21 day 5000 calorie challenge: debunking the calorie myth?

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.

This looked at non marathoners. The basic premise was the average Kenyan gets way more exercise than the average american. So they must eat a lot more food and burn way more calories. The average daily calorie burn was equivalent and food intake was as well.

Basically, the conclusion was your body comes more efficient at whatever activity you throw at it. So to get the big calorie burns, you need to keep upping the ante.

Since he has set out to debunk the 'calorie myth' he is inevitably going to be biased.

I watched a documentary on you tube a few weeks ago (although the documentary isn't new) called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat". Basic idea as this guy the OP was talking about. They took several naturally slim people (people that had been slim all their life without much effort really) and upped their calories massively. They weren't allowed to do exercise and the results varied quite a bit, one guy did put on weight but couldn't see where, turned out his BMR had increased and I think his LBM increased. Just interesting to see how people reacted differently to excess calories.

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.

This looked at non marathoners. The basic premise was the average Kenyan gets way more exercise than the average american. So they must eat a lot more food and burn way more calories. The average daily calorie burn was equivalent and food intake was as well.

Basically, the conclusion was your body comes more efficient at whatever activity you throw at it. So to get the big calorie burns, you need to keep upping the ante.

Do you have a link? I can't seem to find it.

But I think neaderthin's point was how much does the average Kenyan weigh and how much does the average American weigh?
Were their weights the same? Because the "average" American would weight more, and require more calories than the average Kenyan. The activity level is what equals it out, I am guessing.
Again, I am just wondering because I haven't seen this study and it isn't clear to me how this was measured.

Not sure how much it would add up to. Probably not as much as proponents claim, probably not as little as detractors claim.

Can you post a link? I've seriously googled forever and can't come up with it. I'm actually interested in reading it not just debating it.

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.

funny because i was eating paleo primal and not losing weight until I started counting calories.

DITTO!

I watched a documentary on you tube a few weeks ago (although the documentary isn't new) called "Why Are Thin People Not Fat". Basic idea as this guy the OP was talking about. They took several naturally slim people (people that had been slim all their life without much effort really) and upped their calories massively. They weren't allowed to do exercise and the results varied quite a bit, one guy did put on weight but couldn't see where, turned out his BMR had increased and I think his LBM increased. Just interesting to see how people reacted differently to excess calories.

Finally - proof! I am so tired of hearing I don't eat enough...honestly, what works for one will not work for all! I ate strict paleo for 2 months and gained 2 pounds while working out 5 days per week. And it was all in my waist, so no, not "muscle" gain...I couldn't button my darn pants! Once I started counting calories AND sticking with paleo, I started to loose again. Only one pound per week...and that has only been 3 weeks so we will see how it goes in the long run. I just know that I cannot NOT count...maintenance maybe, but not to actually loose.

You can't debunk a myth unless you account for all the possible factors.

I have no idea if the numbers I am going to pull from my data is going to support calorie balance or not, but my hypothesis is that once I have done the math I might actually be able to determine whether I have lost or gained lean mass (I'm only a single person, personal consumption reporting (with Bod Pod and Bodymedia for other numbers), no double-blind study, not in a clinical setting = not real science).

Before each Bod Pod I keep my exercise and consumption similar for several days before (including sodium intake) to minimise water weight differences between each assessment. 5 days before I shave my head. 5 hours before I give myself a 3-pass straight razor shave. There are cut-off times for food, drink, water, nicotine, and vigorous exercise. In other words, I try to minimise as many variables as possible that may influence the results.

On December 6th 2012 I weighed 255.5 pounds with a body density of 0.997 kg/L.
On July 17th 2013 I weighed 189.6 pounds with a body density of 1.040 kg/L.

Grabbing my data from the Bodymedia API, from December 6th 2012 to July 16th 2013 I consumed 488,793 calories and burned 737,949 calories. I had a calorie deficit of 249,156 calories.

2012-12-06 using Brozeck: 112.87 lb BFM, 142.63 lb LBM.
2012-12-06 using Siri: 118.78 lb BFM, 136.72 lb LBM.

2013-07-17 using Brozeck: 47.82 lb BFM, 141.78 lb LBM.
2013-07-17 using Siri: 49.22 lb BFM, 140.38 lb LBM.

Differences...
Brozeck/Siri (supposedly correct): -63.65 lb BFM, -2.25 lb LBM
Brozeck/Brozeck: -65.05 lb BFM, -0.85 lb LBM
Siri/Brozeck: -70.96 lb BFM, +5.06 lb LBM
Siri/Siri (hoping is accurate, the results make more sense): -69.56 lb BFM, +3.66 lb LBM

Assuming 3,500 calories per pound of body fat, 600 calories per pound of lean mass lost, and 2,500 calories per pound of lean mass gained (oft cited numbers)...
Brozeck/Siri: 222,775 + 1,350 = 224,125 calorie deficit
Brozeck/Brozeck: 227,675 + 510 = 228,185 calorie deficit
Siri/Brozeck: 248,360 + 12,650 = 261,010 calorie deficit
Siri/Siri: 243,460 + 9,150 = 252,610 calorie deficit

Edited, miscalculated some of the above.

249,156 is closest to? OK, it is probably time I stop going by the worst case scenario and actually admit that Brozeck was more than likely not accurate for me when I was >30%BF.

5,000 calories per day over 21 days? Sorry, but how many variables are being taken out of the equation so that the results look a little more scientific than mine? Is adaptive thermogenesis and thermic effect of food being taken into account when calculating TDEE, such as I suspect bodymedia is able to do?

If calories in/calories out didn't work, one would expect the math to be more than 3,454 calories out from the results that seemed to make the most sense (i.e. the Siri results from the 4 Bod Pod scans showed minimal lean gains whilst lifting minimally and walking a lot, and slightly more lean gains after starting lifting more often). And one would definitely expect a flaw to have shown before 223 days and a 65.9 pound weight change.

ETA: I can't be bothered to do the math that factors in how many decimal places the scales at BCOM and the Bod Pod body density measure to, the accuracy of the Brozeck and Siri formulae, the accuracy of the bodymedia, possible water weight fluctuations and undigested food weight, the fact some of my calories consumed are guesstimates, etc. Plus it was warm on July 17th and I walked a bit too fast to catch the train, so my Bod Pod results may not have been as accurate as possible.

I have not read the whole thread yet...but 21 days going low carb does not prove diddly. What were his macros before? What was his body fat before? What will his body fat be at the end?

:huh: :noway:

I've lost 129lbs by counting calories and exercising, as well as getting my thyroid and PCOS treated. I gained the weight (that has taken me 4yrs to get rid of) by NOT doing all those things. Good luck though.

On the standard American diet I gained steadily despite calorie restriction, and became pre-diabetic on a diet of "healthy whole grains", lean meat and vegetables.

The last year I have eaten primarily paleo(not necessarily low carb) which upped my calories about 500-1000 a day in mostly fat, gained 3 pounds LBM and lost 25 lbs overall.

No other factors have changed other than my diet.

Calories in are NOT all equal, the quality of your food does matter.

Just asked him if he was eating at this ratio of macros before the challenge - it is a good point that if he wasn't then he should drop some water weigh which will alter the results.

Also 21 days isn't long enough - I would have said a minimum of 6 weeks as that is how long it take the body (generally) to adjust to a change in diet.

I was right - his regular macros were 30 carbs 40 fat 30 protein - so he has actually changed more than one variable. This could well account for the initial weight loss.

Plus weight gain and loss is not linear.

This is a vanity experiment with no real basis in science.

'Vanity experiment'. Excellent way to put it.

Well the calories in calories out model IS a myth - that's just science. the body pursues homeostasis regardless of the number of calories in and the number out. Carbohydrates will tend to add to adipose tissue (i.e. grow fat). so if you eat a lot of carbohydrates you can expect to gain fat. however if your calories are high protein and high fat, unless you are rigourously exercising muscle, the body has no recognized need to add lean muscle mass (i.e. pounds of muscle) unless it is getting the signals (through heavy exercise) of that requirment. so it will pursue 'homeostasis' and those additional 'good calories' will be converted to urea and excreted. that's the chemistry and that's been proven many times. (see the 'good calories bad calories pdf online).

so if this guys is a trainer, he may gain weight but it will likely be muscle mass. i'm assuming he's not consuming excess carbohydrates.

one of the challeenges with MFP is it does tend to support the calories in calories out mythology. but for most people, because of the caloric density of high carbohydrate foods, when you restrict calories but balance your nutrition you will tend to restrict carbohydrates automatically. I've been on WW and Jenny and if you analyze the diet plan, you will find you're restricting your carbs to under 100 grams per day anyway. so most successful diets recognize the importance of carbohydrate restriction whether they tell you that or not.

Bro-science at it's best. :ohwell:

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.

funny because i was eating paleo primal and not losing weight until I started counting calories.

i think the premise is that you fill up on low calorie food instead of high calories ones so if you eat proper portions and don't over do it all while being active and exercising you will lose weight simply because you aren't over eating. No counting required. I'm also loosely following a diet that says you don't need to count calories, but I do, or i wouldn't be able to eat enough. Some of the people following it with me tracked a day and realized they were eating way too much. So there ya go.

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.

This looked at non marathoners. The basic premise was the average Kenyan gets way more exercise than the average american. So they must eat a lot more food and burn way more calories. The average daily calorie burn was equivalent and food intake was as well.

Basically, the conclusion was your body comes more efficient at whatever activity you throw at it. So to get the big calorie burns, you need to keep upping the ante.

Do you have a link? I can't seem to find it.

But I think neaderthin's point was how much does the average Kenyan weigh and how much does the average American weigh?
Were their weights the same? Because the "average" American would weight more, and require more calories than the average Kenyan. The activity level is what equals it out, I am guessing.
Again, I am just wondering because I haven't seen this study and it isn't clear to me how this was measured.

Not sure how much it would add up to. Probably not as much as proponents claim, probably not as little as detractors claim.

Can you post a link? I've seriously googled forever and can't come up with it. I'm actually interested in reading it not just debating it.

All it takes is one guy on a forum somewhere on the internet to say "there's this study that was done..."

Well the calories in calories out model IS a myth - that's just science. the body pursues homeostasis regardless of the number of calories in and the number out. Carbohydrates will tend to add to adipose tissue (i.e. grow fat). so if you eat a lot of carbohydrates you can expect to gain fat.

Except for 20-30 years ago when high-carb, low fat was the fad, and people still managed to lose weight back then.

Almost 70% of the population is now overweight and guess when that started... in the 80's when the government food pyramid came out with the suggested 6-11 servings of carbs. In the 70's, before the "healthy whole grain' craze less than 16% of the population was overweight or obese.