Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Ketogenic overfeeding n=1 experiment by Wittrock
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
If you were metabolically healthy you wouldn't gain eating 2000 calories, that's less than my TDEE, and I'm a 45 year old 150lb woman. Also, there's that little issue of you being able to pack away 15-20k calories of food, which again points to something being very wrong.
The appetite can be explained by the fact that I make no amylin.
Try my stats on a BMR calculator:
155 lbs., 5'7"
You will see that I need to exercise to get above 2,000 calories per day. To get so far above that eating 2K calories is a sufficient deficit to have any noticeable loss is a lot of exercise.
Do you have anything of substance or just "It seems like..."
Nah no substance. Just confusion..
2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.0 -
Day 11 - 148.4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrrpoWNEtyc
Not a lot exciting today. He talked ketchup... then had his family try keto desserts (mousse -marscapone, whipped cream, stevia and cocoa) and nut /chocolate fat bombs.
He kept quizzing his dad on keto. Poor dad. LOL1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.2 -
lol- That's half the point of bulking and why I love it- all the glorious carbs- I am pretty consistently low carb outside of my bulk- so it's game day baby game day when it comes time to bulk.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »wackyfunster wrote: »I would be interested in this as well since I'm trying to gain weight on a low carb diet. It's hard!
Very hard to gain muscle. If you are having trouble hitting your calorie targets you can always add oil/peanut butter/butter (not a big fan of this, but probably necessary if you want to bulk on a ketogenic diet). One cup of olive oil has 2000 calories FWIW. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has gotten good results from a low-carb bulk, but would love to see evidence that it can work.
My burning question is "but why" LOL
I did it in a misguided attempt to just keep eating as I had been when losing weight, just with more kcals. I love keto foods, but not enough to ever do that stupid *kitten* again. When a 5'10" man gains 2.5 lbs./week on 2800/day, something is horribly *kitten* up.
It just makes me sad thinking about literally all that chicken and veggie- barf.cwolfman13 wrote: »I love his channel. I've been following his experiment but I think he underestimated his TDEE. I've put his stats in calculators and got around 3,000 as opposed to 2,000. But as @nvmomketo stated, even with that TDEE and a 1,000 cal surplus over 21 days then he should still gain at least 6 lbs according to CICO. If he gains less than that then there might be something to this keto "fad" that makes it defy that laws of CICO
If he gains less it's just likely that he didn't calculate energy expenditure correctly and additionally, energy input can effect energy output. It's possible that increasing calories significantly can cause an increase to energy expenditure through NEAT and even voluntary activity increases.
At 189lbs, I am struggling to understand how his TDEE was only 2000 calories. Most women I know are at those levels.
Also, I could have sworn I have seen a discussion from either Brad Schoenfeld, Eric Helms, Alan Aragon that discuss metabolic changes driven by an overfed state. Potentially, it was discussed in the DNL carb overfeed studies, but I can't seem to find it.
Side note, I did giggle when Jason tries to suggest that dietary fat is less likely to convert to fat, compared to carbs and protein.
I was kind of wondering about a 2,000 calorie maintenance too...my wife is 5'2" or 5'3" and 125-130 and she maintains around 2,300 or so...granted she is also a runner.
That is MIGHTY low- I can maintain between 1700-2000 reasonably well- I'm 5'8" and not a runner. Every time I tell the guys at my gym what my cutting calories are they freak out- they cut on what my bulking numbers are.
damn this vagina of mine.
Yeah something is wrong with the TDEE he calculated. No way it is 2000. I eat 2100-2600 and I am 105ish lbs and tiny2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
The fact that your require medication to regualte metabolism kind of speaks for itself. Comparing someone like you to a fit person with no medical conditions is ridiculous.8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
The fact that your require medication to regualte metabolism kind of speaks for itself. Comparing someone like you to a fit person with no medical conditions is ridiculous.
The medication I take is similar to the substances others make on their own. It isn't really that much different than you, except I do it manually and consciously while you do it automatically and without thinking.0 -
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
Does he put the numbers up anywhere like Sam Feltham did ? Data is a bit dilute in some of the videos.0 -
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
Does he put the numbers up anywhere like Sam Feltham did ? Data is a bit dilute in some of the videos.
He usually shows it in the last few minutes of his videos. I think his highest protein so far was 220 something, and the lowest was about 45g. I think he is keeping protein below 15% - still a large amount when your calories are 4k. Many days are in the mid to high hundreds. Hopefully he'll do an average at the end or something along those lines.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.4 -
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
Does he put the numbers up anywhere like Sam Feltham did ? Data is a bit dilute in some of the videos.
