21 day 5000 calorie challenge: debunking the calorie myth?
Replies
-
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:
Impressive loss! Congrats!:drinker:0 -
Facts are facts and the one fact that remains is that calories out vs calories in is the one PROVEN method that works EVERY TIME, if people would actually DO IT correctly. Fad diets will come and go.. this is a lifestyle, NOT a diet.0
-
How would eating food debunk the calorie myth, and what is the calorie myth again?
Some idiots think there is some magical "type of calorie" that you can eat along with drinking daily colloidal silver and goji berry shakes that will make pounds just melt away.0 -
Does he not realise thats paltry to what strong men and bodybuilders used to eat 30 years ago and if you wernt laid on the bed bloated at the end of the day you hadnt eaten enough ...0
-
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 stars0 -
It's an interesting stunt / gesture / publicity for his business, but we're not going to learn much.
Among the issues that would prevent me calling it an "experiment" :-
1. He wasn't weight stable to start with. He was gaining on >3000 cals.
2. He switched the macro composition on commencing the 500 calorie regime, changing 2 things at once.
3. He doesn't know his baseline body fat.
4. There are no measurements of metabolic rate or activity monitors taken or planned.
So there is no way he or we will ever know how much fat he gained (or lost) or any explanation of the energy balance associated with it.
But it does add to the debate and get people thinking, so good on him.0 -
bump0
-
It's an interesting stunt / gesture / publicity for his business, but we're not going to learn much.
Among the issues that would prevent me calling it an "experiment" :-
1. He wasn't weight stable to start with. He was gaining on >3000 cals.
2. He switched the macro composition on commencing the 500 calorie regime, changing 2 things at once.
3. He doesn't know his baseline body fat.
4. There are no measurements of metabolic rate or activity monitors taken or planned.
So there is no way he or we will ever know how much fat he gained (or lost) or any explanation of the energy balance associated with it.
But it does add to the debate and get people thinking, so good on him.
Agreed - plus 21 days is too short a time to get a true reading of what is happening.
He didn't even get his body fat professionally measured!
This is why it is a vanity experiment and not real science.0 -
You have to take that comment about calories "knowing" in context. Remember, it's twitter and limited to 140 characters. His point was that the body reacts differently to different types of calories based on which macro-nutrient they are delivered by. In the example, cutting carbs results in water weight loss. Therefore, "a calorie is a calorie" is a myth.Just had a rather long discussion on twitter with the person doing the experiment. His point seems to be that the calorie is not the best measure of energy as it applies to the human body and he wants to improve on it. I pointed out that by changing his macros from 30% carbs to 10%, he was skewing the data because he would be losing water weight at the same time gaining muscle/fat. His take was that while HE differentiated between water weight and “real” weight, a CALORIE does not. I think the point is specious relative to real weight gain, but have to grant him that the fact that by changing the macro-nutrient %'s, he offset the caloric changes short term. Again specious, but accurate. If it leads to some better way to measure energy in the human body, great, but my concern was that people would see the experiment and think that if they ate “clean” they could eat all they want and not gain weight. I expressed this concern and asked that he address it in his conclusion.
Sounds like he is better at working out than thinking. Did he actually say a calorie doesn't know something? They are sentient now?0 -
You can say whatever you want in a book--doesn't make it true. The fact that there are more sites like MFP popping up, and that restaurants are making nutritional information available, actually suggests that the culture of calorie counting is getting *stronger*, not weaker.
I'm not saying that counting calories necessarily causes me to lose weight. But I know that when I am counting calories, I am far more conscientious about what I eat and how much, and that makes it far more likely that I will lose weight. If something like paleo works for you, great. Don't count your calories in that case. But I know exactly what happens to me when I stop counting my calories (no matter how clean I eat).
[/quote]
^^ Exactly! (insert clapping smiley here)
0 -
It's an interesting stunt / gesture / publicity for his business, but we're not going to learn much.
Among the issues that would prevent me calling it an "experiment" :-
1. He wasn't weight stable to start with. He was gaining on >3000 cals.
2. He switched the macro composition on commencing the 500 calorie regime, changing 2 things at once.
3. He doesn't know his baseline body fat.
4. There are no measurements of metabolic rate or activity monitors taken or planned.
So there is no way he or we will ever know how much fat he gained (or lost) or any explanation of the energy balance associated with it.
But it does add to the debate and get people thinking, so good on him.
Agreed - plus 21 days is too short a time to get a true reading of what is happening.
He didn't even get his body fat professionally measured!
This is why it is a vanity experiment and not real science.
I agree. All of the missing elements above make the experiment less valuable and useful to ME/US. But as far as using the data to prove or disprove the simplistic statement that you hear all the time, on here and elsewhere, that: "a calorie is a calorie" for HIM, I think the data points provided are ample. It won't tell us what actually happened and why, but it will tell us if 3,500 surplus calories = 1 lb. of weight gain. To get those answers, guess we'll have to do our own experiment.0 -
You have to take that comment about calories "knowing" in context. Remember, it's twitter and limited to 140 characters. His point was that the body reacts differently to different types of calories based on which macro-nutrient they are delivered by. In the example, cutting carbs results in water weight loss. Therefore, "a calorie is a calorie" is a myth.Just had a rather long discussion on twitter with the person doing the experiment. His point seems to be that the calorie is not the best measure of energy as it applies to the human body and he wants to improve on it. I pointed out that by changing his macros from 30% carbs to 10%, he was skewing the data because he would be losing water weight at the same time gaining muscle/fat. His take was that while HE differentiated between water weight and “real” weight, a CALORIE does not. I think the point is specious relative to real weight gain, but have to grant him that the fact that by changing the macro-nutrient %'s, he offset the caloric changes short term. Again specious, but accurate. If it leads to some better way to measure energy in the human body, great, but my concern was that people would see the experiment and think that if they ate “clean” they could eat all they want and not gain weight. I expressed this concern and asked that he address it in his conclusion.
Sounds like he is better at working out than thinking. Did he actually say a calorie doesn't know something? They are sentient now?
A calorie IS a calorie (although I also do agree, protein is the most important); it's things like fluid,hormone balance, and body composition that make people THINK thermodynamics somehow goes out the window. Fat loss is non linear and there's plenty of reasons/theories out there for it.
At the end of the day though if you know the RIGHT calorie balance (IE have an accurate picture of your metabolism) you can do what you want with your body. Most of this is best guess work though, and why people anecdotally refute cals in/out (there's simply a ton of variables to account for).0 -
I'm not saying that counting calories necessarily causes me to lose weight. But I know that when I am counting calories, I am far more conscientious about what I eat and how much, and that makes it far more likely that I will lose weight.
This..... counting calorie makes you *aware* of what and how much you are eating.. and when you are counting, you can see the direct affects of what eating a certain way does to your body.. good or bad. I'm getting very good and making better choices when i'm out. .Not all the time.. but yesterday at the festival i got alligator instead of nachos.. so that's a win.. (of course I didn't know it was fried before I ordered it.. or I would of went with something else.. oh well) and with all the bbq food we had in the house yesterday.. all i ate was some chicken a piece of corn, a tablespoon of beans and a tiny bit of potato salad.. (all homemade even though I tracked it as a brand) and I was good full and whatever. I have to control food, cause I'm never going to stop drinking. so.. i have to watch what I eat, so I can drink and still keep the weight off..
The point of all that rambling?? Counting calories works for me.0 -
but it will tell us if 3,500 surplus calories = 1 lb. of weight gain.
I respectfully disagree.
The only thing he will determine based on the construct of his experiment is the rate at which he gains or loses weight given the current intake of calories and macronutrients.
The more accurate outcome is that his weight will change by a given amount and he can then determine how much of a surplus or deficit he was truly in.0 -
Consistency is the key, however, that being said; unless you are burning more than you are taking in you will gain.....it is extremely simple mathematics.....as for what you eat, some foods will make you burn more as they require more energy from your body to digest. I can tell you that I have never really tried any type of diet until MFP and I chose it because of the simplicity of putting everything into my phone and stopping when it is time to stop...I eat whatever I want, I do make some healthier choices like turkey or salmon over beef because I like to eat so I look for more with less.....but I eat all kinds of junk as well....cheez-its, pringles, ice cream, chocolate....EVERY DAY, I added the treadmill only so I could eat more..... I lose because I use more than I take in.0
-
It doesn't rule out not gaining fat because certain foods don't get stored,
Well according to a few here it does
what are these magical foods you speak of?
nothing magical about corn syrup being easier to digest than broccoli
So is the argument that broccoli (compared to corn syrup) results in fewer net calories available to the body because 1) the calories that are required to break it down for use, or 2) it is passed without all of the calories having been extracted? Or some third possibility I haven't considered?
Yes0 -
So, overall, it's still about calories in, calories out.
It doesn't rule out not gaining fat because certain foods don't get stored,
Well according to a few here it does
what are these magical foods you speak of?
nothing magical about corn syrup being easier to digest than broccoli
So is the argument that broccoli (compared to corn syrup) results in fewer net calories available to the body because 1) the calories that are required to break it down for use, or 2) it is passed without all of the calories having been extracted? Or some third possibility I haven't considered?
Yes
Gotcha.0 -
You have to take that comment about calories "knowing" in context. Remember, it's twitter and limited to 140 characters. His point was that the body reacts differently to different types of calories based on which macro-nutrient they are delivered by. In the example, cutting carbs results in water weight loss. Therefore, "a calorie is a calorie" is a myth.Just had a rather long discussion on twitter with the person doing the experiment. His point seems to be that the calorie is not the best measure of energy as it applies to the human body and he wants to improve on it. I pointed out that by changing his macros from 30% carbs to 10%, he was skewing the data because he would be losing water weight at the same time gaining muscle/fat. His take was that while HE differentiated between water weight and “real” weight, a CALORIE does not. I think the point is specious relative to real weight gain, but have to grant him that the fact that by changing the macro-nutrient %'s, he offset the caloric changes short term. Again specious, but accurate. If it leads to some better way to measure energy in the human body, great, but my concern was that people would see the experiment and think that if they ate “clean” they could eat all they want and not gain weight. I expressed this concern and asked that he address it in his conclusion.
Sounds like he is better at working out than thinking. Did he actually say a calorie doesn't know something? They are sentient now?
Totally missing the point, since nobody but people making weight for a fight actually cares abut weight, whether or not they think they do. They actually care about body composition and sexual capital. Sometimes they care about health.
Put me in charge of his food, let me choose the quantities (but not the proportins) from his own restricted list, give me a year, and I will turn him into captain jiggles. I can guarantee that. If he doesn't gain on 5000 I will find the number that does make him gain. It's simple.
Btw I went to his site, and all I can say is, what a döuchebag. Yeah, I just got all ad hominem. I'm unstoppable!
I just spent two months with a guy who stays slim on over 3k a day with barely any moving, while eating tons of carbs. With workouts he could definitely do the challenge, but it would prove absolutely nothing useful for my own body composition management, because I gain on anything over 2000. At my fattest, I was eating paleo with no portion control.0 -
I just spent two months with a guy who stays slim on over 3k a day with barely any moving, while eating tons of carbs. With workouts he could definitely do the challenge, but it would prove absolutely nothing useful for my own body composition management, because I gain on anything over 2000. At my fattest, I was eating paleo with no portion control.
Took me 10 years and leg injuries to beat down my metabolism. Skinny guy throwing down 5k/day while exercising for 3 weeks, without getting an accurate read on metabolism before, during or after, just isn't scientific. And shouldn't be used as guidance for people actually dealing with weight control issues.0 -
I see this as his own n=1 experiment and do not understand the freakin' negativity surrounding it.
What about the IFer who decided to eat 2 lbs of potatoes every day. It was his own n=1
There is another dude on another forum who offers his body to science for his own little n=1 experiments as well.
Frankly, I find it interesting and don't care to nit pick at him because it is HIS body and he can do what he wants with it.
Would I do it? No. Is he suggesting everyone jump in and do this? No.
Haters gonna hate.0 -
If he approached his experiment as:
I'm 26, extremely fit, and been working out my entire adult life. Will a 3-week increase of 1,500 cals/day (clean protein/fat calories), while doing cardio, result in a notable body composition and weight change?
Anyone who has been in this position would say, well maybe you'll pick up a couple pounds. Or maybe you'll feel hotter at night and have looser stools. Maybe both.
But his premise is he'll gain 13 pounds in 3 weeks, based on a flawed metabolic formula. And if he doesn't gain significant weight, he'll present that as proof that people can eat high calories and not gain weight. Which is true, for people in his situation, but most of the people who might care are overweight and in a completely different metabolic situation.
I appreciate he's testing his theories on himself, and I think that's actually pretty cool, but his presentation is irresponsible.0 -
I see this as his own n=1 experiment and do not understand the freakin' negativity surrounding it.
What about the IFer who decided to eat 2 lbs of potatoes every day. It was his own n=1
There is another dude on another forum who offers his body to science for his own little n=1 experiments as well.
Frankly, I find it interesting and don't care to nit pick at him because it is HIS body and he can do what he wants with it.
Would I do it? No. Is he suggesting everyone jump in and do this? No.
Haters gonna hate.
Actually, yes, he is making claims that just picking the right foods means you don't need to worry about intake, and he's selling his advice. He is a "trainer" trying to cash in on the fact that a sucker is born every minute. Who cares if most people won't see results? He can always say: *
*results not typical0 -
wow thats a lot of food lol I can hardly make my 1680 calories a day0
-
http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics.html
Interesting website comparing the law of thermodynamics to the lipophilia theories. I feel the body's chemistry is sufficiently complex that the thermodynamics theory is a poor model for understanding how diets work.
Good luck.0 -
http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics.html
Interesting website comparing the law of thermodynamics to the lipophilia theories. I feel the body's chemistry is sufficiently complex that the thermodynamics theory is a poor model for understanding how diets work.
Good luck.
Thermodynamics may not be enough to predict what will happen, precisely, but it is an absolute way to predict what CAN happen.
Because it says energy can not be created or destroyed.
No theory so far is able to predict what will happen in all cases, because it IS too complex, but that doesn't invalidate the laws of thermodynamics. Which, by the way, don't state, in any version, anything about carbon compounds ingested finding their way to any particular place in a system.
Life is a quest for carbon. A fat person is a more complex set of carbon compounds than a skinny person with the same muscle mass, but a muscular person of the same mass as the fat guy is a more complex set of carbon compounds than that. So body recomposition is initially about entropy, but after that is about increasing complexity beyond where you started.
Again, people pointing out that the law of thermodynamics can't be violated don't seem to me, as a group, to be simpletons who believe the body is as simple a set of chemical reactions as a furnace. That would be stupid. Rather, they tend to understand that since it is impossible to create or destroy energy, a person running a deficit will either lose mass or die. Since we assume we are not dealing with someone actually starving, we are then quite able to give advice that will apply to everyone: eat at a deficit and you will lose mass.0 -
Or that we don't fully understand all of the complexities and therefore deduce that it must be thermodynamics. Nothing worse than a puzzle with a piece missing, eh.http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics.html
Interesting website comparing the law of thermodynamics to the lipophilia theories. I feel the body's chemistry is sufficiently complex that the thermodynamics theory is a poor model for understanding how diets work.
Good luck.0 -
Or that we don't fully understand all of the complexities and therefore deduce that it must be thermodynamics. Nothing worse than a puzzle with a piece missing, eh.http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics.html
Interesting website comparing the law of thermodynamics to the lipophilia theories. I feel the body's chemistry is sufficiently complex that the thermodynamics theory is a poor model for understanding how diets work.
Good luck.
Again, you are confused. Thermodynamics regards adding or taking energy from a system, entropy, complexity, etc... If the energy never actually enters the system, not becoming more complex is what happens. If the energy enters, then leaves, same deal.
Predictions of what comsititutes a surplus or deficit are based on averages and are not themselves natural laws, nor does an outlier prove or disprove a basic natural law.0 -
I think that is the exact point he is trying to make.
You have to take that comment about calories "knowing" in context. Remember, it's twitter and limited to 140 characters. His point was that the body reacts differently to different types of calories based on which macro-nutrient they are delivered by. In the example, cutting carbs results in water weight loss. Therefore, "a calorie is a calorie" is a myth.Just had a rather long discussion on twitter with the person doing the experiment. His point seems to be that the calorie is not the best measure of energy as it applies to the human body and he wants to improve on it. I pointed out that by changing his macros from 30% carbs to 10%, he was skewing the data because he would be losing water weight at the same time gaining muscle/fat. His take was that while HE differentiated between water weight and “real” weight, a CALORIE does not. I think the point is specious relative to real weight gain, but have to grant him that the fact that by changing the macro-nutrient %'s, he offset the caloric changes short term. Again specious, but accurate. If it leads to some better way to measure energy in the human body, great, but my concern was that people would see the experiment and think that if they ate “clean” they could eat all they want and not gain weight. I expressed this concern and asked that he address it in his conclusion.
Sounds like he is better at working out than thinking. Did he actually say a calorie doesn't know something? They are sentient now?
A calorie IS a calorie (although I also do agree, protein is the most important); it's things like fluid,hormone balance, and body composition that make people THINK thermodynamics somehow goes out the window. Fat loss is non linear and there's plenty of reasons/theories out there for it.
At the end of the day though if you know the RIGHT calorie balance (IE have an accurate picture of your metabolism) you can do what you want with your body. Most of this is best guess work though, and why people anecdotally refute cals in/out (there's simply a ton of variables to account for).0 -
I agree. I should have added "for him, during this experiment" to the end of my sentence above. And, I think that is his point. If he can eat 3,500 surplus calories and it doesn't = 1 lb. of weight gained, then it can drive a conversation about why, and potentially lead to a better understanding of how the body processes energy beyond the simplicity of calories in v. calories out.but it will tell us if 3,500 surplus calories = 1 lb. of weight gain.
I respectfully disagree.
The only thing he will determine based on the construct of his experiment is the rate at which he gains or loses weight given the current intake of calories and macronutrients.
The more accurate outcome is that his weight will change by a given amount and he can then determine how much of a surplus or deficit he was truly in.0 -
bumping to read later !0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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