8

votes

I Think I'm Ready to Test "Calorie in/Calorie out"

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created January 24, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I just drank a pint of heavy whipping cream and will continue to do so every day this week and report back with my results. Apparently a pint has 1600 calories in it. For that many calories, I expected it to be a lot thicker. I'm sure it will decrease my appetite, but I doubt that it could displace all that much in the way of solid food. To be scientific, I suppose I should drink it with a meal and eat about the same amount. I'll keep you guys updated with the results.

To make this actually a question...has anyone ever tried this?

Edit: Well, I really wanted to give this experiment a try, but I noticed immediately after downing the pint that I had the kind of mouth tingle I get from eating nuts or something else I'm allergic to and a few hours later I had some bad stomach pains, so I think I must have some kind of milk allergy. I eat tons of butter, but this is different somehow. I would have expected fewer milk proteins. To be fair, I usually cook with the butter (although cooking with coconut oil doesn't denature those proteins). So yeah, consider yourselves lucky if you can eat all of this fat and not have a bad reaction. I'm really hoping that in time these allergies will fade and I can give this another try. In the mean time, I'm thinking about cramming even more butter and lamb fat into my diet to see if I can still test this without that whole anaphylaxis thing. The pasture butter I buy is about two sticks and weighs in at 1600 calories or so as well, so I think it should work the same.

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c

(1981)

on January 12, 2013
at 08:20 PM

Ketones that aren't used up are excreted, as they can't be converted back into fat. And yes, according to my blood-ketones meter, I was in ketosis while eating 3000+ calories per day at about 80% fat.

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on October 24, 2011
at 04:07 PM

I never read Good Calories/Bad Calories, but in Why We Get Fat his message was severely muddled. The first time I read it I definitely got the impression that he was saying calories in//calories out was not true in the early chapters. Then later on he says "Obviously if you're gaining weight you're eating more calories than you're burning." It took me several rereads to understand what he was actually saying. As pfw says, Taubes has only himself to blame for releasing a book that has confused so many people as to his true message.

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on October 24, 2011
at 04:05 PM

I never read Good Calories/Bad Calories, but in Why We Get Fat his message was severely muddled. The first time I read it I definitely got the impression that he was saying calories in//calories out was not true in the early chapters. Then later on he says "Obviously if you're gaining weight you're eating more calories than you're burning." It took me several rereads to understand what he was actually saying. As pfw says, the book itself badly muddles its message.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on August 15, 2011
at 03:11 AM

We have similar allergies

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 07, 2011
at 03:25 PM

I started losing weight when I was obese by avoiding high GI carbs (mainly processed sugars and starches). I didn't feel hungry while losing the first 25 pounds, but the more I lost the hungrier I got. As I ate more I had to become a lot more active to continue losing weight.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 07, 2011
at 12:10 PM

The restaurant in/out idea may be trivial but it's the idea that launched 1000 diet books. In the exact same trivial sense, starvation causes weight loss. The diet books do their best to disguise the simple mechanism.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:06 AM

The message I got out of Taubes re calories was that CI=CO was simplistic. At least, that's the simplistic summary.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on May 28, 2011
at 03:04 PM

I like this. Love the restaurant analogy.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on May 28, 2011
at 08:37 AM

Heavy cream stimulates growth hormone ?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 28, 2011
at 06:11 AM

Oh, wrong post, I meant to say that to Travis. I also just realized that this is old and somebody bumped it. Carry on :P

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 28, 2011
at 06:09 AM

And what do you plan to do with yourself while you do this? Not sit in a chair I hope. Sitting profoundly inhibits lipolysis, like big-time. If you drink cream until your puke threshold but sit around I, one who believes that the body acts to dispose of all superfluous energy when conditions are right, would not be surprised if you gained weight. The thing is that you have to get up and give your body a chance to burn the energy. Leptin "authorizes" burning, it doesn't mean that it absolutely will be burned, you need the context in which it can be. High energy at a standing job vs. sluggish

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0

(285)

on March 20, 2011
at 04:23 PM

That was overdoing. I could have done just as good on 6000 without the discomfort.

