Surprising weight loss article!
Replies
-
1800 pounds for 2 Lb per week loss. 400 calories increase per day sends you into maintenance? No it would not.I wouldn't be surprised if his basal metabolic rate estimate was wrong, on this site it tells me I need to consume 2,200 calories to lose 2lbs a week its just not right, not even close. I had my basal metabolic rate determined by my doctors during a sleep study, they measure your carbon dioxide levels and O2 levels after you have fasted for 12 hours and have slept for 8, the real figure for me anyway was that I need to consume is 1,800 a day to lose 2lbs a week, the difference is nearly 400 calories so if I had followed the recommendations of this site which is just an estimate I pretty much would have gone to maintenance mode on my weight.
Just food for thought0 -
But if he had miscalculated by this much in the other direction, his two-month ordeal would not have demonstrated any weight loss at all and he would have 'proven' that junk food prevented weight loss at an 800-calorie/day deficit. Personally, if I were a professor of nutrition and wanted to demonstrate something by such an experiment on myself over two months, I would want to have given this a little more thought.herrspoons wrote: »
Seriously? If you were a professor of nutrition and miscalculated your TDEE by 800 calories per day in a publication, you would not be embarrassed?herrspoons wrote: »
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.In the interview posted later he said:5. Are you exercising at all during this experiment?
I try to get 60-120 min/week (walking mostly, cycling, lifting). I wanted the focus to be diet, so I have tried not to do too much with exercise.
Seems he did half with diet and half with exercise or other activity. Or perhaps his calculations were off.
I don't think 120 minutes of exercise per week is going to = the extra 800 calorie burn you indicated....
I would assume his maintenance level was higher than he originally estimated so he was eating in a larger deficit...
Or he was not eating as much as he thought and his deficit was higher...
Did he weigh all his foods???
Not really. BMR and TDEE are generalised figures based on best fit modelling and assumption. Good indicators, but you would expect significant variance between similar individuals.
I wouldn't if my intention was to show that nutrient composition was largely irrelevant in weight loss.
Does his paper state methods and assumptions? Is there a paper?
I have no idea where this unblinded n=1 study was first published.0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Now I want to see the reverse: someone gaining weight on lean proteins, whole grains, and fruits and veggies. (Not because I don't believe it's possible, but because a lot of other people have their doubts.) I know I could easily put down a 1,000 calorie meal with something like steak fajitas and refried beans with cheese, sour cream, and guacamole. It's all good stuff, but too much is too much!
I did! I don't have evidence of logging it here, because it was several years ago (before I became a vegetarian), but I low carbed for years.
During that time, I lost weight to a certain point, maintained that weight for a while, became pregnant, nursed the baby, continued eating low carb the whole time .... lost the pregnancy weight. Then, life happened. Stress happened. And my emotional eating happened. I was still eating low carb. I never cheated with carby foods... I just ate. A lot. I gained weight.
Quite a lot of it.
0 -
I don't get why it's easier to assume he lied about his exercise to that extent (that's a LOT of hard exercise, and he doesn't look like he exercises hard) rather than to assume his tracking wasn't quite on point.0
-
I do not assume he lied. There are a variety of ways his calculations could have been off. Still, for a professor of nutrition to be off by that much (100%) in his calculations is somewhat embarrassing; at least it would be to me.mamapeach910 wrote: »I don't get why it's easier to assume he lied about his exercise to that extent (that's a LOT of hard exercise, and he doesn't look like he exercises hard) rather than to assume his tracking wasn't quite on point.
0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Now I want to see the reverse: someone gaining weight on lean proteins, whole grains, and fruits and veggies. (Not because I don't believe it's possible, but because a lot of other people have their doubts.) I know I could easily put down a 1,000 calorie meal with something like steak fajitas and refried beans with cheese, sour cream, and guacamole. It's all good stuff, but too much is too much!
That was me when I was at least 150 lb overweight. If you take a look at my diary that's almost exactly how I ate when I was 300+ pounds except my portions were much larger, the amount of olive oil was almost unspeakable, and 3 cups of rice was a normal portion. I have regulated my portions, replaced quite a bit of olive oil calories with fish and poultry (I ate them like once every couple of months), and truncated the rest.0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Now I want to see the reverse: someone gaining weight on lean proteins, whole grains, and fruits and veggies. (Not because I don't believe it's possible, but because a lot of other people have their doubts.) I know I could easily put down a 1,000 calorie meal with something like steak fajitas and refried beans with cheese, sour cream, and guacamole. It's all good stuff, but too much is too much!
