It's a New Phil, Week 7

By | February 18, 2006
6 Comments

Sooner or later, we’re going to have to face this head-on. I might as well deal with it now. It’s a little something I Like to call:

The Calorie Paradox

And it goes like this. As I noted last week, during the month of January I experienced a total weight loss of 19 pounds. My average daily consumption of calories was 1613, giving me a daily average calorie burn rate of 3829, which I pointed out is probably skewed high due to intial water loss. So here I am more than halfway through my second month, and on my doctor’s recommendation I have upped my calorie intake somewhat. My current average intake is 2019 calories per day.

But here’s where it gets weird. So far this month I have lost 9 pounds — bringing my cumulative weight loss to a whopping 28 pounds!! — meaning that long after I should have passed the initial water weight loss, I’m still showing a daily burn rate of 3769 calories per day. I still can’t help but think this is skewed high, and I’m looking for a somehwat lower rate next month or even by the end of this month.

But hey, I’ll take burning more than a pound of fat per day for as long as I can.

My estimated BMR — basal metabolic rate, what I would expect to burn off if I just lie in bed all day — is about 2300 calories. At that rate, and at the rate I’m consuming calories, I should lose roughly 0.6 pounds per week. Right now, my average weight loss per week is an even four pounds.

Obviously, between getting out of bed in the morning, going to work, doing regular workouts on my treadmill, chasing the dogs around the back yard, etc., I should expect that 0.6 pounds per week to be more like 1.2 or even 1.8 pounds per week — especially since, as Kathy pointed out, the BMR might not do a good job of taking muscle mass or activity level into account. But four pounds per week?

Anyhow, the paradox is that I’ve upped my calories, but the pounds keep dropping. Color me pleased.

  • Jim Strickland

    Several things. First, you are probably eating better. Remember that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie only in a lab calorimeter. Last I checked, no process in the (normally functioning) human body involves combustion. :) This especially applies to food with fiber, which you can’t digest, but which counts in overall calories.

    Second, when you reduce your caloric intake, you risk having your body go into fuel saving mode, where your metabolic rate throttles back to conserve energy and fat for really hard times to come. By increasing your caloric intake a bit, you’ve probably nudged your metabolic rate up a little.

    -Jim

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    Ditto what Jim said. You aren’t burning food in your body. Just take complex carbohydrates v. sugar. Generally, it takes more energy to process food that is better for you than simple sugars.

    Pounds lost, whether fat or water, makes a big difference to your health. Excess water might even be more dangerous than excess fat. So, you get full credit for 28 pounds. :-)

  • http://www.kirigin.com ivankirigin

    I’m sure you’re also exercising more.

    It increasing your muscle mass, which takes more energy to sustain. Constant caloric intake lower than BMR+Change while increasing muscle mass will lead to burning fat. I’m not sure how this evens out because muscle weighs 3 times as much as fat.

    Also, exercise increases your metabolism for a short while after – between 20 min. to 4 hours, I’ve heard.

    Either way, you’re doing really well!

  • http://beyondwordsworth.com Kathy

    Has anyone figured how many calories you burn just being a Speculist? Hey, it takes a lot of fuel to keep that brain fired up! I am very serious about this. I think that the joke about mental gymnastics deserves some credibility.

  • Jim Strickland

    I think Kathy was kidding, but I heard someplace that your brain eats up about 25% of your metabolic output. (Does anyone have any actual figures for this? I’m pretty sure mine came from a Discovery Channel program on separating conjoined twins.) So theoretically a well exercised brain should consume more energy than a sleeping one. Now, whether reading The Speculist consumes more energy than, say, watching football on TV is a matter for the neurologists in the readership to enlighten us on.

    I read another interesting tidbit that when you are “thinking creatively” – writing, in the case of this particular example – most of your brain’s activity drops off, and you only get little bright spots in your cerebrum, your speech center, and various parts of your memory system. This reminded me of something I believe Picasso said: when he went to paint, he sat in his studio facing the canvas with a pencil between his thumb and finger and closed his eyes and let his mind drift. When he relaxed enough and moved close enough to sleep that the pencil fell out of his hand onto the floor, he was ready to paint.

    The implication here is that “thinking creatively” shuts down most of the brain into a near sleep state, and, one imagines, cuts its energy consumption. One wonders if there’s not a connection between diet – the sudden explosion of carb-heavy diets and their side effects – and the exponential growth of mental stimulation from media, internet, etc.

    So maybe watching football would consume more energy after all. :)

    Jim

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Jim –

    I read that same estimate of the brain’s overall share of the metabolic pie in On Intelligence. Very interesting about how parts of the brain shut down during creative activities — never heard that before.

    Of course, even if your brain does burn more calories when watching football, the beer and Doritos make it kind of a wash. ;-)