Would it be too much work to take the "Fathead" part of this thread and add it to this one:
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...ion-26830.html ?
Naughton went from walking two evenings a week to six. I do not remember him saying how far he walked before the experiment. I thought he said he was walking twenty-five miles, but the transcript is not available, and I am not watching it again. The only source that I can find is:
Quote:
|
In the film Naughton mentions that he walks in his spare time for a bit of exercise, but I don’t think he ever mentions how much. However, Naughton is interviewed by Jimmy Moore on his Livin’ La Vida Low Carb podcast shortly after the film’s release and (if memory serves) says he walked 15-20 miles per week while filming his documentary.
|
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpr...is-a-fat-head/
A blog. Yay.
He was about fifty when he made the film. He says he is 5'11" and went from 204 to 192 pounds. Putting 50 years, 71 inches, and 198 pounds into
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1350891527 it says he burned 397 calories a night, so 2,382 calories a week, and 9,528 calories over the experiment.
"Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, it's estimated that you need to burn about 3,500 calories to lose 1 pound."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...s/art-20048065
In theory he would have lost 2.7 pounds from walking, although that page recommends cutting calories partially by cutting fat. It recommends skim milk instead of whole and fruit instead of ice cream.
It kind of suggests that carbohydrates, or at least sugars are okay, just not fat.
I just wish it covered the minimum nutrients for healthy weight loss.
Would I trust Runner's World over Mayo? I do not know, but
this article makes a good argument that you need to burn 7,000 calories to lose one pound of fat, so Naughton would have lost 10.65 pounds from "diet," or 88.75% of the total. Is it a big deal? Members here would call me out for being over 10% off.