Interesting Diet (Read 1257 times)

Great job on diluting the Asian gene pool. Ah, you all are into stuff white people like (#11 asian girls). In high school and part of college, I liked Asian girls. Why? Before that, it was Hispanics and sometime before that it was Whites. Not sure what I am into now.

Oh, and this: eat food, not too much, mostly plants

http://mattfitzgerald.org/blog/?p=6 Yesterday I had my body fat rechecked. I weighed 170 but body fat decresed to 7.2%. I gained weight eating 2500 calories a day and running 50+ miles a week. On top of that my diet is squeeky clean. My metabolism has to be on autopilot right now.

Whaaahhhhh, cried the jealous woman huffing along in her skort.

Based on what? Most 167 lb muscular adults maintaining weight with a sedentary lifestyle need only 1200-1500. Add to that calories for effort, say ~125 per mile run, averaged over the week.

I get the 2000 per day from about every BMR calculation formula I can find. According to the Harris Benedict equation, I come up with 2107. Using the one Jeff posted, it comes up with almost 2200. I was using 2000 just to be conservative. I will agree with approximately 125 calories per mile. If I run 70 miles a week that's 8750 calories or 1250 per day. If you add that amount to either number it still amazes me that I actually gained weight. I am not complaining mind you. I just find it odd. The only answer in my mind is that I am getting good 'mileage' out of the energy I take in. Sort of like a car that gets better gas mileage. Maybe I am a human Prius. My point was that the calculators or equations that are typcially used are not accurate for me currently. And as I saw the scale slowly going up over the last two months, I assumed somehow I was gaining fat. When that turned out not to be the case I was pretty astounded.

Agreed. I am not sure why most scales online predict a caloric need of ~2100 for you, and they may be using old governmental estimates of caloric need, but biologically and as can be confirmed through metabolic testing, most lean adults need far less than that. I could scream conspiracy theory about why we see estimates >2000, theories having to do with pushing subsidized calories, but I won't. Suffice it to say that 2000 is to many for base.

Hmm...is the likely suspect the food industry in general? As we know on almost all packaged food the nutrition content is weighed against a 2000 and 2500 calorie diet as listed on the packaging. We, or at least I, know that the 'standard' calcuations or equations are not applicable to me, but I can't be the only one. I think there is a strong genetic factor at play. Case in point, my wife is 5'3". She typically eats more total calories than I do, is less active, and her weight never budges more than 2 or 3 pounds depeding on the time of the month. And it pisses me off. But, she eats very healthy and has a "everything in moderation" attitude. You would love her Trent. She eats lots of plants and organic ones at that. I read every damn label before I eat it and she reads none, except to see what ingredients are in it. She rarely looks at total calories, etc. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

But you only need 1500. Try it for a few weeks and see what happens. Make sure to add cals for your miles tho -

I bet you I am pretty close to that right now. I just looked and my average calorie intake over the last month has actually been 2400. Not counting this week, over the last month I have averaged 65 miles per week. Using 125 cals per mile that calculates daily to 1160 per day. Add that to 1500 and I come up with 2660. Given the fact that I have eaten less than that and gained a little weight I can only conclude that my daily requirement with no running is probably closer to 1200. Damn, that goes against pretty much everything out there right now. Most dieticians don't recommend healthy men going under 1800 per day with no activity. Someone is lying, misinformed, or totally full of b.s.

Trent, As a person gets accustomed to running (running easier at the same pace) wouldn't their caloric deficit decrease as well? For example, if one assumes 125 kcal/mile at 9 m/m pace when starting out as a new runner, would the 125 kcal/mile at 9 m/m still be true if the person had now been running for a year or more? Does that make sense?

Thanks for the reply. So to make sure I understand, yes the number of cals burned would decrease, but not significantly. Correct?