when Tony Montana keeps on taking bullets and keeps shooting after coking himself into the stratosphere at the end of Scarface...I doubt at any point that that would have come down to how many calories he had in reserve for that..."

So cocaine increases workload?  

In all seriousness.. I think stimulants are better suited for harder workouts than actual weight loss. Dieting down is a slow process and you can't be taking stimulants for 8-12 weeks.. Saw hello to headaches, feeling shitty, sweating, hypertension and other things.

Stimulants pump you up and make you look more ripped.. That's how I feel when I take a lot of caffine. I also notice that caffine and other stimulants make me eat less.. Maybe that's why they're good for weight loss?

...but the whole thing becomes a moot point when you consider that you're gonna do about 5-10 more sets coked up with more weight for more reps, miss at least 2 meals that day and fuck your girlfriend for an additional 2-3 hours over the course of that day.  Candidizzle may have some additional input on this one... 

haha Of course...

[EL Mariachi]

  Candidizzle may have some additional input on this one... 

I just talked to candidizzler, he cant reply he got pools to clean for 8 bucks an hour 

[Camel Jockey]

I just talked to candidizzler, he cant reply he got pools to clean for 8 bucks an hour 

Getting wired is fun. Everyday activities become adventures!

Walks in the park become adventures of tree climbing, charting dog breeds you've seen in your head, contemplating jumping into dirty ponds and harassing bums. The mall is better too because you're not at the food court eating shit, but rather trying to make sense of patterns on the clothing in shitty stores.

[McFarland]

Getting wired is fun. Everyday activities become adventures!

Walks in the park become adventures of tree climbing, charting dog breeds you've seen in your head, contemplating jumping into dirty ponds and harassing bums. The mall is better too because you're not at the food court eating shit, but rather trying to make sense of patterns on the clothing in shitty stores.

You sound homeless; hope this helps.      

[Camel Jockey]

You sound homeless; hope this helps.      

I was only kidding. 

Back on subject.

[natural al]

hey mother fucker....i know more about nutrition than you know about yourself.

classic.

[natural al]

troponinnutrition!!!! i would love to have you be more involved on the nutrition board.  you seem extremely eductaed, and i know that justin harris is one of your guys...and he is a VERY knowledgeable athlete.  please help educate myself and the rest of this board! (lord knows there are alot of guys on here that dont know jack shit)

uhhh....justin harris=troponin......fyi.

[McFarland]

When you "perceive" a workout as less stressful, you sweat less, you get less hot, you feel more fatigue, there is more lactic acid build-up...and I don't think that not feeling the burn as much on ephedrine or caffeine is due to there being any analgesic quality to them; I think it's just because there is less lactic acid produced; that is, there just isn't the amount of metabolic activity going on at the cellular level...alot of the work I believe is done by a much more efficient neural system.  Perception is reality.  I mean how do you sweat shit-tons without burning more calories?  It could be that stimulants help direct the neural transmission much more efficiently; that is, maybe it routes the signal to the muscles most capable of moving the workload through whatever specific plane it is without all the unnecessary ancillary involvement...

[troponin]

Is there any known (or theorized) calorie-to-neural energy conversion?  Can't you measure neural signals in terms of milliVolts?  So how many calories would it take to result in a reserve of "x" amount of neural reserve, perhaps as measured in milliVolts?  Ever hear of adrenal burnout?  At that point increased calories and rest are always understood to help remedy the situation. How many calories are used to create the electric charges we use in the nervous system?  You could venture to guess that will more milliVolts (or with a generally stronger neural signal available,) that it wouldn't require so much ATP synthesis.  Amped all to hell you can do more workload on fewer calories over a prolonged period of time, so how do you explain that?  At what point is food eaten used to generate that electricity?  Ephedrine/caffeine do not have calories but they enable higher workloads...I assume you are saying that it is only because of the body's eventual increased ability to tap into it's stored glycogen/protein/fat with ephedrine/caffeine/stimulants in general?  Maybe so but I'm not convinced that you wouldn't have more workload left in you completely depleted of everything calorie-wise if you were loaded up on stimulants at that point as opposed to not.  I've been wondering about this stuff for forever.

The neural action potentials are measured in milivolts....I believe.  The electrical action potential probably won't use many/any calories.  That is all going to be Na/K pump. K tends to congregate in the dendrite, and then when it is depolarized, K rushes out and Na rushes in.  I don't know if the Na voltage gates are controlled by any caloric substance though.  

When the AP hits the synapse, it converts to a chemical messanger (save for the hippocampus and inferior Olive which are still electrical messages....I just read about that this morning so I may be wrong).  

At the synapse, Ca rushes in and drives the neurotransmitter vesicles to the membrane.  
Neurotransmitters are amino derivitives.....
eg: L-tyrosine converts to L-DOPA, which converts to Dopamine, which converts to Norepinephrine, which converts to epinephrine.....the original precursor to those neurotransmitters are caloric based.  

But, neural activation isn't just amount of neurotransmitters...ther e is reuptake inhibition, and blockage of receptors.  

eg: cocaine inhibits dopamine reuptake at the synapse.  So, that aspect of cocain's psychoactive properties wouldn't require any additional caloric usage...rather the prevention of reuptake of the dopamine that is released into the synaptic cleft.  

I'm actually reading a book called "neurophilosophy: work towards a singular theory of the mind/brain."  I picked i up this weekend, so some of the neural stuff is pretty fresh in my brain.  

I have no idea about the caloric conversion, but I would imagine that book would have it (or at least what it was at the time of publication).  


I think there is a pretty un-tapped market in prevention of neuromuscular fatigue, and I've been really researching nootropics and other cognitive/neural enhancers lately.  

