Really stupid experiment I saw on YouTube

thelostbreed02

Theres a video on YouTube which got deleted I think but basically this guy takes like 20,000 steps a day and works out I think it was a 4-5 day split but then he wanted to do this thing where he’s active like mentioned above for 6/7 days while eating in a deficit, and then on the 7th day he literally stayed in bed or just barely moved and ate like a pig. Would this result in fat gain or is it just calorie balance? I personally felt like he would’ve gained fat since he wouldn’t have used those calories.
Your Thoughts?
It was either David Laid Or Obesetobeast

Maxematics

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

thelostbreed02

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Maxematics

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Weekly is just an easier way to keep track of things than daily since people tend to weigh in weekly, consider every week "new", etc. but it truly is just a rolling average from day to day, week to week, and month to month. The whole point is that if you eat more than your TDEE for a prolonged period of time, you will gain weight and if you eat less, you will lose weight.

thelostbreed02

Maxematics wrote: »

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Weekly is just an easier way to keep track of things than daily since people tend to weigh in weekly, consider every week "new", etc. but it truly is just a rolling average from day to day, week to week, and month to month. The whole point is that if you eat more than your TDEE for a prolonged period of time, you will gain weight and if you eat less, you will lose weight.

How does metabolism factor into this? Because if you're at a deficit for too long your body gets used to it

TavistockToad

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Working to my weekly goal works perfectly for me.

In what way is my metabolism affected by eating a bit less Monday to Thursday so I can eat more on Saturday?

JohnnytotheB

Too bad it was deleted! I would love a good laugh at that dude.

daniwilford

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Weekly is just an easier way to keep track of things than daily since people tend to weigh in weekly, consider every week "new", etc. but it truly is just a rolling average from day to day, week to week, and month to month. The whole point is that if you eat more than your TDEE for a prolonged period of time, you will gain weight and if you eat less, you will lose weight.

How does metabolism factor into this? Because if you're at a deficit for too long your body gets used to it

The metabolism factor is a myth. And even if it were not it would be by definition included in TDEE or total daily energy expenditure.

amusedmonkey

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

I track my calories on a monthly average, it doesn't need to be weekly. It's just that weekly is easier for most people, and yes, it can be yearly. Weight loss/gain/maintenance happens when you are in a deficit/suplus/balance over a period of time, regardless of what that period of time is.

You are correct in that the excess energy has to go somewhere. The body is in constant energy flux. You're storing and using energy throughout the day, not just at the end of the day. If over a period of time (however you choose to define it) the energy stored is more than the energy used, you gain fat, if the energy stored is less than the energy used, you lose fat. That guy in the video will have lost some fat, then regained some (or all, depending on his calorie balance) when he ate a lot ending at an average weight that roughly represents his calorie balance that week (if we exclude water weight).

As for metabolism, the difference is mostly from the energy used to digest food. When you're in a deficit you eat less so you use up less energy to digest food, then when you go into a surplus, you use up more energy to digest food. That's why when you are dieting you burn slightly fewer calories than if you weren't, but it's not enough to make all that big of a difference. There can be metabolic adaptation, but that's a whole other topic and it's not as extreme as people think it is (no, you will not stop losing or start gaining if you are in a prolonged deficit).

thelostbreed02

TavistockToad wrote: »

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Working to my weekly goal works perfectly for me.

In what way is my metabolism affected by eating a bit less Monday to Thursday so I can eat more on Saturday?

Talking about yearly or over longer periods of time

thelostbreed02

JohnnytotheB wrote: »

Too bad it was deleted! I would love a good laugh at that dude.

It wasnt even that great lol

AnnPT77

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

thelostbreed02 wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

If his weekly caloric intake was less than the calories he burned during the week, he would not gain fat. It doesn't matter if the last day was spent inactive. If he weighed in the next morning, it may seem like he gained weight because of water weight due to the excess food intake but after a couple of days it would come off.

