tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post112982249738801062..comments2024-03-13T06:54:20.063-05:00Comments on Weight of the Evidence: The New Math of Weight LossUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1129904990575229032005-10-21T09:29:00.000-05:002005-10-21T09:29:00.000-05:00>>>I'm not sure what you mean by "calorie theory,"...>>>I'm not sure what you mean by "calorie theory," but it sounds a little ... paranoid/conspiracy theoryish.<<<<BR/><BR/>A quick google search will provide you with enough definition that explains how deeply rooted the "Calorie Theory" (calories in - calories out) is within the medical, dietetic and scientific community - not at all conspiracy theory or paranoia - it is what it is..https://www.blogger.com/profile/09224160356421549054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1129904668275029912005-10-21T09:24:00.000-05:002005-10-21T09:24:00.000-05:00>>>Are you just going from the newspaper account? ...>>>Are you just going from the newspaper account? In college I worked in the medical library and had the opportunity to read journal reports and newpaper accounts side-by-side. Long story short: I'd get a copy of the original study if I were you. I find that most researchers will gladly e-mail a PDF if you ask.<<<<BR/><BR/>You might want to read some more of my blog to understand how adament I am about going directly to the data and not relying on secondary sources for interpretation of the data..https://www.blogger.com/profile/09224160356421549054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1129902134915872572005-10-21T08:42:00.000-05:002005-10-21T08:42:00.000-05:00>>>Her resting metabolism at 140 would be more in ...>>>Her resting metabolism at 140 would be more in the range of 1,500 calories, plus or minus (11 calories per pound, more or less).<<<<BR/><BR/>To calculate her calorie requirements at her higher start weight, as a couch potato, I used her active metabolic rate, not her resting metabolic rate as the determinant of calorie deficit potential (theoretically since she is a made up participant).<BR/><BR/>Because she increased exercise consistently, her active metabolic rate increased, even with the weight loss. That is the calorie requirement that counts in weight loss - the deficit created from all the calories you burn from basal requirements and your activity - your active metabolic rate. <BR/><BR/>At a BMI of 32 to start, even with horrible body fat percentage, we're talking about probably a potential of 33% body fat - or at a start of 204 pounds, 67.3-pounds of fat weight. <BR/><BR/>The maximum loss in the two years was just 7.2% of body fat - nowhere near 65 pounds of body weight, even if you calculated a high loss of lean body mass.<BR/><BR/>The results here remain unimpressive - and disconnected from the calorie theory that holds the deficit should create a parallel loss in weight over time..https://www.blogger.com/profile/09224160356421549054noreply@blogger.com