He usually shows it in the last few minutes of his videos. I think his highest protein so far was 220 something, and the lowest was about 45g. I think he is keeping protein below 15% - still a large amount when your calories are 4k. Many days are in the mid to high hundreds. Hopefully he'll do an average at the end or something along those lines.
This. Most of his days are around 120g which is more than enough for someone his size trying to maintain his mass. And his carbs are around net 35g0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
1 -
Day 12 - 149.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjdLiRDEd3E
The war on carbs... and babies at the zoo.
And finally, some bacon! 402 g fat, 93 g protein and 66 g carbs.
I get a kick out of how he refers to himself in the royal "we". I love it. It seems right when he does it. LOL
He's getting sick too.0 -
Just wanted to say a big thank you @nvmomketo for keeping us updated and posting the videos here. Mucho appreciated :flowerforyou:0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Just wanted to say a big thank you @nvmomketo for keeping us updated and posting the videos here. Mucho appreciated :flowerforyou:
It's like having a TV program you want to catch... but it's done in 9 days! Darn it. I don't have cable TV, so this is now my most regular show to catch. LOL
Oh hey, he's over halfway and only up a pound. I just realized this. I wonder if he'll pile on a few in the last 9 days or just gain another 1 lb.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just wanted to say a big thank you @nvmomketo for keeping us updated and posting the videos here. Mucho appreciated :flowerforyou:
It's like having a TV program you want to catch... but it's done in 9 days! Darn it. I don't have cable TV, so this is now my most regular show to catch. LOL
Oh hey, he's over halfway and only up a pound. I just realized this. I wonder if he'll pile on a few in the last 9 days or just gain another 1 lb.
I just finished watching it.. What a foul mood he was in
He wasn't his usual peppy self. I think they've got their hands full with the little one, they only lasted 25 minutes at the zoo, what is wrong with this kid??? 0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?
Why is this thread now about you?
Can we get back to topic?
Christine, it looked like the little guy was maybe teething?7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?
Why is this thread now about you?
Can we get back to topic?
Hmmmm...... it seems you are confused. Here is a recap:
-Several comments to the tune of "OMG, how could a man have a TDEE of 2K calories - all men must have a TDEE of much more!"
-My comment sharing my situation as a man with a TDEE below 2K calories.
-Several comments casting doubt along similar lines as the "No way. All men burn tons more calories than that... except that guy with some generic metabolic issues that I can't actually articulate."
-My comments pointing out how ill-informed that is and then pointing out that BMR calculators confirm a low enough BMR to match a TDEE below 2K calories without exercise.
Part of the debate turned to what is the daily calorie burn of a man who is close to the same weight and is exactly the same height as me. I believe my experience is relevant here. Arguing over whether my experience is accurate is debate-able as to whether it is on topic, but I'm not seeing how we are off topic here at all.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?
Why is this thread now about you?
Can we get back to topic?
Hmmmm...... it seems you are confused. Here is a recap:
-Several comments to the tune of "OMG, how could a man have a TDEE of 2K calories - all men must have a TDEE of much more!"
-My comment sharing my situation as a man with a TDEE below 2K calories.
-Several comments casting doubt along similar lines as the "No way. All men burn tons more calories than that... except that guy with some generic metabolic issues that I can't actually articulate."
-My comments pointing out how ill-informed that is and then pointing out that BMR calculators confirm a low enough BMR to match a TDEE below 2K calories without exercise.
Part of the debate turned to what is the daily calorie burn of a man who is close to the same weight and is exactly the same height as me. I believe my experience is relevant here. Arguing over whether my experience is accurate is debate-able as to whether it is on topic, but I'm not seeing how we are off topic here at all.
You always like to insult people by telling them they're confused or don't understand.
I'm following along just fine.
You don't have the muscle mass. You, however, are a shorter man who doesn't weigh much. We get it.
I'm a short old woman who doesn't weigh much, I'm not taking it personally that Lemon is talking about women maintaining on 2000 calories even though it takes me on the order of 22K steps to do that myself.
Everyone has their lot in life.
Some of us accept it.
Some of us complain about it.
Some of us derail threads over it.
Can we get back to the real point as to why a young man, without any disease, with appreciable muscle mass, is only maintaining on 2000? Will phrasing it that way make it less about men in general so that you don't feel that you personally are being affected by the question? It's not bloody likely that Wittrock has his maintenance calories correct.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?
Why is this thread now about you?
Can we get back to topic?
Hmmmm...... it seems you are confused. Here is a recap:
-Several comments to the tune of "OMG, how could a man have a TDEE of 2K calories - all men must have a TDEE of much more!"
-My comment sharing my situation as a man with a TDEE below 2K calories.
-Several comments casting doubt along similar lines as the "No way. All men burn tons more calories than that... except that guy with some generic metabolic issues that I can't actually articulate."
-My comments pointing out how ill-informed that is and then pointing out that BMR calculators confirm a low enough BMR to match a TDEE below 2K calories without exercise.
Part of the debate turned to what is the daily calorie burn of a man who is close to the same weight and is exactly the same height as me. I believe my experience is relevant here. Arguing over whether my experience is accurate is debate-able as to whether it is on topic, but I'm not seeing how we are off topic here at all.
You always like to insult people by telling them they're confused or don't understand.
I'm following along just fine.
You don't have the muscle mass. You, however, are a shorter man who doesn't weigh much. We get it.
I'm a short old woman who doesn't weigh much, I'm not taking it personally that Lemon is talking about women maintaining on 2000 calories even though it takes me on the order of 22K steps to do that myself.
Everyone has their lot in life.
Some of us accept it.
Some of us complain about it.
Some of us derail threads over it.
Can we get back to the real point as to why a young man, without any disease, with appreciable muscle mass, is only maintaining on 2000? Will phrasing it that way make it less about men in general so that you don't feel that you personally are being affected by the question? It's not bloody likely that Wittrock has his maintenance calories correct.
I'm not so sure, though. Again, my experience at exactly the same height, pretty close to the same weight - 7 lbs. more that could easily be explained by fat differences, leaving my muscle mass at about the same - and as a male is not that much different. Based on my very similar experience, I think 2K sounds about right.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Just wanted to say a big thank you @nvmomketo for keeping us updated and posting the videos here. Mucho appreciated :flowerforyou:
It's like having a TV program you want to catch... but it's done in 9 days! Darn it. I don't have cable TV, so this is now my most regular show to catch. LOL
Oh hey, he's over halfway and only up a pound. I just realized this. I wonder if he'll pile on a few in the last 9 days or just gain another 1 lb.
I just finished watching it.. What a foul mood he was in He wasn't his usual peppy self. I think they've got their hands full with the little one, they only lasted 25 minutes at the zoo, what is wrong with this kid???
Yesterday he said his son was sick... and now he's getting it. The little guy takes after his dad with a bad mood when sick, eh? 1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?
Why is this thread now about you?
Can we get back to topic?
Hmmmm...... it seems you are confused. Here is a recap:
-Several comments to the tune of "OMG, how could a man have a TDEE of 2K calories - all men must have a TDEE of much more!"
-My comment sharing my situation as a man with a TDEE below 2K calories.
-Several comments casting doubt along similar lines as the "No way. All men burn tons more calories than that... except that guy with some generic metabolic issues that I can't actually articulate."
-My comments pointing out how ill-informed that is and then pointing out that BMR calculators confirm a low enough BMR to match a TDEE below 2K calories without exercise.
Part of the debate turned to what is the daily calorie burn of a man who is close to the same weight and is exactly the same height as me. I believe my experience is relevant here. Arguing over whether my experience is accurate is debate-able as to whether it is on topic, but I'm not seeing how we are off topic here at all.
You always like to insult people by telling them they're confused or don't understand.
I'm following along just fine.
You don't have the muscle mass. You, however, are a shorter man who doesn't weigh much. We get it.
I'm a short old woman who doesn't weigh much, I'm not taking it personally that Lemon is talking about women maintaining on 2000 calories even though it takes me on the order of 22K steps to do that myself.
Everyone has their lot in life.
Some of us accept it.
Some of us complain about it.
Some of us derail threads over it.
Can we get back to the real point as to why a young man, without any disease, with appreciable muscle mass, is only maintaining on 2000? Will phrasing it that way make it less about men in general so that you don't feel that you personally are being affected by the question? It's not bloody likely that Wittrock has his maintenance calories correct.
I'm not so sure, though. Again, my experience at exactly the same height, pretty close to the same weight - 7 lbs. more that could easily be explained by fat differences, leaving my muscle mass at about the same - and as a male is not that much different. Based on my very similar experience, I think 2K sounds about right.
Except this guy is far from sedentary. His NEAT is probably 2000+ before we even factor in purposeful exercise or take into account his reasonable lean mass.
So you are something of an exception. And you keep banging your drum about BMR which is kind of irrelevant. Would be more relevant to talk about NEAT. My BMR as a 5'5 160lb female is 1400 or so, I am very sedentary outside of purposeful exercise (as in a lot of days don't even hit 1000 steps sedentary) and even I maintain on 1800 before exercise. After exercise it's more like 2200. If I got in 10'000 steps/ran around after a toddler all day it would be 2500 or there abouts!
For your argument to be meaningful in any way you need to stop focusing on BMR, none of us are in a coma.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Running Katch McArdle, it would put his BMR around 1744.
yep, around 1700 I ran it at 154 lbs and 10% BF. His FFM is about the same as mine (in a lot less total mass), with my measured RMR of 1600. 10% off your 1744 is 1570 and within the range of accuracy of the prediction, however his supplement regime and body state probably isn't well represented in the derivation of these correlations.
So it is a bit of a gaping hole to not have a well defined steady weight baseline with a measured intake, leaves the exit everyone will be looking for to rectify our cognitive dissonance.[\b]
He started at 148.2 at 5% body fat, thence the slight variation btw our estimates. Using a sedentary multiplier of 1.2 is what put him at 2100. But considering his workout schedule, he is probably closer to a 1.55 multiplier.
This is why i think he only partially designed this experiment. He guesstimated his beginning intake based on his own perception; and we all know how well people are at estimating intake based on the studies. My experience on this forum, is very few men maintain at 2000 calories. Hell, i can show you a 500+ post thread of women who lose around 1800 calories. Also considering that only men i know who maintain at 2k are in this thread and at least one of the two isnt metabolically healthy, it wouldnt be a fair representation of Jasons expirement.
I do find this series fascinating because he at least is controlling protein, which rarely happens with low carb vs high carb studies. And it will give me some food ideas for my low carb days.
I'm not sure it is fair to argue I'm "not metabolically healthy" unless you can explain exactly how taking artificial insulin in place of making it myself can explain a very low TDEE. It is easy to just write me off as being different as an explanation, but how exactly does that translate to having a low RMR?
Don't you also have T2 diabetes and a thyroid issue (Hasimoto's?)? You've mentioned having 2-3 metabolic disorders many times and explained how you gain weight eating what some consider to be the bare minimum a male should consume to get in nutrients. You also mention eating upwards to 20,000 calories some days.
Former type 2. After weight loss, the clinical conditions for double diabetes no longer apply. Yes on Hashimoto's, and medication controls that to the TSH of someone without any thyroid issues whatsoever. If that is your theory, please expound on exactly how that fits.
As to cheat days, I am unclear how being capable of eating a lot translates to a low BMR. In fact, my experienced BMR is not actually very low for my stats according to any online calculator.
I have no idea. You asked why you are not metabolically healthy. I answered with obvious answers which, from how I read your reply, you feel don't affect your metabolism.
No, that is not what I asked. I asked for an explanation as to why others believe I am not metabolically healthy. If the answer contains some obvious explanation as to having a lower BMR, why can't you actually explain it?!
You're also going on occasional 20000 kcal binges and treat it like it's the most normal thing in the world.
How does that result in a low BMR?
Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
As long as you werent sedentary you would. Not at a really fast pace. But you also aren't 5'7" and 5% bf like Jason is. So his body composition is driven a higher metabolism. And i suspect he works out more than you and possibly a great NEAT factor.midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Look, I really truly wish I could lose on 2,000 calories per day just because I have a Y chromosome; but that just isn't realistic unless I add in a lot of exercise.
Your BMR in those screenshots is like 1,600, right? (Tiny screen + old eyes, I can't read the top one at all.) My BMR per internet calculator is about 1,400 (female, 43, 5'4, 150ish), I have a desk job, and I rarely engage in any intentional exercise.
My TDEE (calculated from 900+ days of daily intake + weight change logs) is between 2,000 and 2,100 calories a day. I would lose weight, albeit slowly, on 2,000 calories, and my BMR is 200 calories a day lower than yours.
BMR per internet calculator isn't really a useful way to calculate TDEE.
Agreed. BMR is a pretty useless weight loss metric. My BMR is pathetically low, it's somewhere around 1200ish. My TDEE is another matter. It's around 2000-2200. I don't really give a thought to how low my BMR is when eating at a deficit.
My point was that I would need to exercise a significant amount in order to lose weight (not maintain) at 2,000 calories. I would need to run at least 6 miles every single day just to be able to lose quickly enough to notice after about 4-6 weeks. So the notion that just because someone is male, he will lose so easily isn't exactly fair.
