21 day 5000 calorie challenge: debunking the calorie myth?

yarwell

but it will tell us if 3,500 surplus calories = 1 lb. of weight gain

That number already has an assumed split of fat to non-fat built in of around 70:30. If he was doing an energy balance - which he isn't - then he would account for fat content changes (he can't, he isn't measuring it) at the calorific value of fat and FFM at a lower value.

1 lb = 454g * 9 cals/g = 4086 calories.

tomcornhole

I just did a one day challenge (7,300 cal) and gained 4 lbs. Then I lost 5.4 lbs the next day. I should stop drinking water.

freerange

Arguing against the first law of thermodynamics?

Ambitious to put it nicely.

It's a little more complicated than that. What the research that I've been reading seems to show is that both count. Calories count, but not all calories are equal. The law of themodynamics would work perfectly for the calories-in-calories-out thoeyr except that they're finding our bodies aren't calorimeters. They burn some foods more completely than others, and it takes more "effort" to burn some calories than others. Also glycemic index and glycemic load play a role. We're complicated little machines.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490943279845790.html

I'm not advocating one way or another way. Just saying the research indicates that type of calories does count, though it's not the be-all-end-all.

I don't think you and I have the same concept when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics.


But at least you are not making the other goofball argument in this thread:

Science has been wrong before, then made a correction
Someone is attempting to make a correction
Therefore, someone must be right and science must be wrong


Because, you know, like, science used to say earth is the center of the universe, and, like, thought there were too few stars

Yep that's it, science is the end all to all knowledge. The fool is a person that does not question.

totem12

'Questioning' is what scientists do all day, every day, professionally.

The fool is the person who reads an article and thinks they now know better.

freerange

'Questioning' is what scientists do all day, every day, professionally.

The fool is the person who reads an article and thinks they now know better.

Yep that's it LOL

How about this, a fool is a person that reads an article and, because it goes against their paradigm, dismisses it? We can do this all day.

NoleGirl0918

Bump for later.

LarryLaird

What is wrong with the cal. in cal out?? And there is the KISS method...Keep It Simple Stupid. Cal in Cal out for me!!

strongmindstrongbody

So the guy gains only 1.3 kg at the end of the 21 days and actually loses 3 cm around his waist. And he claims it was because of his high fat, natural foods diet. Damn. I did that sort of diet before (minus the 5,000 calorie intake, lol) and didn't lose anything for months. I wonder if he had the results he had because he was already lean at the get-go. Like his body was pushing for homeostasis, working hard to keep his body the way it was.

Off to read more about this guy's story.

strongmindstrongbody

The guy says he's going to do two more experiments. One in September, eating a high refined carb diet, and one in January, eating a high natural carb diet. Curious what his results will be.

johnrossmckay

If it's just a myth then 10000 calories or 15000 calories should be good too. As should 1000 or 500.

And how, in 21 days do you offset for transient lifestyle changes, thermogenesis, and water retention. Put your money where your mouth is and do it for a year. And get a reasonable sample size, and double blind it so that your results are meaningful. Because the laws of energy conservation and thermodynamics are fact not fiction. You burn calories for fuel. No matter how hard you drive a Prius, you can't pour as much gas (calories) into it as you do a hummer without having to store it in a pool (fat cell) in the back seat. And no matter how wishful the thinking, you can't power a hummer for long on the fuel (calories) you'd use in a Prius. But that Prius will go a long way on the fuel (fat) that is stored in the tank and backseat.

totem12

'Questioning' is what scientists do all day, every day, professionally.

The fool is the person who reads an article and thinks they now know better.

Yep that's it LOL

How about this, a fool is a person that reads an article and, because it goes against their paradigm, dismisses it? We can do this all day.

I never get this notion that if something goes against a 'paradigm' it is buried. If I was the person to prove that an accepted paradigm was false I'd be set for life.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

EvgeniZyntx

He gained but less than he thought he would but he believes it's clean eating. I think he is miscalculating his TDEE based on his activity level by about 400 cals. See his blog. All there.

jadedone

I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.

LoggingForLife

Way too many variables.

freerange

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-FWMLPXXi4

3dogsrunning

I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.

That is not true. Calories burned are based on intensity and weight.

If you weight less months from now, yes you will burn less. But if you do the se activity at the same intensity while weighing the same you will burn the same amount.

From Azdak's blog

"That’s it. (Factors like age, height, and gender are necessary for heart rate monitor estimates, but those factors are only needed for HRMs, as will be explained later).

So: more intense workloads will burn more calories than less intense workloads and, at any given workload, heavier people will burn more calories than lighter people.

Next: the energy cost for any given exercise workload is relatively fixed. For example the energy cost of walking at 3.0 mph and 5% elevation on a treadmill (w/out holding on) is approximately 5.4 METs (a MET is a measure of aerobic intensity. That 5.4 MET intensity is the same for everyone—regardless of age, gender, or fitness level.

So, every given speed, elevation, watt level, etc, has a relatively fixed energy cost. If we can measure the workload, and we have formulae that can accurately calculate the energy cost for a given workload, it is straightforward arithmetic to determine the calories expended. "

Under Exercise Calories post, scroll down.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak

pcastagner

I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.

That is not true. Calories burned are based on intensity and weight.

If you weight less months from now, yes you will burn less. But if you do the se activity at the same intensity while weighing the same you will burn the same amount.

From Azdak's blog

"That’s it. (Factors like age, height, and gender are necessary for heart rate monitor estimates, but those factors are only needed for HRMs, as will be explained later).

So: more intense workloads will burn more calories than less intense workloads and, at any given workload, heavier people will burn more calories than lighter people.

Next: the energy cost for any given exercise workload is relatively fixed. For example the energy cost of walking at 3.0 mph and 5% elevation on a treadmill (w/out holding on) is approximately 5.4 METs (a MET is a measure of aerobic intensity. That 5.4 MET intensity is the same for everyone—regardless of age, gender, or fitness level.

So, every given speed, elevation, watt level, etc, has a relatively fixed energy cost. If we can measure the workload, and we have formulae that can accurately calculate the energy cost for a given workload, it is straightforward arithmetic to determine the calories expended. "

Under Exercise Calories post, scroll down.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak

You forgot all about learning to be more efficient at a task, which is normally what happens over time. I burn less with my speed ripe than I used to, because I have better rhythm and coordination. Workload is, in fact, diminished.

Mighty_Rabite

Counting calories is great and I'm a pretty hardcore calorie logger, but I did an experiment early this year that really brought into question for me whether it boils ONLY down to the calories in versus calories out.

December 26, 2012 - I weighed 184.6 pounds - I decided at this point that it was time to cut down.

February 9, 2013 - I weighed 166.4 pounds

During that time frame, going by MFP logging of foods and exercise (estimations on the calorie burn as I do not use a HRM), my running grand total deficit was 3,621 calories.

Funny that losing 18.2 pounds *should* require a corresponding deficit of 63,700 calories. Even if half of it is water weight, we're still looking at 31,850 calories. If 28,229 calories are missing over the course of 45 days, that should mean I would be off by roughly 627 calories per day. While possible, I'm not sure I deem that likely.

3dogsrunning

I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.

That is not true. Calories burned are based on intensity and weight.

If you weight less months from now, yes you will burn less. But if you do the se activity at the same intensity while weighing the same you will burn the same amount.

From Azdak's blog

"That’s it. (Factors like age, height, and gender are necessary for heart rate monitor estimates, but those factors are only needed for HRMs, as will be explained later).

So: more intense workloads will burn more calories than less intense workloads and, at any given workload, heavier people will burn more calories than lighter people.

Next: the energy cost for any given exercise workload is relatively fixed. For example the energy cost of walking at 3.0 mph and 5% elevation on a treadmill (w/out holding on) is approximately 5.4 METs (a MET is a measure of aerobic intensity. That 5.4 MET intensity is the same for everyone—regardless of age, gender, or fitness level.

So, every given speed, elevation, watt level, etc, has a relatively fixed energy cost. If we can measure the workload, and we have formulae that can accurately calculate the energy cost for a given workload, it is straightforward arithmetic to determine the calories expended. "

Under Exercise Calories post, scroll down.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak

You forgot all about learning to be more efficient at a task, which is normally what happens over time. I burn less with my speed ripe than I used to, because I have better rhythm and coordination. Workload is, in fact, diminished.

By how much?
Assuming waking or running, how much can better rhythm and coordination (I'll even throw in form) improve?

Or with lifting weights?

Mr_Knight

Having trouble making sense of his numbers. Or more exactly, of making sense of his claims based on his numbers.

On Day 11 he says he's at a surplus of 26,830 calories, which would put is TDEE right around 3,300. But based on his weight (and I assumed 25 yrs old + 5'11 height), Harris-Benedict can't get a TDEE that high until you go to daily "intense" workouts. Miflin is worse - it needs daily exercise plus a physical job to get that high.

Did I calculate something wrong, or is this clearly a guy who is working his *kitten* off during this anti-diet?

jadedone

I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.

That is not true. Calories burned are based on intensity and weight.

If you weight less months from now, yes you will burn less. But if you do the se activity at the same intensity while weighing the same you will burn the same amount.

From Azdak's blog

"That’s it. (Factors like age, height, and gender are necessary for heart rate monitor estimates, but those factors are only needed for HRMs, as will be explained later).

So: more intense workloads will burn more calories than less intense workloads and, at any given workload, heavier people will burn more calories than lighter people.

Next: the energy cost for any given exercise workload is relatively fixed. For example the energy cost of walking at 3.0 mph and 5% elevation on a treadmill (w/out holding on) is approximately 5.4 METs (a MET is a measure of aerobic intensity. That 5.4 MET intensity is the same for everyone—regardless of age, gender, or fitness level.

So, every given speed, elevation, watt level, etc, has a relatively fixed energy cost. If we can measure the workload, and we have formulae that can accurately calculate the energy cost for a given workload, it is straightforward arithmetic to determine the calories expended. "

Under Exercise Calories post, scroll down.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak

You forgot all about learning to be more efficient at a task, which is normally what happens over time. I burn less with my speed ripe than I used to, because I have better rhythm and coordination. Workload is, in fact, diminished.

By how much?
Assuming waking or running, how much can better rhythm and coordination (I'll even throw in form) improve?

Or with lifting weights?

There is a study out there that looks at the daily calorie burn of the regular Kenyans that run 10+ miles a day. And they burn the same amount of calories as the average American. Even though they are way more active.

sharonfoustmills

if I were eating Paleo, or a strictly clean diet, there is no way I could intake 5000 calories! I struggle to take in 1500 a day if I am eating lots of veges and lean meats. I don't see how someone could physically eat that much volume.

alyhuggan

Pretty sure if I ate 35,000 calories in a day I would not instantly gain 10 pounds of fat the next day as my body wouldn't need to store that much

fatfudgery

I will put my 4 years of experience and 312 lbs. lost by using the so called myth of calories in vs. calories out vs. this guys 21 day challenge.... but more power to him..... :drinker:

Right there with you, buddy! :drinker:

CoachReddy

How would eating food debunk the calorie myth, and what is the calorie myth again?

There are a lot of people that do not believe in cals in/out. They feel that it's the quality of the food that matters. So, if you were eating very clean, whatever that means, I guess no junk, no soda, pop tarts, ice cream, cheeseburgers, etc. just clean food. If you eat that way, you can consume 5000 cals a day without gaining.

There are entire groups so passionate about this, and are successful too. As an example, you don't need to count calories eating Paleo/primal. You just don't. If you stick with it.

nobody actually believes what you said - and if there are people who do, they're misguided and misinformed (including this trainer).

you - however - are just making things up to bash a way of eating you disagree with.

refuseresist

Arguing against the first law of thermodynamics?

Ambitious to put it nicely.

Thank You!

Unbelievable that people think it's a matter of opinion. I guess we have to respect the persons choice to think something that is the opposite of reality.

shivles

Very interesting

neanderthin

I am not impressed. If I chose to move for 8 hours a day or it was my job (as a trainer to move that much) I would burn at least 5000 calories a day. I aim to walk for an hour and a half a day and it says I burn off close to 900 calories. So, basically if I increased that a couple more hours I would be burning close to 5000 a day.

Actually, your body becomes more efficient and burns less calories. Even with a ton of activity. So although, let's say if today you burned 5000 calories with activity X. Tomorrow (a few months from now), that same workout would burn less calories.

That is not true. Calories burned are based on intensity and weight.

If you weight less months from now, yes you will burn less. But if you do the se activity at the same intensity while weighing the same you will burn the same amount.

From Azdak's blog

"That’s it. (Factors like age, height, and gender are necessary for heart rate monitor estimates, but those factors are only needed for HRMs, as will be explained later).

So: more intense workloads will burn more calories than less intense workloads and, at any given workload, heavier people will burn more calories than lighter people.

Next: the energy cost for any given exercise workload is relatively fixed. For example the energy cost of walking at 3.0 mph and 5% elevation on a treadmill (w/out holding on) is approximately 5.4 METs (a MET is a measure of aerobic intensity. That 5.4 MET intensity is the same for everyone—regardless of age, gender, or fitness level.

So, every given speed, elevation, watt level, etc, has a relatively fixed energy cost. If we can measure the workload, and we have formulae that can accurately calculate the energy cost for a given workload, it is straightforward arithmetic to determine the calories expended. "

Under Exercise Calories post, scroll down.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak

You forgot all about learning to be more efficient at a task, which is normally what happens over time. I burn less with my speed ripe than I used to, because I have better rhythm and coordination. Workload is, in fact, diminished.

By how much?
Assuming waking or running, how much can better rhythm and coordination (I'll even throw in form) improve?

Or with lifting weights?

There is a study out there that looks at the daily calorie burn of the regular Kenyans that run 10+ miles a day. And they burn the same amount of calories as the average American. Even though they are way more active.

Why do think that might be true? Considering no details. A marathoner from Kenya would weight what? The Average American would way what? Right there is food for thought. Now if you said the average Kenyan marathoner consumes less calories than an American marathoner of the same weight, then there might be some genetics at play.

jen_zz

bump to see the end results