[troponin]

When you "perceive" a workout as less stressful, you sweat less, you get less hot, you feel more fatigue, there is more lactic acid build-up...and I don't think that not feeling the burn as much on ephedrine or caffeine is due to there being any analgesic quality to them; I think it's just because there is less lactic acid produced; that is, there just isn't the amount of metabolic activity going on at the cellular level...alot of the work I believe is done by a much more efficient neural system.  Perception is reality.  I mean how do you sweat shit-tons without burning more calories?  It could be that stimulants help direct the neural transmission much more efficiently; that is, maybe it routes the signal to the muscles most capable of moving the workload through whatever specific plane it is without all the unnecessary ancillary involvement...

The stimulants do "stimulate" the nervous system.  This dosn't necessarily mean increased efficiency though.
Neurons are pretty effecient, they have to be.  A myelinated nerve sends signals at 200 meters per second......that's efficient. 

Many psychoactive compounds don't just overload neurotransmitters, the can inhibit reuptake of the neurotransmitters (coke).  They can send more neurotransmitters into the synapse.  MAOI's will inhibit the breakdown of the monoamine stimulants/psychadelics. 

There's more than just production quantity of the neurotransmitters.

[McFarland]

The neural action potentials are measured in milivolts....I believe.  The electrical action potential probably won't use many/any calories.  That is all going to be Na/K pump. K tends to congregate in the dendrite, and then when it is depolarized, K rushes out and Na rushes in.  I don't know if the Na voltage gates are controlled by any caloric substance though.  

When the AP hits the synapse, it converts to a chemical messanger (save for the hippocampus and inferior Olive which are still electrical messages....I just read about that this morning so I may be wrong).  

At the synapse, Ca rushes in and drives the neurotransmitter vesicles to the membrane.  
Neurotransmitters are amino derivitives.....
eg: L-tyrosine converts to L-DOPA, which converts to Dopamine, which converts to Norepinephrine, which converts to epinephrine.....the original precursor to those neurotransmitters are caloric based.  

But, neural activation isn't just amount of neurotransmitters...ther e is reuptake inhibition, and blockage of receptors.  

eg: cocaine inhibits dopamine reuptake at the synapse.  So, that aspect of cocain's psychoactive properties wouldn't require any additional caloric usage...rather the prevention of reuptake of the dopamine that is released into the synaptic cleft.  

I'm actually reading a book called "neurophilosophy: work towards a singular theory of the mind/brain."  I picked i up this weekend, so some of the neural stuff is pretty fresh in my brain.  

I have no idea about the caloric conversion, but I would imagine that book would have it (or at least what it was at the time of publication).  


I think there is a pretty un-tapped market in prevention of neuromuscular fatigue, and I've been really researching nootropics and other cognitive/neural enhancers lately.  

OK then yeah, you get exactly what I'm talking about then...good discussion and you've got great input.  Funny how you just got that book.

[Van_Bilderass]

I also notice that caffine and other stimulants make me eat less.. Maybe that's why they're good for weight loss?

A study on the E+C combo concluded, IIRC, that 80% of the weight loss caused by the stimulant combo was due to the anorectic effect and the rest due to the thermogenic effect. So yes, the fat loss is mostly due to you eating less.

[Necrosis]

When you "perceive" a workout as less stressful, you sweat less, you get less hot, you feel more fatigue, there is more lactic acid build-up...and I don't think that not feeling the burn as much on ephedrine or caffeine is due to there being any analgesic quality to them; I think it's just because there is less lactic acid produced; that is, there just isn't the amount of metabolic activity going on at the cellular level...alot of the work I believe is done by a much more efficient neural system.  Perception is reality.  I mean how do you sweat shit-tons without burning more calories?  It could be that stimulants help direct the neural transmission much more efficiently; that is, maybe it routes the signal to the muscles most capable of moving the workload through whatever specific plane it is without all the unnecessary ancillary involvement...

a revved up nervous system=less efficient and results in error. see anxiety disorders as example.

[fsu_pain_train]

work towards a singular theory of the mind/brain.

Whoa whoa, I know they're working towards a singular theory in physics, but in the mind/brain?  I doubt it.  The word brain is one thing - one unified theory of how the brain functions.  But mind?  Are they suggesting they can devise a theory that encompasses what occurs in the mind of everyone?  This sounds like lunacy to me.  If you don't 'mind', please expound the main points of this book your reading Trop.

[Disgusted]

I just ate some brownies, but made sure I had a coffee with it so I could burn off the extra calories.

[Disgusted]

I'm surprised the xanthines aren't used more in marketing for fat loss products.  I don't believe they would work particularly well, but the wording you could use in the ads would convince every 16 year old that they're buying something "cutting edge."
Especially if you marketed some xanthines with the addition of cAMP. 

"Superxanth" is the most exciting fat burner to hit the market yet.  With our patent pending formula of Xanthines, which are produced with purine degredation, the metabolic destructive effects of adenosine are grinded to a halt.  Adenosine is like a "sleeping pill" for fat loss, while superxanth is a jolt of ice water right to the face of Adenosine.  Superxanth is also remarkable in its safety compared to the harmful sympathomimetics that dry out your mouth and take away your desire to eat the food necessary for growth!  By inhibiting phosphodiesterase, the potent formula of Superxanth allows our potent brand of cAMP to work its magic, literally destroying any fat lying in its path!  As Superxanth powers through your body, muscle growth and shredded mass is left in its wake! 
Check out these before and after photos!"

Very good, May I use this for my new xanthine fat destroying miracle pill.