But hey, I guess your new explanation is that I don't exercise enough? This was a part of my original point that I would have to exercise a lot to get to that level. Are you still arguing that I'm metabolically inferior? Or am I now one of 2 men who can't eat as much because I exercise less than all of the others?
Why is this thread now about you?
Can we get back to topic?
Hmmmm...... it seems you are confused. Here is a recap:
-Several comments to the tune of "OMG, how could a man have a TDEE of 2K calories - all men must have a TDEE of much more!"
-My comment sharing my situation as a man with a TDEE below 2K calories.
-Several comments casting doubt along similar lines as the "No way. All men burn tons more calories than that... except that guy with some generic metabolic issues that I can't actually articulate."
-My comments pointing out how ill-informed that is and then pointing out that BMR calculators confirm a low enough BMR to match a TDEE below 2K calories without exercise.
Part of the debate turned to what is the daily calorie burn of a man who is close to the same weight and is exactly the same height as me. I believe my experience is relevant here. Arguing over whether my experience is accurate is debate-able as to whether it is on topic, but I'm not seeing how we are off topic here at all.
You always like to insult people by telling them they're confused or don't understand.
I'm following along just fine.
You don't have the muscle mass. You, however, are a shorter man who doesn't weigh much. We get it.
I'm a short old woman who doesn't weigh much, I'm not taking it personally that Lemon is talking about women maintaining on 2000 calories even though it takes me on the order of 22K steps to do that myself.
Everyone has their lot in life.
Some of us accept it.
Some of us complain about it.
Some of us derail threads over it.
Can we get back to the real point as to why a young man, without any disease, with appreciable muscle mass, is only maintaining on 2000? Will phrasing it that way make it less about men in general so that you don't feel that you personally are being affected by the question? It's not bloody likely that Wittrock has his maintenance calories correct.
I'm not so sure, though. Again, my experience at exactly the same height, pretty close to the same weight - 7 lbs. more that could easily be explained by fat differences, leaving my muscle mass at about the same - and as a male is not that much different. Based on my very similar experience, I think 2K sounds about right.
Except this guy is far from sedentary. His NEAT is probably 2000+ before we even factor in purposeful exercise or take into account his reasonable lean mass.
So you are something of an exception. And you keep banging your drum about BMR which is kind of irrelevant. Would be more relevant to talk about NEAT. My BMR as a 5'5 160lb female is 1400 or so, I am very sedentary outside of purposeful exercise (as in a lot of days don't even hit 1000 steps sedentary) and even I maintain on 1800 before exercise. After exercise it's more like 2200. If I got in 10'000 steps/ran around after a toddler all day it would be 2500 or there abouts!
For your argument to be meaningful in any way you need to stop focusing on BMR, none of us are in a coma.
I am focusing on BMR because it is the only consistency. After that, TDEE could be anywhere from BMR up to 20K or more.
Do we have exercise tracking from Wittrock? If not, then we are assuming. My assumption is more conservative than yours coming from someone who maintains at about 1,800 before exercise also and is almost identical in size, though these are all assumptions and nothing more from both of us.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I am focusing on BMR because it is the only consistency. After that, TDEE could be anywhere from BMR up to 20K or more.
Do we have exercise tracking from Wittrock? If not, then we are assuming. My assumption is more conservative than yours coming from someone who maintains at about 1,800 before exercise also and is almost identical in size, though these are all assumptions and nothing more from both of us.
Dude, I am not sure why this is hard to understand. You have significantly less muscle than this guy. So it's not identical. Whats also not identical is this guy is active. BMR is not the thing you want compare. It's TDEE. If you want to compare your TDEE without exercise, there are a few threads with 100lb women (who don't exercise) that are at the same level in the gaining weight section. So be honest with yourself so we can move on... but you are no where near as fit as Wittrock. You do NOT have his body composition, nor his activity level. Comparing yourself, a person who is not 5% body fat, nor works out as much, is dumb.14 -
Day 12 - 149.2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjdLiRDEd3E
The war on carbs... and babies at the zoo.
And finally, some bacon! 402 g fat, 93 g protein and 66 g carbs.
I get a kick out of how he refers to himself in the royal "we". I love it. It seems right when he does it. LOL
He's getting sick too.
It's seems like his weight gain is picking up. It will be interesting how the next few days play out.
Interesting enough, for the 4th week in a row, all my highest weight days this week again were the mornings after low carb/low calorie days and my biggest weight loss was post high carb/higher calorie days... So I am lost, ha.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions