3 ms·
A -37% change in caloric intake (Fig. 2B) produces only a -4.5% change in body mass (Fig. 3A)? Seems odd no? Or am I mis-reading something?
by plg 7y ago
A -37% change in caloric intake (Fig. 2B) produces only a -4.5% change in body mass (Fig. 3A)? Seems odd no? Or am I mis-reading something?
- rogerkirkness 7y agoMuch calorie intake is just an inefficient attempt to get at micronutrients that we are missing. So less calories could just up/down regulate your metabolism and return things to a normal state assuming those fewer calories are proportionally nutrient dense.
- theothermkn 7y agoThis change was reported over 4 weeks, or 28 days. For a 180lb person consuming, on average, 1900 kCal/day, a 37% drop in calories is a 703 kCal/day deficit below their initial equilibrium. This is 19,700 kCal over four weeks. Divided by 3600 kCal/lb, this is about 5.5 lbs. 4.5% of 180 lbs is 8.2 lbs. So, we're in the ball park. A 3-lb deficit from reduced inflammation (water) seems reasonable. For a higher initial weight, you can get the numbers to agree exactly. I'm 6' and 182 lbs., which is just barely overweight. In the U.S., were I live, I look pretty "fit" by comparison with the average person. (I'm not, but that's another story.) According to [1], Austria, from where the participants were likely sourced, is only slightly leaner than the United States. Therefore, their numbers seem to line up. Westerners are stuffing themselves. [1] https://www.indexmundi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/weight-of-the-world.jpg https://www.indexmundi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/w...
- zapdrive 7y agoYou don't eat 100% equivalent of your body mass everyday. You probably eat 2-3% (just an assumption). So, cutting from 3% to 2% over a course of few months should not drastically lower your body mass.