Go to any Crossfit gym (they tend to be big on Paleo and "Clean" eating at my local box, anyway) and ask how many people have gone on a bulk? I guarantee you you can find plenty of people gaining weight by "eating clean."0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
I don't see anything bolded in the OP that I quoted.yopeeps025 wrote: »
2600 - 1800 = 800 cal/day deficitgaurikudav3 wrote: »He went from eating 2600 calories per day (his estimated maintenance level) to eating about 1800 calories per day instead. He just so happened to get the majority of those 1800 daily calories from the most junky foods you can think of.
The result? He lost 27lbs in 2 months and reduced his body fat percentage from 33.4% to 24.9%.
800 cal x 61 days = 48,800 calories
48,800 / 3,500 calories/pound = 13.9 lbs expected weight loss
Apparently he was exercising about 800 calories per day as well.
Refer to bold in post you quoted.
I should of said bold in my comment to OP you quoted. The OP said that he estimated his TDEE. Also never said that he changed his calorie intake as he dropped weight which is interesting. My guess is what is his LBM stats to be that far off estimated TDEE calculators?
Another variable could be water weight form glycogen depletion, water weight from reduction in sodium and waste in the bowels. It's not always a straight mathematical equation.
0 -
This is not at all surprising to anyone who knows how to use their brain.0
-
gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
Totally. CICO.0 -
emilycarr71404 wrote: »CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.
Someone doesn't really understand "deficit", do they ?
0 -
THIS. A misconception about people who eat in moderation is that ALL our food is junk, when the reality is the MAJORITY of our food is usually nutrient dense..................and then we eat junk to fill out left over calories.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
Yes, but for health and satiety I wouldn't recommend getting most of your calories from "junk" foods. I'd recommend a balanced diet with appropriate macros that is based on mostly whole foods and includes more indulgent foods in moderation.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I do not assume he lied. There are a variety of ways his calculations could have been off. Still, for a professor of nutrition to be off by that much (100%) in his calculations is somewhat embarrassing; at least it would be to me.mamapeach910 wrote: »I don't get why it's easier to assume he lied about his exercise to that extent (that's a LOT of hard exercise, and he doesn't look like he exercises hard) rather than to assume his tracking wasn't quite on point.
I think it's safe to assume that he lost a bunch of water weight at first, which is what messed up the numbers.
0 -
CICO works for EVERYONE. The rate may be different, but CICO isn't dysfunctional just because someone has metabolic syndrome.emilycarr71404 wrote: »CICO isn't true if you have a metabolic syndrome. In the case of MS your body processes sugars and carbs totally differently than someone without MS. Probably this guy didn't have MS and so CICO works for him, but everyone's body works in a unique fashion. This case only proved it worked for him.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
only on MFP would this turn into a debate about his TDEE numbers being off. .
he ate less then he burned and part of that consumption was twinkies..
CICO applies to all
end thread/0 -
gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
It means you can eat what you want and you will lose weight ...however, you should be incorporating nutrient dense foods into your intake and making sure you hit macros and micros...
Actually you should be eating mostly nutrient dense foods and incorporating treats as they fit.
If we're really talking about what's best.0 -
I do not assume he lied. There are a variety of ways his calculations could have been off. Still, for a professor of nutrition to be off by that much (100%) in his calculations is somewhat embarrassing; at least it would be to me.mamapeach910 wrote: »I don't get why it's easier to assume he lied about his exercise to that extent (that's a LOT of hard exercise, and he doesn't look like he exercises hard) rather than to assume his tracking wasn't quite on point.
Given the premise, yes.0 -
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
It means you can eat what you want and you will lose weight ...however, you should be incorporating nutrient dense foods into your intake and making sure you hit macros and micros...
Actually you should be eating mostly nutrient dense foods and incorporating treats as they fit.
