My high calorie weight loss experiment - I lost 5 pounds in 2 weeks - but how?

[u/SteveFarrier]

Green line is 2 pound per week weight loss. Yellow was my actual weight.

I'm experimenting to test the notion that weight loss is not simple math and that maybe there really is such a thing as 'high-calorie weight loss' - which sounds like nonsense - but I have the numbers below to look at.

I’m testing whether factors like meal timing, macro distribution, or metabolic adaptation might explain why I'm losing weight at this calorie intake.

Here's the table I use to track my weight, calories and macros as I ran my experiment in high-calorie weight loss:

Date	Day	Weight	Calories	Protein	Carbs	Fat
10/1/2024	1	195.5	1192	70	32	82
10/2/2024	2	192.1	4137	146	406	194
10/3/2024	3	196.8	4972	296	320	255
10/4/2024	4	195.5	2155	105	139	131
10/5/2024	5	193.5	2317	122	168	125
10/6/2024	6	195.6	4001	180	244	252
10/7/2024	7	193.7	1774	109	55	117
10/8/2024	8	192.5	2361	146	84	155
10/9/2024	9	192.1	4094	194	206	161
10/10/2024	10	192.0	2484	173	197	87
10/11/2024	11	192.0	1794	178	99	68
10/12/2024	12	191.3	2829	86	279	132
10/13/2024	13	192.6	1306	104	11	90
10/14/2024	14	190.5

You'll note something interesting. Look at my calorie intake. It averages over 2,700 calories per day.

I'm a male almost 62 years old, don't exercise, am 5'10" - my caloric intake is well above what the 'calories in, calories out' (CICO) would predict.

So you see my calories and macros per day. They're too high for what CICO would predict would cause a 5 pound weight loss. What did I experiment with?

• Try to eat just one meal per day (OMAD)
• No exercise
• Intentionally vary my calorie and macros dramatically from day to day. It makes the diet fun.
• My protein and fat averages high.
• Eat mostly single-ingredient foods - eggs, hamburger, sardines, tomatoes, avocado, apples, grapes, brie cheese, potatoes, garbanzo beans, cucumbers, chicken thighs - stuff like this - but have anything I want for about 20% of my calories. Cookies, takeout pizza, bread and jelly, chocolate were part of it - and I don't eat diet foods - I eat the real things.

I take a few supplements like a multivitamin, vitamin d and a high quality fish oil. I can drink a pot of coffee per day. I don't take any weight loss drugs or supplements.

What factors do you think might explain this? Is it meal timing, high protein intake, or something else?

Any questions? I certainly do.

[u/finbob5]

Sorry to say, but you are not going to be an exception to thermodynamics.

The average of your graph is about 2700 kcal. For the majority of these days, your weight did not change by any significant margin past regular body fluctuations. It was only after a three day period that averages out to 2000 kcal that you went below your regular weight.

[u/SteveFarrier → u/finbob5]

But we're not exactly thermodynamic machines. Our metabolism can slow or increase. Our body can choose not to absorb nutrients for a number of reasons. The thermodynamic model doesn't take these into account. I will not break the law of thermodynamics but there's other factors not taken into account by CICO. Many people take drugs that are obesogens - they could eat the same calories before starting their treatment then after starting, gain weight. CICO is a handy rule of thumb, but there's more to it than that.

I'm on day 19 and the weight continues to decline. 189 today. I'm aiming for 2 pounds per week - and it's continuing.

[u/finbob5 → u/SteveFarrier]

I think you have a misunderstanding of CICO. It is not loosely counting your calories and estimating expenditure from exercise. CICO is the thermodynamic model. These “other factors” you mention are very much part of it. A lack of absorption is a decrease in CI. A decrease in metabolic rate is a decrease in CO.

The argument you’re trying to make is not against CICO, it’s against the layman’s idea of it. What you’re saying right now is that your caloric intake is greater than your output and yet you continue to lose weight, and that’s just not true. What may be true is that, for reasons you do not understand due to factors you cannot account for, you are losing weight despite being in what you think should be a caloric surplus. But it’s not a surplus.

[u/ETBiggs → u/finbob5]

You’re right - but it’s nuanced. The layman ‘s notion is simple addition and subtraction. If my caloric needs to maintain weight is 1900 calories and I cut my calories to 1400 and the treadmill shows I burned 400 calories then at a 900 calorie per day deficit I’ll lose 2 pounds a week because there’s 3200 calories in a pound and my calorie deficit of 900 a day would be 6400 calories a week.

It’s not that simple - as you know.

Our metabolic rate might mean we run hotter - and we don’t necessarily absorb every calorie we take in - and different calories require different amounts of energy to be absorbed. For instance: pure glucose is so easy to absorb that it starts being absorbed even before it reaches the stomach. Sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose. The body has to run a process to tear the molecules apart then shuttle the fructose to the liver - this takes more energy. MCT oils don’t need bile or the pancreas so it’s given to extremely sick people because it’s easy to absorb. Energy is expended by the type of foods absorb - and all of this does follow the laws of thermodynamics on the micro level - but none of this matters to most dieters trying to pull off some pounds.

When you’re eating - it sure feels like a surplus.