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
Options
Replies
-
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Following Wittrock's videos and progress is like watching an intriguing thriller movie unfold.
I really do need to get a life!
I'm with ya. Day 10 is up!
Wow... he ate 414 g of fat. In one day. That's just... Wow.
And only 45 g of protein. I wonder how that will affect things?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVZGgM8PeFc
Well, after greasing the chute like that, he should have no issues at the back end of the process. Jesus.2 -
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.
0 -
And let's say he was underfeeding for a prolonged period of time and had experienced adaptive thermogenesis. Could what he is doing now equate to reverse dieting? And thus he may not gain at all as his metabolism returns to where it should have been all along?0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Following Wittrock's videos and progress is like watching an intriguing thriller movie unfold.
I really do need to get a life!
I'm with ya. Day 10 is up!
Wow... he ate 414 g of fat. In one day. That's just... Wow.
And only 45 g of protein. I wonder how that will affect things?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVZGgM8PeFc
He definitely needs a crash course in overeating. If I had 4000 calories to play with, I would never even consider wasting half of them on a disgusting shake. There are far more fun ways to overeat, and it's especially easy on keto (for me at least) because all the allowed foods need to be calorie dense by definition. For me this would be a picnic, not a challenge like it is for him.
I did get my answer, though. You do get more energy for workouts on extra calories regardless of carbs. I wonder if it's a product of increased metabolic rate (a known phenomenon in overfeeding).4 -
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.0 -
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?1 -
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.10 -
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.3 -
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..."2 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions