Just had to get that out of the way. It’s just a stupid post and that’s all there is to say about it.
Tom’s problem is he’s just fucking wrong and rather than just admit he’s fucking wrong and has been wrong for a long time, he keeps pretending he’s been right all along and now, he’s trying to straddle the fence.
He’s just a mess.
I dealt with his dumb calories post the other day in a post at Ketotard Chronicles, reproduced below. As you read it, remember what I just said. Naughton is fucking wrong. He’s so fucking wrong and ignorant that he’s not aware of it. He’s a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger. Ok, read on.
…So, I’m reading comments patting Tom Naughton on the back for his most recent blog post which I previously linked. I think he’s misusing the quotes and advice from Michael Eades which I think make perfect sense and plus, it must send shivers up the spines of Ketotards that an MD clinician (well, actually 2 in 1 with the wife unit) with years of experience treating thousands of obese patients with low-carb is talking about getting his patients up to a relatively equivalent protein and carb level, like 100g and such. Oh. My. God!
Anyway, check this strawman from Tom, and this is why I think his post sucks (well, one reason).
My beef with the CICO crowd is that they’re constantly pushing a belief that simply isn’t true: namely, that our bodies work like simple bank accounts, with calories substituting for dollars. Cut 500 calories per day from you diet, and by gosh, you’ll automatically burn away one pound of fat per week. Cut 1,000 calories per day from you diet, and by gosh, you’ll double the fat loss to two pounds per week. Start eating an extra 500 calories per day, and by gosh, you’ll automatically gain a pound of fat per week, etc., etc. All based on simple, predictable, linear math.
Nice fucking strawman, Tom. This is not what informed CICO people think and in fact, it was Kevin “CICO” Hall who dispelled the myth that it’s a 3,500 kcal = I pound fat linearity. The linearity only holds for about the first two weeks of calorie restriction (as I recall). You need advanced calculus beyond that.
It’s all accounted for in the very complex energy balance equation.
So, how does Tom’s bullshit strawman, above, jive with this paper by Hall in 2012, 5 years ago?
I could quote a million things (as there’s way lots of stuff that goes into the equation, which has proven to be damn accurate at any point on the CURVE…note, not LINE).
The origin of the “3500 kcal per pound” rule is based on the calculated energy content of body weight change and is often misapplied to predict the weight-change time course after a given intervention (19). This is a fundamental error because no time period is specified for that intervention. The impression is given that even a temporary intervention will therefore result in a permanent body weight change. Furthermore, the erroneous application of the rule to predict the impact of a permanent intervention gives the impression that a linear change in body weight is expected over protracted periods of time, which is known to be untrue. Rather, even when perfect adherence to an intervention with no active compensation is assumed, it is generally acknowledged that weight change will slow over time due to passive compensatory changes in energy expenditure that occur with the weight change. Therefore, the panel recommended that the 3500 kcal per pound rule should no longer be used.
With the use of a model that accounts for the passive compensatory effects on EO, a new rule of thumb representing a best-case scenario has been proposed for the average overweight person: every permanent 10-kcal change in energy intake/d will lead to an eventual weight change of 1 lb when the body weight reaches a new steady state ( ∼ 100 kJ/d per kg of weight change). It will take nearly 1 y to achieve 50% and ∼ 3 y to achieve 95% of this weight loss (20).
Whereas the above rule of thumb may be useful for approximate estimations and represents a significant theoretical improvement over the 3500 kcal per pound rule, a more accurate assessment of the amount and time course of predicted weight change for a given reduction in EI may be very valuable and informative for an individual patient. Newly developed dynamic energy balance models for weight loss require complex calculations that are simplified for users in web-based programs (http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov; http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor). Model predictions such as these provide a more realistic guide as to what patients can expect with changes in energy balance.
I will add that all of the current logging and tracking apps incorporate some form of this. So, for instance, in LoseIt, say after setting it up with all of your parameters (age, height, weight, gender, activity level, body fat estimation, goal weight, pace of weight loss from 1-2 pounds per week, etc.) it says OK, you must limit calories to 1,850 per day.
As you update the data, primarily your current weight, provided you are progressing, your calorie limit goes down. In my own case, when I began, in April, my limit was 1,870. Now, 10-pounds shed, my limit is 1,756.
So suck on your simplisic, bullshit, lying straw men, Tom.