KMart kitchen scales are a disappointment and should be avoided.

I purchased the red kitchen scales from KMart. I wanted a set of scales that could measure on 1g intervals and these scales do that nicely.

The problem however is the buttons to reset the scale and turn the scales off. They're simply so unreliable the are totally frustrating. Want to zero out the scales after placing a bowl on the scales. Try, try and try again.

Sometimes that scales just worked perfectly but quite a bit of the time they just don't seem to want to respond. The last thing you want when dieting is to be frustrated by a set of scales you can't turn on or zero for the next ingredient.

Avoid this type of scale that is sold in KMart. The next set of scales that I purchase will have real buttons. I love the idea of these scales giving me the weight in 1g intervals, but they've been a big disappointment.

Kelvin Eldridge

Media reports on rapid weight loss compared with slower weight loss.

Recently I heard in the general media reports of a study done at Melbourne University. The study reportedly compared two groups. One was set the objective of losing 1.5 kg per week over 12 weeks and the other was to lose 0.5 kg per week over 36 weeks.

For those interested this article is from a media report on SBS.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/16/crash-diets-rapid-weight-loss-better-gradual-weight-loss-study

From the general media I got the impression that after three years a significant portion of the total group had only put on 70% of their weight loss. This impression was actually incorrect. The figure was 71% of the test subjects had put on weight but no mention of the amount of weight seemed to be mentioned. I decided to search for a little more information.

The following is the abstract for the study published in The Lancet.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract

The interpretation from the study is the rate of weight loss does not affect the proportion of weight gain after 144 weeks.

In this extract there is some interesting additional information. One interesting outcome is of those who went on to the second phase of the study and completed the study (104 people) had regained most of their weight.

The rapid weight loss program was 450-800 calories is much lower than normal dieting so this is not something people should consider without strict medical supervision. The additional effects for three in the rapid weight loss groups is also interesting to note.

Overall there's interesting information in the articles but the media to me at least certainly did not indicate just how low the rapid diet was and that most participants had regained their weight who completed phase 2 of the study.

Kelvin Eldridge
NOTE: This site is for information purposes only and should under no circumstances be considered medical advice.

The problem with the muscle burning more energy than fat argument.

One thing I often hear is that muscle burns more energy than fat. Of that I have no argument because it is true, but the amount of energy is what people neglect to tell you. The problem is the muscle versus fat argument is so believable and logical people look no deeper.

Normally when I research I try to find published papers from recognised universities. Unfortunately in this case I have not been able to find any scientific papers that I'm able to quote, but I'll provide here a link to an often quoted Christian Finn who is an author and to quote from his page, "Christian Finn holds a master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer".

I have not confirmed the credentials of Christian Finn but unfortunately for lack of a better resource, it is the only material I can refer to. Please treat this information as non-substantied material. From what I've it does appear to be credible.

http://muscleevo.net/muscle-metabolism/#.U39FexYxHlI

There is a problem with this article in that it refers to calories with a lower case c. The problem is when people are talking about Calories are actually talking about Calories with an upper case C. Using the lower case isn't the same. It is a factor 1,000 less. I've cross checked one figure from the article from one of the references and by converting a MJ figure I believe the article should be using the unit of measure Calories and not calories. So let's proceed on the basis that this is a common typographical error and where the article mentions calories, we'll assume it means Calories.

According to this article fat burns 2 Calories per pound per day and muscle 6 Calories per pound per day. In metric this is 18.4 kJ per kg per day for fat and 55.2 kJ per kg day for muscle.

In the example study of a period of 18 weeks the men undertook resistance training and were able to increase their fat-free mass by 2 kg. Note that is 2 kg in a period of around 4 months which if you think about it is not a great amount.

Now putting together the fat-free mass increase and the energy per day we get 2 kg x 55.2 kJ which is  110 kJ per day.

In effect, for four months of resistance training the additional energy burnt off each day is approximately the same as a third of a Tim Tam, less than two teaspoons of sugar, a third of a slice of bread.

In other words for the amount of benefit is tiny compared to the effort required. This isn't to say don't exercise, because you should, but if you want to lose weight you need to focus where you'll gain the most results.

Having one slice of bread for toast in the morning instead of two will have achieved three times the benefit instantly in terms of reduced kilojoules.

To put this into context, to lose weight through dieting people reduce their food energy intake in the thousands of kilojoules. An amount of 110 kJ if we're are looking at losing weight is insignificant compared to dieting.

All I'm trying to do here is for people to understand the numbers so they can make a better decision. Exercise is good for you. Fat-free mass will burn more energy than fat. But putting too much of your focus into an area with a relatively small effect on reaching your weight loss goal is not the best way to lose weight.

Exercise because it is good for you and take advantage of the extra energy you use. But make sure you get your diet in order as diet has the greatest effect.

Kelvin Eldridge

McDonald's Amore meals should send a shiver down anyone's spine.

I noticed the McDonald's Amore advertising and honestly, I can't believe how irresponsible McDonald's are being. Taking a meal which should be enough for a single person and then encouraging them not to upsize, but to add two additional items. That's a huge kilojoule hit.

However, for the bargain hunters, you may wish to consider ordering an Amore meal where one person has the usual meal and a second person has the smaller meal such as a cheeseburger, chips and share the drink. That's a saving and whilst McDonald's packs a lot of kilojoules into their meals which isn't good for the waistline, at least your eating a little more sensibly.

In terms of watching your weight, if you do eat McDonald's, it is better to downsize if possible. I often say watch those chips. If you upsize a cheeseburger meal to a large with a diet coke, the most kilojoules aren't in the burger, but the chips. Few people pay attention to kilojoules packed into the chips. In fact a large chips contains more kilojoules than a chicken burger. Watch those chips.

Kelvin Eldridge
www.WeightLossMaths.com.au

Should the Biggest Loser be called an unreality TV show?

I recently read this news item about the Biggest Loser which is an interview with a previous contestant Andrew (Cosi) Costello. I have to admit, whilst I have little faith in reality shows being little more than entertainment, when I read the truth about the shows I'm even more shocked than I thought I would be.

In the interview Andrew states where he lost 9 kg in one 'week', the week was actually 25 days. The shortest 'week' was 16 days. Those huge numbers that people believe the Biggest Loser contestants are achieving each week from this article have no connection to reality. It is simply misleading to the viewing public and shows like the Biggest Loser should be ashamed. People wonder why they can't achieve the same result and the reason is simple. The contestants aren't achieving the results either.

Using the approach I share in Weight Loss Maths I once took the weight loss of one of the Biggest Loser contestants and thought, the rigorous training contestants are put through must be achieving much more than I expect. But the reality is, it isn't.

Based on information from Wikipedia, Cosi lost 9.5 kg in the first week. He started at 140.8 kg. Let's do the maths. We first gather some information about Cosi.

Age: 28
Starting BMI: 41.1
Starting Weight: 140.8 kg
Height: 185 cm

The amount of energy Cosi would need to consume to maintain his starting weight using the BMI/BMR calculator was 13,757 kJ with a normal level of activity.

Now for the next step I can only make an assumption. I've read but can't confirm contestants are put on a very low calorie diet. Let's assume this is 1,200 calories per day or 4,944 kJ. (I really felt it may be as low as 1,000 calories per day, but 1,200 appears to be a recommended minimum, so I used that as the basis for the calculation.)

That means Cosi is reducing his energy intake by 8,813 kJ per day (13,757 - 4,944).

Over a period of 25 days this is 220,325 kJ.

There is approximately 33,000 kJ in one kg of fat. If we divide 220,325 by 33,000 this gives us 6.68 kg.

That means 70% of Cosi's lost weight is from dieting alone.

Now if we assume Cosi did an equivalent of an hour of fast walking a day as part of the show (we're led to believe there is a lot of strenuous activity done by contestants so we expect more) then using the Energy Exercise Calculator, Cosi would have used an additional 2,772 kJ per day (25 days, 60 minutes fast walking exercise a day, 140.8 kg), or 69,300 kJ over 25 days. Again dividing by 33,000 for the energy in 1 kg of fat we end up with another 2.1 kg lost through exercise.

That gives us at total of 8.78 kg through dieting and exercise and that is within a 10% variation with what Weight Loss Maths would expect the result to be.

The Biggest Loser ends up giving people unreal expectations of what they can achieve through dieting and exercise because it creates an incorrect perception of a weekly weigh in. Anyone who thinks they can achieve the same results as shown on The Biggest Loser will be in for a very big disappointment because what we are shown is not real. That to me is truly disappointing.

Thanks to Cosi for sharing the information which can help everyone make a better and informed decision.

Kelvin Eldridge
www.WeightLossMaths.com.au

Special K and Just Right as breakfast cereals when dieting.

I have to say that Special K was my regular breakfast cereal until I started to diet. We all see those ads on TV with the lady eating Special K who is looking after her weight, so it is pretty easy to feel Special K is somehow a better cereal to eat rather than other cereals if you wish to lose weight.

The biggest surprise to me when I started dieting was just how much breakfast I was eating. You get a bowl out of the cupboard, fill it with cereal and then add the milk. A no-brainer first thing in the morning.

The shock. I was eating the equivalent of two breakfasts.

Yes. That's right. Two breakfasts.

I found that based on the serving size recommended by Special K I was actually having two servings. Special K also has a tendency to often have smaller flakes either throughout the entire packet or as you work through the packet. The smaller the flakes the greater the serve. In addition I was having quite an amount of milk because the flakes don't displace much milk. Again you'll find yourself having up to two serves of milk.

Just Right is another example of a breakfast cereal where if you don't weigh the amount of cereal you'll eat up to two serves. With Special K and Just Right pour the standard size serve as recommended on the pack and you'll be quite surprised at just how small the serve is.

In the end I decided on having cereals such as Milo and Coco Pops. Yes, as contradictory as this may sound, those breakfast cereals take up more volume on a bowl for a standard serve so you don't overeat. In addition because they are bulky less milk is required again reducing your energy intake.

Breakfast really is the one meal of the day where it is exceptionally easy to weigh your food and determine the energy content. The energy is stated on the pack and weighing is dead easy and takes a matter of seconds.

Place the bowl on the scales and then zero the scales. Pour in your cereal and then note the weight. Zero the scales, pour in the milk and note the weight. Enter the weight and energy for 100 g/ml into the Today's Diet calculator on your mobile phone and there you have your energy intake.

The lesson here is some of those eating habit you assume are helping you maintain your weight may actually be causing you to put on weight. Measuring your food is a quick and easy way to determine the energy content of your food and it doesn't have to take much effort.

Kelvin Eldridge
www.WeightLossMaths.com.au