34d0dfe6cb1a477bd2b5f984c2af29a9

(493)

on March 19, 2011
at 11:17 PM

She's not talking about lessees?

0adda19045a3641edac0008364b91110

(1146)

on March 19, 2011
at 10:02 PM

Protein in high doses could be toxic.

0adda19045a3641edac0008364b91110

(1146)

on March 19, 2011
at 09:58 PM

wow amazing...8000 calories is epic.

0adda19045a3641edac0008364b91110

(1146)

on March 19, 2011
at 09:56 PM

@ pfw I think Travis is allergic to coconut

C2502365891cbcc8af2d1cf1d7b0e9fc

(2437)

on January 26, 2011
at 01:21 AM

The correct term is tenet

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 06:46 PM

I wonder about that as well. Like, if you're eating massive amounts of a ketogenic fat like coconut oil, won't there be so many ketones that you can't use them all up? Do they they get stored as fat?

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:20 PM

I don't know and it's frustrating as hell. But most of the Taubes debate on the internet is about energy balance, and here we have a paleohacker testing it and tagging it with Taubes. It's hard to argue with the evidence: however it happened, Taubes is now associated with calorie denial.

154d799847153f5589f99496a9bdbb71

(992)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:17 PM

Ugh... Taubes never said calories in = calories out was wrong. He just said it was useless as tool for fat loss. He repeatedly said CI=CO was just a restating of thermodynamics, a tautology, obvious, redundant. Where do people keep getting this from?

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:52 PM

Just noticed your edit. Try drinking coconut milk instead. It contains a similarly trivial amount of carb/protein if you get the unsweetened kind. If you want to be really hardcore, get some coconut oil and eat/drink 1600kcal worth a day.

691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:52 PM

good to know, i guess if someone did this test they could get a blood sugar reader to check numbers.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:49 PM

A cup of heavy cream will contain about 8 grams of lactose (carbs), and 5g protein. The rest is fat. Saying that this will spike insulin demands significant proof. Any real food you eat will cause an increase in insulin, but heavy cream won't demand much at all.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:45 PM

A pint of heavy cream contains such a trivial amount of lactose and protein that calling it anything other than fat is extremely misleading. You could do the same thing with coconut oil and get the same result.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:33 PM

I think running the experiment with dairy would be flawed even if you didn't have an overt reaction. I hope you figure out a way to do it, though.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:20 PM

It's good to have done such an experiment, but this particular experiment conflates fat with dairy.

691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on January 25, 2011
at 02:43 PM

since heavy cream is from milk does it spike the insulin at all? if not good, because i think in order to test the calorie thing we need to make sure we are getting around that fat storing process. i know for a fact 1600 calories of beer a day is going to give me a beer belly haha.

50637dfd7dc7a7e811d82283f4f5fd10

(5838)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:50 AM

Awesome... looking forward to the results.

7767e05a8c4504f6be03f13ee40815cd

(1299)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:14 AM

I think it'll just try to stop adipose increases by telling your brain that you're full. IIRC there was some implication that the body could waste some excess fat, but by far the largest emphasis was that once insulin and other hormones are under control, you feel full at the right time.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:57 AM

I don't recall talking about gaining weight post illness, but you might have picked up the general vibe that I have Crohn's and thus have always been underweight, so gaining weight was a novelty for me.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:34 AM

Your points are well taken, and I must say that downing the whole pint has completely nuked my hunger and made it impossible to finish my lunch. It would normally take a lot to deter me from my lamb. Going forward, I'm definitely going to need to split it up or I won't be able to do it. The Jaminets got me thinking that I probably need to up fat and lower protein, so I'm trying to experiment with ways to do it. My big problem is that I'm allergic to tree nuts, including coconuts. Butter is OK, so cream should be too.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:30 AM

Yeah, I'm only increasing fat calories, not everything else. I eat about 100g of carbs on most days, so I will continue to do so.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:29 AM

I think he makes some good points, but I agree that his wording was a mess. Now, I don't know if this is a false memory or not, but I thought I read something at one point written by you on another board where you were talking about gaining weight following some kind of illness or something. Maybe paleonu? In any case, I tend to agree with Taubes that our digestive tract isn't a bomb calorimeter, but his implication that no number of fat calories will make you fat seems suspect. It would make sense that sending a signal to your body that dietary fat is infinite might stop adipose increases.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:25 AM

Well, I pretty much eat the same thing every day and never count calories and always maintain my weight, so the idea was to pad my daily intake with 1600 calories of fat and leave everything else alone and see if fat calories are fattening. I need to add fat in general just to make my diet more anabolic, but I'd like to see if this technique used by the old time bodybuilders just makes you fat or if you can only really add substantial amounts of fat via carbs.