If we're really talking about what's best.
that is essentially what I said…
but nitpick away ….
hit micros = eating nutrient dense foods0 -
Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
0 -
Please clarify ...ldeoprecor wrote: »Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
0 -
Please clarify ...ldeoprecor wrote: »Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
I'll use Robertus as an example. The way people phrase their posts suggests that it ONLY boils down to the math.
A calorie deficit will affect people differently. According to the feel of the board, someone who weighs 300 pounds and puts themselves on a 3500 calorie deficit will lose 1 pound. And someone who weighs 150 pounds and puts themselves on a 3500 calorie deficit will lose the exact same amount of weight.
"Weight" is contingent on a number of different things and isn't strictly limited to adipose tissue loss. To question the person's tracking or how much they really exercised based on a rule of thumb is extremely short sighted.0 -
Yes, of course, but it shouldn't be off by a factor of 100% over a period of 2 months.ldeoprecor wrote: »Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
0 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »
Please clarify ...ldeoprecor wrote: »Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
I'll use Robertus as an example. The way people phrase their posts suggests that it ONLY boils down to the math.
A calorie deficit will affect people differently. According to the feel of the board, someone who weighs 300 pounds and puts themselves on a 3500 calorie deficit will lose 1 pound. And someone who weighs 150 pounds and puts themselves on a 3500 calorie deficit will lose the exact same amount of weight.
"Weight" is contingent on a number of different things and isn't strictly limited to adipose tissue loss. To question the person's tracking or how much they really exercised based on a rule of thumb is extremely short sighted.
Interesting...
I don't think anyone is claiming that the people in your example would have identical fat loss...but I could be wrong...
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »gaurikudav3 wrote: »Thats means i can eat junk food?
It means you can eat what you want and you will lose weight ...however, you should be incorporating nutrient dense foods into your intake and making sure you hit macros and micros...
Actually you should be eating mostly nutrient dense foods and incorporating treats as they fit.
If we're really talking about what's best.
that is essentially what I said…
but nitpick away ….
hit micros = eating nutrient dense foods
incorporating=/=eating mostly
0 -
Yes, of course, but it shouldn't be off by a factor of 100% over a period of 2 months.ldeoprecor wrote: »Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
And why not? Water losses, lean body mass losses, leptin levels etc... He did not lose 27 pounds of fat. Although his fat percentage drop was insane for that short a period, it still isn't 27 pounds of fat.0 -
I presume the 3,500 calorie guestimate is probably based or validated, at least in part, on real-world experience in a relatively large population of people dieting over the years. I do not think it presumes that all weight loss is 100% fat, just as this guys weight loss was not 100% fat. I doubt it is a common experience for people to accurately track their food and exercise calories and find results that are 100% off. Is that your experience? In other words, do you think some people lose a pound of weight with a calorie deficit of only 1,750 calories while others require a deficit of 7,000 calories to lose one pound?ldeoprecor wrote: »
Yes, of course, but it shouldn't be off by a factor of 100% over a period of 2 months.ldeoprecor wrote: »Robertus wrote:
Of course not. But it is really simple math. How do you account for his weight loss? 800 calorie per day deficit for two months only accounts for half of his weight loss.
That's why I said that his calculations may have been off. Kind of embarrassing for a professor of nutrition.
You do realize that the "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat" is a loose guesstimate at best, right? It's a rule of thumb that is based on the idea that weight loss is 100% adipose tissue (which, while ideal, isn't what happens in real life).
It's obvious that putting yourself in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, but it isn't so cut and dry as most people on this board tend to suggest. Even this "study" is a poor example. It's one person doing this, without a control group.
And why not? Water losses, lean body mass losses, leptin levels etc... He did not lose 27 pounds of fat. Although his fat percentage drop was insane for that short a period, it still isn't 27 pounds of fat.0 -
It's surprising to me that there are still some people who find CICO surprising.0
-
Oh good grief. TDEE was off, what he thought he was eating was off both ways.... everything was all a little off and added up. It probably was a accumulated poopstorm of inaccuracies.
Dude lost 27 pounds eating sugary food because he created a calorie deficit, no matter what the numbers were.0 -
He had to have felt like he was on a constant insulin level roller coaster. Sugar high, sugar low, all day, every day for 2 months! Wow! I feel bad for the guy for feeling that way, but yet I'm impressed he could stick to it for that long.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions