<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More Calorie-Counting Nonsense</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/</link>
	<description>Blog site for the comedy-documentary Fat Head</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:00:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-496118</link>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-496118</guid>
		<description>What a bunch of Baloney this article is.Notice how giving 1,000 x-tra calories to somebody who is lean &amp; not accounting for what they do in their own personal life (walking,swimming,squash,jump rope etc) is meaningleess.Its like that person you know who eats all the sweets he wants &amp; says&quot;I never gain weight&quot;but  then bikes 1o miles in the evening.Its funny this person never mentioned in the 60s moms made apple pies &amp; baked goods,we had cokes &amp; French Fries,ate cereal &amp; White Toast but obesity was uncommon. Goofballs like Taubes have us believe these Carbs have only come in recently in the American diet. The truth is kids were more active,adults were involved in more manual labour &amp; sorry but the more active u are the more energy(calories) is used. There were no double bacon cheeseburgers,1,200 calorie shakes or hours to sit &amp; vegetate watching 200 channels,video games &amp; internet.A study showed that low carbers do lose weight faster in the beginning(thanks to muscle &amp; water loss but not much actual fat) but they even out with the low fat dieters in a year.Even Atkins warned about limiting calories on his diet,studies showed Atkins diet worked for some people because in the end they took in less calories there body needed.The amount of calories your body actually needs depends on many factors so talk of I eat this or that alot is meaningless. Your body (genetically programmed from evolutionary beginnings when food went scarce for days) can &amp; will store as fat any carb,protein or fat that is not used up.Its called survival in case of emergency. With food so plentiful now it can work against us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a bunch of Baloney this article is.Notice how giving 1,000 x-tra calories to somebody who is lean &amp; not accounting for what they do in their own personal life (walking,swimming,squash,jump rope etc) is meaningleess.Its like that person you know who eats all the sweets he wants &amp; says&#8221;I never gain weight&#8221;but  then bikes 1o miles in the evening.Its funny this person never mentioned in the 60s moms made apple pies &amp; baked goods,we had cokes &amp; French Fries,ate cereal &amp; White Toast but obesity was uncommon. Goofballs like Taubes have us believe these Carbs have only come in recently in the American diet. The truth is kids were more active,adults were involved in more manual labour &amp; sorry but the more active u are the more energy(calories) is used. There were no double bacon cheeseburgers,1,200 calorie shakes or hours to sit &amp; vegetate watching 200 channels,video games &amp; internet.A study showed that low carbers do lose weight faster in the beginning(thanks to muscle &amp; water loss but not much actual fat) but they even out with the low fat dieters in a year.Even Atkins warned about limiting calories on his diet,studies showed Atkins diet worked for some people because in the end they took in less calories there body needed.The amount of calories your body actually needs depends on many factors so talk of I eat this or that alot is meaningless. Your body (genetically programmed from evolutionary beginnings when food went scarce for days) can &amp; will store as fat any carb,protein or fat that is not used up.Its called survival in case of emergency. With food so plentiful now it can work against us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jessica</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-75595</link>
		<dc:creator>Jessica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-75595</guid>
		<description>Tom:

I have been trying for the past couple of months to lose weight.  I started this journey by counting calories, and did so for about the first six weeks, eating between 1200 and 1500 calories a day. I&#039;ve also been doing a 60 min. cardio workout 4 to 6 times a week. During the first six weeks, I lost 2 pounds per week.  For the past two weeks, I have only watched my carb intake, and not counted calories.  I only eat when I&#039;m hungry, and stop eating when I am no longer hungry.  I&#039;ve also still been doing my cardio workouts, and have lost less than a pound per week. So, it seems that calorie counting works for me, more so than cutting carb intake.  Why do you think that is? I&#039;m asking because I would like to get away from counting anything.

&lt;em&gt;It can become progressively more difficult to lose weight as your body fights to maintain enough fat to remain in homeostatis -- that is, the point at which your fat cells can supply your body with energy between meals.