5c14d1ca9a7f98d0be7c5a828410d146

(307)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:09 AM

On second thought, your whole answer does that. Thanks!

5c14d1ca9a7f98d0be7c5a828410d146

(307)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:53 PM

Your third paragraph sums up so much more eloquently what I was trying to say!

50637dfd7dc7a7e811d82283f4f5fd10

(5838)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Do you have a target # of calories per day? What is the experiment going to show? Im guessing you're going to see if you still lose weight? or maintain?

  • Size75 avatar

    asked by

    (39831)
  • Views
    5.9K
  • Last Activity
    1282D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

14 Answers

22
4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:28 PM

Yeah, I did this once. A lot of people have done this in various forms.

I gained about 20 pounds or so over the course of two months of dedicated overeating (zero carb over-eating, so I pounded hamburgers and heavy cream). You will have to keep track of and maintain your intake or you will start compensating for the massive dose of extra calories by eating less without realizing it. Overeating a zero carb diet is very hard, and depending on where your carb levels are you might run into the same problem. Just a heads up. Spreadsheets are helpful for that.

Calories in == calories out is an axiom of thermodynamics. The fact that Taubes managed to mangle his own message so badly as to convince people that it was incorrect or questionable is a damned shame. If you deliberately overwhelm your body's homeostatic mechanisms with conscious overeating, you'll start storing fat. Unless you have a serious metabolic problem, this is just a reality of human physiology.

The beauty of a good diet is that it allows your normal regulatory systems to do their job, and then you don't have to do their job for them. If you eat a good diet, you don't have to count calories because your body does it for you, and does it better than you could consciously because it has a better idea (and control) of your passive calories out than you do. I wish that Taube's main message was that by avoiding terrible foods, we can allow our endocrine systems to function properly and maintain health without our conscious intervention beyond the initial food screening, but I guess I should resign myself to the fact that his main message has become (fairly or not) "calories in == calories out is wrong!". Ah well.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:20 PM

I don't know and it's frustrating as hell. But most of the Taubes debate on the internet is about energy balance, and here we have a paleohacker testing it and tagging it with Taubes. It's hard to argue with the evidence: however it happened, Taubes is now associated with calorie denial.

5c14d1ca9a7f98d0be7c5a828410d146

(307)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:53 PM

Your third paragraph sums up so much more eloquently what I was trying to say!

7767e05a8c4504f6be03f13ee40815cd

(1299)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:14 AM

I think it'll just try to stop adipose increases by telling your brain that you're full. IIRC there was some implication that the body could waste some excess fat, but by far the largest emphasis was that once insulin and other hormones are under control, you feel full at the right time.

5c14d1ca9a7f98d0be7c5a828410d146

(307)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:09 AM

On second thought, your whole answer does that. Thanks!

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:45 PM

A pint of heavy cream contains such a trivial amount of lactose and protein that calling it anything other than fat is extremely misleading. You could do the same thing with coconut oil and get the same result.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:57 AM

I don't recall talking about gaining weight post illness, but you might have picked up the general vibe that I have Crohn's and thus have always been underweight, so gaining weight was a novelty for me.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on January 25, 2011
at 03:20 PM

It's good to have done such an experiment, but this particular experiment conflates fat with dairy.

154d799847153f5589f99496a9bdbb71

(992)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:17 PM

Ugh... Taubes never said calories in = calories out was wrong. He just said it was useless as tool for fat loss. He repeatedly said CI=CO was just a restating of thermodynamics, a tautology, obvious, redundant. Where do people keep getting this from?

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:29 AM

I think he makes some good points, but I agree that his wording was a mess. Now, I don't know if this is a false memory or not, but I thought I read something at one point written by you on another board where you were talking about gaining weight following some kind of illness or something. Maybe paleonu? In any case, I tend to agree with Taubes that our digestive tract isn't a bomb calorimeter, but his implication that no number of fat calories will make you fat seems suspect. It would make sense that sending a signal to your body that dietary fat is infinite might stop adipose increases.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 28, 2011
at 06:11 AM

Oh, wrong post, I meant to say that to Travis. I also just realized that this is old and somebody bumped it. Carry on :P

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on May 28, 2011
at 06:09 AM

And what do you plan to do with yourself while you do this? Not sit in a chair I hope. Sitting profoundly inhibits lipolysis, like big-time. If you drink cream until your puke threshold but sit around I, one who believes that the body acts to dispose of all superfluous energy when conditions are right, would not be surprised if you gained weight. The thing is that you have to get up and give your body a chance to burn the energy. Leptin "authorizes" burning, it doesn't mean that it absolutely will be burned, you need the context in which it can be. High energy at a standing job vs. sluggish

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on August 07, 2011
at 10:06 AM

The message I got out of Taubes re calories was that CI=CO was simplistic. At least, that's the simplistic summary.

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on October 24, 2011
at 04:07 PM

I never read Good Calories/Bad Calories, but in Why We Get Fat his message was severely muddled. The first time I read it I definitely got the impression that he was saying calories in//calories out was not true in the early chapters. Then later on he says "Obviously if you're gaining weight you're eating more calories than you're burning." It took me several rereads to understand what he was actually saying. As pfw says, Taubes has only himself to blame for releasing a book that has confused so many people as to his true message.

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on October 24, 2011
at 04:05 PM

I never read Good Calories/Bad Calories, but in Why We Get Fat his message was severely muddled. The first time I read it I definitely got the impression that he was saying calories in//calories out was not true in the early chapters. Then later on he says "Obviously if you're gaining weight you're eating more calories than you're burning." It took me several rereads to understand what he was actually saying. As pfw says, the book itself badly muddles its message.

6
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 25, 2011
at 04:05 AM

It is not a paleo tenant that calories don't count at all. It is only a paleo tenant that caloric intake is not the only part of the story and should not be considered in isolation of other issues like fat deposition vs muscle gain, activity and energy level, and effects of types of food on appetite regulation. It is the paleo contention caloric intake is usually more of a symptom of appetite and the way to control weight is to look at what influences appetite. Looking at caloric intake is a mistake as the typical driver of caloric intake is appetite. However, if you deliberately attempt to fight your body's natural appetite and caloric intake balance by stuffing down excessive calories that you do not actually want to eat, yup, you will probably get fat and become less healthy, unless your body manages to beat your willpower by sucking away your desire to eat other foods, something which it is already trying very hard to do by the sound of it. Plus you will not really have proved anything to the paleo crowd either way.

C2502365891cbcc8af2d1cf1d7b0e9fc

(2437)

on January 26, 2011
at 01:21 AM

The correct term is tenet

34d0dfe6cb1a477bd2b5f984c2af29a9

(493)

on March 19, 2011
at 11:17 PM

She's not talking about lessees?

4
77ecc37f89dbe8f783179323916bd8e6

(5002)

on May 28, 2011
at 05:29 AM

Taubes never argued that one would not gain weight by eating more calories than one expends. Rather, he argued that CICO is a trivial truth with little explanatory power. Despite this, researchers were using it as a hypothesis. Despite the necessary truth of CICO - which Taubes recognizes - it is neither insightful for persons looking to lose weight nor for researchers trying to understand why people are getting fatter.

For example, if we wanted explain why a restaurant was so busy, we wouldn't hypothesize that more people are walking in than exiting; this is a trivial truth about busy restaurants that doesn't do any explanatory work.

Taubes alternative, which we can call the GCBC hypothesis, says that some calories (carbs) are more likely to contribute to the growth of adipose tissue (fat), spiking insulin and emptying the bloodstream of nutrients, resulting in more hunger (more CI) - to replace those lost nutrients - or less energy (less CO) - because the energy is converted to fat rather than burned as energy.

So, if you eat 1600 more calories a day, then yes, you will gain weight, assuming that nothing else changes (such as larger expenditure of energy). In both underfeeding and overfeeding studies, however, Ss report finding the experience unpleasant, and after the experiment their weights quickly restore to, or close to, their previous levels.

This suggests that you will probably experience your body fighting back during the experiment. This might be a valuable self-experiment, but it won't really be a test of CICO. Everybody agrees that CICO is true in the trivial sense, and some of us - especially those in the LC and paleo communities - believe that it is false in the senses that matter, i.e., vis-a-vis our understanding of weight gain, fat accumulation and burning, hunger regulation, and bodyweight setpoint manipulation.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on May 28, 2011
at 03:04 PM

I like this. Love the restaurant analogy.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 07, 2011
at 12:10 PM

The restaurant in/out idea may be trivial but it's the idea that launched 1000 diet books. In the exact same trivial sense, starvation causes weight loss. The diet books do their best to disguise the simple mechanism.

3
5c14d1ca9a7f98d0be7c5a828410d146

(307)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:48 PM

I have never tried this and I'm going to be very curious to see what your results are. I've always assumed that the reason why ci/co is considered a fallacy is that it's more just an incomplete concept rather than being wrong in and of itself. Taubes talks a little bit about this before he turns the conventional wisdom of "you get fat because you eat too much" on its head: "you eat too much (or just "more") because you're getting fat". It's the explaining why we actually do get fat that sort of makes the ci/co argument moot, if not entirely false. You can't lean out and cure metabolic derangement by simply cutting your calories. There's a lot more to the equation than that. Which is, in my opinion, the major point of his book.

Here's what I do know: cream is the most calorically dense part of a fluid that is designed to grow baby cows into ginormous adults cows. I suspect that if you drink that much cream - and keep with the rest of your normal diet - every day for a week you're going to gain some weight. That's my bet, and I'm sticking to it. :P And if you do gain weight, what does that prove? It could be argued that, well, you increased your calories so you gained weight, so ci/co must be true. Is it? Is thermodynamics all there is to our weight balance?

My experience tells me that an important aspect of eating paleo or primal, in addition to the eschewing the grains, sugars, dairy, etc. is that you learn to tune into your body's elegant feedback signal (no pun intended) called "hunger" that tells us when and how much to eat. Meals without Math! Beautiful. So we learn to eat what we want to eat. Period. No more, and no less. Some days we're hungrier, some days not to much. Miss a meal? No problem. Body's going to start cranking on the stored fat for energy. And the beauty of not being on the insulin roller coaster is we get to delay mealtime without too much stress or annoyance.

I only bring this up because it seems to me that this kind of test will require you to ignore that and chow down on probably a lot more food than your body really wants. Am I offbase with that assumption? I will guess that you are going to end up a little nauseous from your cream binge. (Now that I'm thinking about it though, if you have to binge, might as well be cream!)

I'll be really interested to see what happens. I don't think if you gain weight that it will disprove how inadequate ci/co really is for addressing obesity. Just my opinion. But I'm telling you one thing, if you lose weight on this? I'm drinking more frickin cream!

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:34 AM

Your points are well taken, and I must say that downing the whole pint has completely nuked my hunger and made it impossible to finish my lunch. It would normally take a lot to deter me from my lamb. Going forward, I'm definitely going to need to split it up or I won't be able to do it. The Jaminets got me thinking that I probably need to up fat and lower protein, so I'm trying to experiment with ways to do it. My big problem is that I'm allergic to tree nuts, including coconuts. Butter is OK, so cream should be too.

2
0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0

(285)

on March 19, 2011
at 08:31 PM

I don't usually post, but I was searching the archives for something and saw this. I am far from an expert when compared to 99% of the people that post here. But I will share a personal experience with the calories in/out theory. I'm extremely thin (6'2'', 180 lbs currently) and I've always been a hard-gainer (I weighed 145 when I graduated high school. Not good for a dude). Anyway, in my gym phase and still following the SAD diet I tried a diet that was called the ABCDE diet from a now defunct magazine. Basically, the tenet of the diet was you can gain weight (mostly muscle) with a massive calorie dose in a short window (two weeks) before the body caught on, you'd then drop off and be calorie-deficient and you'd lose some body fat for two weeks. You could do a couple of cycles and most people would see gains. After that it was mostly useless. It worked for me. I went from weighing 175 lbs eating more or less 5500 to 6500 calories a day and gained 12 lbs in 10 days (the last for days of the feeding phase, I gained zero). It's hard to say what my caloric needs were. I worked construction and hit the gym 3 times a week. I'm guessing 2800-3000. Calories in/out says I would have had to consume 4200 more calories per day to have gained that weight. I didn't go that extreme (yet). Then I went to a low-calorie phase (2800 cal/day) and I lost around 4 pounds in 12 days ( I couldn't make that last two days). The next high-cycle I did 6500 to 8000 calories per day (not easy) for the 14 days and gained another 12 or 13 lbs. I was 196 at that point with still very little body fat. I base this on the fact that I've always been able to see ab definition and still could at that point. When I dropped to the low calorie phase, I kept it high at 3500 calories and still lost 5 lbs (most of it the first week). In short, in my experience I've gained weight far faster that the calorie in/out theory can explain and I lost weight when it said I should not have. My experiment of one tells me its bulls**t, or I'm an anomaly.

0adda19045a3641edac0008364b91110

(1146)

on March 19, 2011
at 09:58 PM

wow amazing...8000 calories is epic.

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0

(285)

on March 20, 2011
at 04:23 PM

That was overdoing. I could have done just as good on 6000 without the discomfort.

2
C1c86f42410cd4788bd9c5cf801dcd8f

(2246)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:35 PM

I posted this before, it was my self test.

I was eating 3 large meals a day, and I had to force myself to eat one of those meals.

Aproxx around 6000 cals/day for 2-3 months. Around 1500 cals from carbs, the rest from Protein and fat.

In a 3 month time frame I maintained my normal weight of 180-185, other things kicked in however for example.

Over excessive sweating and lots of it....

Those 3 months were horrid on my metabalism.

If I eat non paleo foods I can jump my weight up in no time.

Some days I was around 5% carbs, other days maybe 20% max. Didn't try it with heavy whipping cream. Just real food.

As for your specific results, one way to find out. Good luck and I hope your metablism does shoot up like mine did, but a lot my calories came from protien not fat.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 12:30 AM

Yeah, I'm only increasing fat calories, not everything else. I eat about 100g of carbs on most days, so I will continue to do so.

0adda19045a3641edac0008364b91110

(1146)

on March 19, 2011
at 10:02 PM

Protein in high doses could be toxic.

1
9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

on August 07, 2011
at 02:42 PM

I recently ate about 1000-1500 calories per day (average about 1400) for 3 months and lost 20 pounds. I really just didn't have much appetite and naturally ate a lot less, skipping either breakfast or lunch most days.

After losing the weight, my appetite increased and I'm hungry every morning and have to watch it in order to stay below 2000 calories. My weight went up a couple of pounds and has stabilized there.

The simple explanation is that I lost weight by running a calorie deficit, then my body increased my appetite to stabilize at the lower weight.

If you really did eat 1600 calories every morning and then ate another 2000 or whatever calories over the rest of the day, and kept that up, I'd guess that you would gain a bunch of weight. One caveat is that I am not sure if your body would really absorb 1600 liquid calories, i.e. you would probably absorb some of that and the rest would just pass through. So counting all of those calories is probably not accurate.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 07, 2011
at 03:25 PM

I started losing weight when I was obese by avoiding high GI carbs (mainly processed sugars and starches). I didn't feel hungry while losing the first 25 pounds, but the more I lost the hungrier I got. As I ate more I had to become a lot more active to continue losing weight.

1
691f120a3e7a1a036845d105d86c99a3

(3641)

on January 25, 2011
at 02:47 PM

I was wondering, can you overeat and still remain in Ketosis? Like maybe eat 5000 cals of fat with some protein thrown in? Would that be possible or is there a point where ketosis stops because of excess food? I think this would be the optimal state in which overeating fat would be shown to be non-lipogenic...