You see, the thing with weekly calories is the question of why its limited to weekly. Like why not yearly. But then if you think in that way you can really see why this idea of weekly or prolonged intake doesnt work, at least IMO.
Your hormones and metabolism and all that will do weird things and basically if you take in energy that energy goes somewhere, either fat or use via calorie burn

Working to my weekly goal works perfectly for me.

In what way is my metabolism affected by eating a bit less Monday to Thursday so I can eat more on Saturday?

Talking about yearly or over longer periods of time

How would you distinguish "balancing over a year" from "yo-yo-ing"? That's not intended as a snotty question. I don't see the difference, except the terminology (and what we might infer about magnitude).

In one sense, I've managed my calorie balance over approximately 3 decades: At around age 30, I weighed about 135lbs. Today, age 63, I weigh 135. In between, I was obese: 180-190lbs for most of that period, except for a few years of working up to that weight, and a few years recently maintaining healthy weight after about a year to lose back to this range.

Same idea with 6 months or a year, if I gradually increase my weight by (say) 2 pounds or 5 pounds or even 10 or more, up and down with that multi-month frequency, is that "managing my calories over a longer period"?

It doesn't really matter if I gain during that 6 months in a couple of big jumps with plateaus, or gradually through the time period.

(BTW: While many regain gradually, to the extent I've had some gains during 3 years of maintenance, it's tended to be a pound or two jump, gained over a couple/few days, then a plateau).

The difference between managing by the week or month or year IMO is the extent to which one would be able to rely on particular tools (daily counting or consistent habits on the shorter end; or scale weight and concerted periods of loss to get back to baseline weight in the long-cycle scenario, for example). If one manages by the week, there may be a bit more fat storage/loss than managing by the day, I dunno (so many variables as far as intake timing, timing of activity, digestion time, etc.). It's less likely to be visible on the scale, though, if there are tiny stored-fat fluctuations (ditto for tiny fluctuations over 6 months, but I'm not sure how many people would bother to call it "regain" if they noticed they were up a pound over a year's time).

So, I think the above is reasonably rational. Now I'm going to get all speculative and talk through my hat, and I know that's what I'm doing. Fair warning.

Based partly on personal experience, but mostly speculation: I think if one eats 10,000 calories or some such amount all in one day, there's sort of a "party trick" aspect to it. If it's a super unusual to unique thing, I kind of think one's body may tend to pass some of that through the digestive system before it can get fully stored as fat: The digestive system going "wtf?" and not managing all that efficiently.

If one did it once a week . . . well, I wonder, maybe adaptation would occur and the body would get better at absorbing it? I don't know. Our bodies tend to improve at the things we train them for, and conserving intake as fat is a useful adaptation historically speaking.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a healthy habit to eat 10,000 calories once a week, if one's TDEE were 2000-something, regardless . . . even if in calorie balance by the week.

Experientially and personally, I have some suspicions that subtle micro-adjustments in the body happen in response to calories above maintenace, so the body burns a little more (I seem more likely to get hot flashes over the next 24 hours or so after significantly eating over maintenance, for example, and sometimes feel more energetic (and/or less hungry)). There seems to be some research (if only lab-based n = 1 testing) supporting this idea, though I don't have a cite at hand.

I didn't notice that type of response as often, as far as I can recall, when I was obese on occasions when I ate lots more than usual, so perhaps there's some dimension of being in a healthy or obese state hormonally speaking in how the body responds. (Again, I don't know; and for clarity, I was never insulin resistant to my knowledge - no sign in blood tests or symptoms). Or maybe I was simply oblivious to the effects of over-eating, because I did it a fair lot.

On the flip side, many people observe that they feel more fatigued (sometimes even in the short run) if they don't eat enough (I've observed that when working hard physically, that I get tired and eating is reviving).

I don't know that I'd call that "metabolism", necessarily, but I'm far from an expert in that terminology or physiology generally.

Repeating: I'm just speculating and wondering, in the last half of this post, as I said.