21 day 5000 calorie challenge: debunking the calorie myth?

Options
1…79111213

Replies

  • totem12
    totem12 Posts: 194 Member
    Options
    '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.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    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
    jadedone Posts: 2,449 Member
    Options
    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
    LoggingForLife Posts: 504 Member
    Options
    Way too many variables.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-FWMLPXXi4
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    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
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    Options
    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
    Mighty_Rabite Posts: 581 Member
    Options
    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
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    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
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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
    jadedone Posts: 2,449 Member
    Options
    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
    sharonfoustmills Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    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
    alyhuggan Posts: 717 Member
    Options
    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
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    Options
    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
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
  • refuseresist
    refuseresist Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    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
    shivles Posts: 468 Member
    Options
    Very interesting
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,017 Member
    Options
    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
    jen_zz Posts: 1,011 Member
    Options
    bump to see the end results

Categories