Medium avatar

(39831)

on January 25, 2011
at 06:46 PM

I wonder about that as well. Like, if you're eating massive amounts of a ketogenic fat like coconut oil, won't there be so many ketones that you can't use them all up? Do they they get stored as fat?

532cfd279d793e8fcc23b9f6d91dde5c

(1981)

on January 12, 2013
at 08:20 PM

Ketones that aren't used up are excreted, as they can't be converted back into fat. And yes, according to my blood-ketones meter, I was in ketosis while eating 3000+ calories per day at about 80% fat.

1
74f5d2ff6567edd456d31dfb9b92af61

(5227)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:34 PM

I can't wait to see your results!

For me, the calories-in/out hypothesis was bunk. I tried losing weight all last semester, dropping my calories lower and lower...and a couple weeks into paleo -- after increasing my calories back up to above my starting calorie target AND being sedentary (going from being a college student walking across campus all day to a college student sitting on her arse all winter break) -- and several pounds just sorta vanished. :)

0
B14dc4aa1ddefbec3bc09550428ee493

on August 07, 2011
at 07:32 AM

Were you talking about forcing yourself to eat beyond what you were hungry for? I've never tried that one, but I have tried eating very high calorie foods to see how my body responds. Basically I just have less appetite later and it all evens out. In other words, you can't accidentally gain weight by eating super high calorie foods. You have to force yourself to eat more than you really want because your body has mechanisms in place to prevent it. When people become obese it's not because they are eating too much fat, contrary to what conventional wisdom tells us. It's because they've become insulin resistant and are now producing more insulin. Insulin drives fat storage.

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 07, 2011
at 04:14 AM

hey, any updates re. this experiment??

0
1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on May 28, 2011
at 02:27 AM

i think you flaw it using dairy...as its not really paleo and should almost always stimulate growth hormone artifically...

you could do the experiment but use something more paleo...alergic to tree nuts...hmm...

avocados? damn, thats hard to do with that allergy unless you make some egg/butter custard stuff...pork belly?

also, i started my weight gain(from anorexia) on a keto diet, but it got to the point that i had gained weight and couldnt stand the site of fatty meat any longer and started craving lean protein, lost weight, relapsed and then regained weight with primal. anyways... i have been thinking of delving into the metabolism spark again as when i was gaining weight, after the intial about 2 weeks of weight piling on rapidly(i was malnourished and underweight) my metabolism kicked in and i had to eat craploads. now i maintain give or take pretty much the amount of food in me(or soon to exit) and give or take water weight from exercise/salt etc

my problem is affordability. i cannot afford to flippin feed myself 5000 calories a day again. it is so damned hard first of all to WANT to eat that much, second to do it, and third to keep the variety high enough that you ever actually want to eat. so, IMO, the experiment sucks when you have to do it, but if your curious and have the money my guess is youll initially pack on some water weight, but given you dont go to extremes in lifting or trying to work off the calories, your metabolism will shoot up as well

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on May 28, 2011
at 08:37 AM

Heavy cream stimulates growth hormone ?

0
072fd69647b0e765bb4b11532569f16d

(3717)

on March 19, 2011
at 10:42 PM

Similar to others who have already posted, I will be very curious to hear your results. Good luck finding a fat source that allows you to actually perform the experiment. While I have not tried this personally, I have previously (in another "diet life") tried the Rippetoe GOMAD approach to weight gain and read plenty about expecting fat gain to come with the caloric increase, noting that there are carbs and protein in whole milk in addition to the fat.

My hypothesis would be that adding 1600 fat calories a day without increased activity level will result in some moderate weight gain, but not much, and certainly not as much as if some of those calories were carbohydrate. A pretty bland hypothesis, yes, but "it is what it is." I personally have put on about 10 pounds in the last three months by overeating, mostly grassfed beef. I've also changed my workout regime to eliminate a CrossFit WOD or two a week and replace them with pure strength training days.

Best wishes.

0
50637dfd7dc7a7e811d82283f4f5fd10

(5838)

on January 24, 2011
at 11:08 PM

I have not tried it, but considered it. I'm thinking of quite a few personal experiments that I'm going to try. I just want to reach my goal weight first, then tinker. I'm stoked to see how you respond to this.

Cheers!

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!