The hyperbole is a bit of out of place, not sure why I needed to use it. I guess I tried to say that using that 3500 kcal figure to predict 0,5 kg weight loss per week on constant basis will probably be inaccurate unless constant adjustment is used. The weight loss will be nonlinear and smaller than expected.
See this and search for “3500”. The article also includes a neat weight loss predictor, that uses a pretty complicated model. If you play around with it, you’ll see what I mean.
Yes, in the long run there are second-order effects.
But if you’re going to predict your weight one year from now to within a couple pounds, you’d have to take into account your amount of fidgeting, your consumption of caffeine, the temperature, and the phase of the moon. Hence the Hacker’s Diet advice to keep track of your weight regularly, so that if you’re losing weight too fast or too slowly for whatever reasons you can adjust your diet to compensate.
The hyperbole is a bit of out of place, not sure why I needed to use it. I guess I tried to say that using that 3500 kcal figure to predict 0,5 kg weight loss per week on constant basis will probably be inaccurate unless constant adjustment is used. The weight loss will be nonlinear and smaller than expected.
See this and search for “3500”. The article also includes a neat weight loss predictor, that uses a pretty complicated model. If you play around with it, you’ll see what I mean.
What do you think?
Yes, in the long run there are second-order effects.
But if you’re going to predict your weight one year from now to within a couple pounds, you’d have to take into account your amount of fidgeting, your consumption of caffeine, the temperature, and the phase of the moon. Hence the Hacker’s Diet advice to keep track of your weight regularly, so that if you’re losing weight too fast or too slowly for whatever reasons you can adjust your diet to compensate.