Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Calorie Deficiency

There is a theory that it is the body saying "find some food.. NOW!!", but you make a good point.
I like that idea. Clear your mind and fucking do something, fuckhead, you're dying here! It chimes with experience. Needing to act now is very good for mental clarity.
 
My maintenance calories are somewhere between 3500 and 4000(your site says 3559 but I reckon my exercise level is the top end of moderate).

So here's a related question:

If I buy a cake for the family and everyone else's maintenance calories are somewhere between 1200 and 1800, how much of the cake should I get? If I don't get larger portions of food than everyone else how am I meant to avoid starvation?
Y'see, this is why we all need to do maths till 18. Rishi Sunak's right.
 
Y'see, this is why we all need to do maths till 18. Rishi Sunak's right.

I think it would be great if maths was really taught properly til that age. There are so many weird, anomalous and surprising truths hidden away in there that most people are put off from pursuing based on the way it is taught.

That’s not what Sunak is aiming for, obv.
 
Maybe he's not in a calorie deficit for his activity level/body composition etc?

Playing with a calculator might help you see how this works.


Those links were really useful, thank you very much. :)

I've just embarked on a health kick and downloaded an NHS weight loss app, which was telling me to eat a minimum of 1,600ish calories a day and that 2,000 should be the regular daily amount. I thought that sounded a bit high. So I checked. When I ran those calculations, it suggested I needed to be eating 1028 calories if I have a sedentary lifestyle and 1234 if I have a moderately active lifestyle. I'm sedentary but starting to become more active. (Vigorously active and 1509 calories a day isn't going to happen.)
I had actually though 1,600 sounded too high and have been eating 1,000-1,300, which is doable. (No booze or crisps etc.)

It's a bit of a faff keeping track of it all though, but it will hopefully be worth it.
 
Oddly that says I should eat just shy of 2,000kcal per day to maintain my weight, but I eat about 2,400 and my weight stays the same. My mam always said I had hollow legs so maybe my metablism just burns more calories than the average. :hmm:
 
Oddly that says I should eat just shy of 2,000kcal per day to maintain my weight, but I eat about 2,400 and my weight stays the same. My mam always said I had hollow legs so maybe my metablism just burns more calories than the average. :hmm:

If you’re happy with your weight and that’s how much you’re happy with eating, then all I can say is keep it up.

When I was in shape and hitting the weights a fair bit I stayed level on 3,000 cals a day. When I was taking mirtazepine* I could gain pounds fast on anything more than 1,600 (with the same
gym regimen). There’s lots of variables involved.

Despite what the thermodynamic fundamentalists say, there’s in my opinion a big effect from what you are eating too. That microbiome is a mysterious beast.

* - anti-depressant, but also a first line treatment for anorexia
 
If you’re happy with your weight and that’s how much you’re happy with eating, then all I can say is keep it up.

When I was in shape and hitting the weights a fair bit I stayed level on 3,000 cals a day. When I was taking mirtazepine* I could gain pounds fast on anything more than 1,600 (with the same
gym regimen). There’s lots of variables involved.

Despite what the thermodynamic fundamentalists say, there’s in my opinion a big effect from what you are eating too. That microbiome is a mysterious beast.

* - anti-depressant, but also a first line treatment for anorexia

That kind of thermodynamic fundamentalism doesn't really represent a scientific position though. Admittedly it reflects the opinion of many people; food labelling designers, health ministers, even GPs, practice nurses etc... But your average endocrinologist isn't going around saying 'oh yeah, we absorb calories from fat, protein and carbs from every food source in exactly the same way, and it's exactly the same in everyone'.
 
I like that idea. Clear your mind and fucking do something, fuckhead, you're dying here! It chimes with experience. Needing to act now is very good for mental clarity.
Or it could be that having consistently high blood sugar and be constantly digesting food causes brain fog, and that having a break from all that and getting a bit hungry is part of our adaptation.
 
That kind of thermodynamic fundamentalism doesn't really represent a scientific position though. Admittedly it reflects the opinion of many people; food labelling designers, health ministers, even GPs, practice nurses etc... But your average endocrinologist isn't going around saying 'oh yeah, we absorb calories from fat, protein and carbs from every food source in exactly the same way, and it's exactly the same in everyone'.

Yeah, I didn’t mean to imply that the thermodynamic fundies represented some kind of scientific consensus. :)
 
Or it could be that having consistently high blood sugar and be constantly digesting food causes brain fog, and that having a break from all that and getting a bit hungry is part of our adaptation.
From a bit of reading round, the problem at root is that we don't know enough. We know that brains need some glucose, and also that the liver can make this if necessary. Problem is that there are so many people pushing a particular agenda. This site is pretty typical. There is some decent info in there, but it ends on a confident note despite not having demonstrated what it claims:

It’s true that the brain can’t run entirely on ketones; it needs some glucose as well. However, your brain isn’t in any danger on a very-low-carb diet or even a diet that’s entirely carb-free. Thanks to gluconeogenesis, your body will reliably produce and provide your brain with all the glucose it needs.
Nothing in what it outlines before this conclusion warrants this level of confidence. 'all the glucose it needs' is a big claim that needs justification. From what I can tell, solid research on this doesn't actually exist. 'You won't die cos your body can make glucose' isn't the same as 'don't worry, your brain will cope just fine'.

ETA: I'm not necessarily knocking it as a way to lose weight and potentially counter type 2 diabetes, but many advocates of keto go a lot further than this and push it as a better way of being, even, as in the above link, dragging in spurious evolutionary stories from 'when we were hunter-gatherers' to back them up. It's true that our evolutionary legacy has left us with flexible dietary requirements - humans can do well on a huge variety of diets, and that's been key to our success in colonising the planet - but this kind of evolutionary just-so story is very wide of the mark. This survival mechanism evolved long before humans appeared, as shown by the animal studies on keto and epilepsy, eg: Animal models of the ketogenic diet: what have we learned, what can we learn? - PubMed
 
Last edited:
The internet seems to favour extreme views. People make arbitrary choices (or sometimes they accidentally make reasonable ones) and then the echo chamber/rabbit hole takes over. Then money making sites step in to provide validation and certainty for whatever choices are made.
 
Back
Top Bottom