I don&#039;t know your height and weight, but I&#039;d be concerned about restrictng calories long-term and slowing your metabolism, especially if you were going hungry all the time.  You might want to pick up the latest book on the Atkins diet, which gives detailed advice on moving through the phases of the diet depending on your weight-loss progress.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom:</p>
<p>I have been trying for the past couple of months to lose weight.  I started this journey by counting calories, and did so for about the first six weeks, eating between 1200 and 1500 calories a day. I&#8217;ve also been doing a 60 min. cardio workout 4 to 6 times a week. During the first six weeks, I lost 2 pounds per week.  For the past two weeks, I have only watched my carb intake, and not counted calories.  I only eat when I&#8217;m hungry, and stop eating when I am no longer hungry.  I&#8217;ve also still been doing my cardio workouts, and have lost less than a pound per week. So, it seems that calorie counting works for me, more so than cutting carb intake.  Why do you think that is? I&#8217;m asking because I would like to get away from counting anything.</p>
<p><em>It can become progressively more difficult to lose weight as your body fights to maintain enough fat to remain in homeostatis &#8212; that is, the point at which your fat cells can supply your body with energy between meals.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know your height and weight, but I&#8217;d be concerned about restrictng calories long-term and slowing your metabolism, especially if you were going hungry all the time.  You might want to pick up the latest book on the Atkins diet, which gives detailed advice on moving through the phases of the diet depending on your weight-loss progress.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Felix</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14313</link>
		<dc:creator>Felix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14313</guid>
		<description>The calorie-theory in its simplified form of calories in - calories out is demonstrably wrong. The older people get, the less they eat, but the more they weigh (this is true for ALL mammals!). Ironically, the oh-so-scientific calorie-count - often given in a precision of 0.1 kcalories/100g - is to a high degree nothing but guesswork. Measuring the energy content with a bomb calorimeter usually leaves nothing but vapor and ashes - unlike our body which disposes of a part of the stuff more or less regularly. Now it took the experts some time to come to this obvious observation, so they tried to subtract the difference. However, since up to 1/3 of our stools can consist of dead colon cells and dead digestive bacteria, which have nothing to do with food at all (also: How many calories do the bacteria eat? - Tell me!) and the degree of which fluctuate over time, the calorie content that is disposed is impossible to measure. Plus, nobody wants to burn poo in a bomb calorimeter. So what do they do... they guess. Yup - guess!! Of course they call it &quot;physiological calorific value&quot; which gives it the air of objectivity. On top of that, the caloric value of a food varies. 100g potatoes (or steak) don&#039;t have the same calories as another 100g. What you get is an average value. They made a test with children. They let them eat what they wanted and then 

1) calculated their eaten calories based on calorie tables (2 different ones, which each gave different values, but just take the average...)
2) measured the calories in a laboratory

The calculated value was between 22 and 66% higher than the measured one - the children also didn&#039;t clean their plates 100%, which means the difference was even greater. All in all between 24 and 93% difference between real and calculated.

So the experts know that it&#039;s just that people eat only 100 calories too much per day????!!!! They can&#039;t even measure that! But it sounds scientific - 100 calories - look, it&#039;s a number, it must be science...

If anyone tries to tell me that this is scientific and that denying the calorie theory isn&#039;t, they can burn my poo in a bomb calorimeter.

&lt;em&gt;In which case &quot;bomb calorimeter&quot; might be the appropriate term.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The calorie-theory in its simplified form of calories in &#8211; calories out is demonstrably wrong. The older people get, the less they eat, but the more they weigh (this is true for ALL mammals!). Ironically, the oh-so-scientific calorie-count &#8211; often given in a precision of 0.1 kcalories/100g &#8211; is to a high degree nothing but guesswork. Measuring the energy content with a bomb calorimeter usually leaves nothing but vapor and ashes &#8211; unlike our body which disposes of a part of the stuff more or less regularly. Now it took the experts some time to come to this obvious observation, so they tried to subtract the difference. However, since up to 1/3 of our stools can consist of dead colon cells and dead digestive bacteria, which have nothing to do with food at all (also: How many calories do the bacteria eat? &#8211; Tell me!) and the degree of which fluctuate over time, the calorie content that is disposed is impossible to measure. Plus, nobody wants to burn poo in a bomb calorimeter. So what do they do&#8230; they guess. Yup &#8211; guess!! Of course they call it &#8220;physiological calorific value&#8221; which gives it the air of objectivity. On top of that, the caloric value of a food varies. 100g potatoes (or steak) don&#8217;t have the same calories as another 100g. What you get is an average value. They made a test with children. They let them eat what they wanted and then </p>
<p>1) calculated their eaten calories based on calorie tables (2 different ones, which each gave different values, but just take the average&#8230;)<br />
2) measured the calories in a laboratory</p>
<p>The calculated value was between 22 and 66% higher than the measured one &#8211; the children also didn&#8217;t clean their plates 100%, which means the difference was even greater. All in all between 24 and 93% difference between real and calculated.</p>
<p>So the experts know that it&#8217;s just that people eat only 100 calories too much per day????!!!! They can&#8217;t even measure that! But it sounds scientific &#8211; 100 calories &#8211; look, it&#8217;s a number, it must be science&#8230;</p>
<p>If anyone tries to tell me that this is scientific and that denying the calorie theory isn&#8217;t, they can burn my poo in a bomb calorimeter.</p>
<p><em>In which case &#8220;bomb calorimeter&#8221; might be the appropriate term.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordan</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14304</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14304</guid>
		<description>Shelley, I have to disagree that low carb is necessarily simpler than the alternatives.  Sure, reducing carbs is simple.  So is reducing calories, fat, meat, sugar, processed foods, Neolithic foods, etc.  I&#039;ve been reading a lot of LC and Paleo blogs, and there are discussions of- and plenty of hand-wringing over- all sorts of complicated issues like insulin, leptin, thyroid, etc.  It&#039;s getting pretty complicated.  I&#039;m not disparaging LC per se.  Just saying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shelley, I have to disagree that low carb is necessarily simpler than the alternatives.  Sure, reducing carbs is simple.  So is reducing calories, fat, meat, sugar, processed foods, Neolithic foods, etc.  I&#8217;ve been reading a lot of LC and Paleo blogs, and there are discussions of- and plenty of hand-wringing over- all sorts of complicated issues like insulin, leptin, thyroid, etc.  It&#8217;s getting pretty complicated.  I&#8217;m not disparaging LC per se.  Just saying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wanda</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14296</link>
		<dc:creator>Wanda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14296</guid>
		<description>I absolutely loved the part where the one &quot;expert&quot; claims that if a meal is supposed to be only 500 calories, we should be able to tell-- just by looking-- if there is more calories there, say 20% more, than is supposed to be. The host then totally blows that out of the water, no one (other than &quot;expert nutritionists&quot; ) would be able to do that... I mean, really!

&lt;em&gt;I also found it amusing the restaurants are &quot;getting away&quot; with something by serving bigger portions.  If I order a 12-ounce steak it turns out to be 14 ounces, I don&#039;t feel abused.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I absolutely loved the part where the one &#8220;expert&#8221; claims that if a meal is supposed to be only 500 calories, we should be able to tell&#8211; just by looking&#8211; if there is more calories there, say 20% more, than is supposed to be. The host then totally blows that out of the water, no one (other than &#8220;expert nutritionists&#8221; ) would be able to do that&#8230; I mean, really!</p>
<p><em>I also found it amusing the restaurants are &#8220;getting away&#8221; with something by serving bigger portions.  If I order a 12-ounce steak it turns out to be 14 ounces, I don&#8217;t feel abused.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14292</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14292</guid>
		<description>I try and have this conversation with some really really close friends at work (lady friends who are ALL seriously overweight) They think they are being &quot;good&quot; becasue they eat a lean cuisne or a weight watchers frozen lunch deal...&quot;the calories are exactly the right count Marc, for what I should be eating&quot;
and next comes...&quot;I don&#039;t work out like you, so I can&#039;t eat the way you do&quot; I try and tell them...working out only makes you hungry...eat real food for a while and let me know how you feel. I will stick to my butter and meat, with a little heavy cream sauce.

Love your blog by the way and send people here often to take a look...the ones that want that is ;-)

Marc

&lt;em&gt;I ate those Lean Cuisine meals too.  They&#039;re worthless.  I hope some of your friends see the light.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I try and have this conversation with some really really close friends at work (lady friends who are ALL seriously overweight) They think they are being &#8220;good&#8221; becasue they eat a lean cuisne or a weight watchers frozen lunch deal&#8230;&#8221;the calories are exactly the right count Marc, for what I should be eating&#8221;<br />
and next comes&#8230;&#8221;I don&#8217;t work out like you, so I can&#8217;t eat the way you do&#8221; I try and tell them&#8230;working out only makes you hungry&#8230;eat real food for a while and let me know how you feel. I will stick to my butter and meat, with a little heavy cream sauce.</p>
<p>Love your blog by the way and send people here often to take a look&#8230;the ones that want that is <img src='http://www.fathead-movie.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Marc</p>
<p><em>I ate those Lean Cuisine meals too.  They&#8217;re worthless.  I hope some of your friends see the light.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14260</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14260</guid>
		<description>Tom:

I owe you one...this post and the comments pushed me to explore my view that Nutrition Facts Labels tend to legitimize food products and stimulate cravings for them, which led to a new post of my own.  Thanks for the inspiration.

Cheers!

&lt;em&gt;That&#039;s a good post:

http://seeadamtrain.wordpress.com/

I like the closing point ... we probably shouldn&#039;t be eating food that requires a lengthy explanation on the label.  My breakfast could be reduced to &quot;Eggs, butter.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom:</p>
<p>I owe you one&#8230;this post and the comments pushed me to explore my view that Nutrition Facts Labels tend to legitimize food products and stimulate cravings for them, which led to a new post of my own.  Thanks for the inspiration.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p><em>That&#8217;s a good post:</p>
<p><a href="http://seeadamtrain.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">http://seeadamtrain.wordpress.com/</a></p>
<p>I like the closing point &#8230; we probably shouldn&#8217;t be eating food that requires a lengthy explanation on the label.  My breakfast could be reduced to &#8220;Eggs, butter.&#8221;</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shelley</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14216</link>
		<dc:creator>Shelley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14216</guid>
		<description>So let&#039;s see if I&#039;ve got this right. If only the government took more notice of all the restaurants&#039; and frozen dinner manufacturers&#039; errors in under-calculating the calorie content of their meals, and had &quot;more teeth&quot; to do something about it, then all the stupid fat people who don&#039;t know any better would no longer be fat? 

Good lord, how long will it take for these &#039;health&#039; experts to realise its is THEIR theory that is making people fatter and to stop blaming anything and everything under the sun for why counting calories / cutting fat / eating to many grains is not working. Let&#039;s blame the government. No, no, no, surely it&#039;s fault of those scheming restaurants. No actually, maybe people are just too thick to make good choices. Aaaargh, this drives me nuts! 

I have just finished reading Gary Taubes updated copy of &#039;Good Calories Bad Calories&#039; and in the final chapter he mentions how nobody in the health industry wants a simple answer to the obesity and diabetic problems, as that would imply they were at fault for missing something so obvious. Better that the answer is something ridiculously complicated, because then all the experts can say &quot;well, no wonder it&#039;s taken us so long to get to the bottom of all this...&quot;.

Great post by the way. I loved the &quot;nutrition labels must make people gain weight&quot; comment - can&#039;t believe that correlation was missed by all those experts out there lol!

&lt;em&gt;Occam&#039;s Razor ... sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So let&#8217;s see if I&#8217;ve got this right. If only the government took more notice of all the restaurants&#8217; and frozen dinner manufacturers&#8217; errors in under-calculating the calorie content of their meals, and had &#8220;more teeth&#8221; to do something about it, then all the stupid fat people who don&#8217;t know any better would no longer be fat? </p>
<p>Good lord, how long will it take for these &#8216;health&#8217; experts to realise its is THEIR theory that is making people fatter and to stop blaming anything and everything under the sun for why counting calories / cutting fat / eating to many grains is not working. Let&#8217;s blame the government. No, no, no, surely it&#8217;s fault of those scheming restaurants. No actually, maybe people are just too thick to make good choices. Aaaargh, this drives me nuts! </p>
<p>I have just finished reading Gary Taubes updated copy of &#8216;Good Calories Bad Calories&#8217; and in the final chapter he mentions how nobody in the health industry wants a simple answer to the obesity and diabetic problems, as that would imply they were at fault for missing something so obvious. Better that the answer is something ridiculously complicated, because then all the experts can say &#8220;well, no wonder it&#8217;s taken us so long to get to the bottom of all this&#8230;&#8221;.</p>
<p>Great post by the way. I loved the &#8220;nutrition labels must make people gain weight&#8221; comment &#8211; can&#8217;t believe that correlation was missed by all those experts out there lol!</p>
<p><em>Occam&#8217;s Razor &#8230; sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacs</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14211</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14211</guid>
		<description>Indeed, but what had me shouting at the TV set was the fact that they could demonstrate that these thin people managed to regulate their weight after overfeeding without any effort, but they never took the argument any further to question the dogma that &quot;fat people&quot; only get fat by being greedy and lazy...

&lt;em&gt;Well, they&#039;d be out of work if they admitted that.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, but what had me shouting at the TV set was the fact that they could demonstrate that these thin people managed to regulate their weight after overfeeding without any effort, but they never took the argument any further to question the dogma that &#8220;fat people&#8221; only get fat by being greedy and lazy&#8230;</p>
<p><em>Well, they&#8217;d be out of work if they admitted that.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacs</title>
		<link>http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/19/more-calorie-counting-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-14203</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:17:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fathead-movie.com/?p=1301#comment-14203</guid>
		<description>The BBC (Horizon) tried the same sort of experiment on 10 naturally thin people last January (&quot;Why are thin people not fat?&quot;)  

They asked them to eat twice as many calories as they needed to maintain their weight, over a four week period.  Most of them managed to do this, but the differences in weight gain (as a percentage of starting weight) was significant.  

Two of the ten were physically incapable of doubling their calorie intake for the whole of the four weeks; two responded by increasing how much fidgeting they did.  One man gained quite a lot of weight but it turned out that most of the gain was in muscle weight (even though he had not increased the amount of exercise he did - in fact, they worked out that he had increased his basal metabolic rate by 30% over the over-feeding period).

Interestingly, once the experiment was over, almost all of the ten pariticipants lost the weight they had gained.... within two weeks.  Even the winner, who had gained almost 10% of his starting weight (6.5 kilos).

&lt;em&gt;Wish I had one of those metabolisms.  My wife is pretty much the same.  Only time she ever gained weight was during her two years in the Peace Corps, living almost exclusively on grains in a poor African village.  As soon as she returned stateside and ate a balanced diet, the weight came off.  And of course, she&#039;s never counted calories.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The BBC (Horizon) tried the same sort of experiment on 10 naturally thin people last January (&#8220;Why are thin people not fat?&#8221;)  </p>
<p>They asked them to eat twice as many calories as they needed to maintain their weight, over a four week period.  Most of them managed to do this, but the differences in weight gain (as a percentage of starting weight) was significant.  </p>
<p>Two of the ten were physically incapable of doubling their calorie intake for the whole of the four weeks; two responded by increasing how much fidgeting they did.  One man gained quite a lot of weight but it turned out that most of the gain was in muscle weight (even though he had not increased the amount of exercise he did &#8211; in fact, they worked out that he had increased his basal metabolic rate by 30% over the over-feeding period).</p>
<p>Interestingly, once the experiment was over, almost all of the ten pariticipants lost the weight they had gained&#8230;. within two weeks.  Even the winner, who had gained almost 10% of his starting weight (6.5 kilos).</p>
<p><em>Wish I had one of those metabolisms.  My wife is pretty much the same.  Only time she ever gained weight was during her two years in the Peace Corps, living almost exclusively on grains in a poor African village.  As soon as she returned stateside and ate a balanced diet, the weight came off.  And of course, she&#8217;s never counted calories.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

