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 

Search Australia updated to easily provide Calorie content of food.

A common search we're carrying out at the moment is the energy content of different food. Yes, we're dieting, so it does help if you can work out quickly the energy content of different food. For example, how many kilojoules are there in an apple?

Interestingly Google provides this information. The information returned is in Calories, but multiplying by four (actual conversion is to multiple by 4.2) is fairly easy and gives an approximation of the energy in kilojoules. (Note the use of the upper case in Calories. I've explained this below.)

I decided to make it even easier for myself and those using Search Australia. If you now enter the letter 'c' followed by a space and then the food item, you'll get the Calories for the food. There is a selection option which enables you to vary the size of the food item.

So now if you want to know the energy content of an apple, just enter 'c apple' in Search Australia and there's your answer.


Kelvin Eldridge
Online Connections
www.OnlineConnections.com.au
Call 0415 910 703 for computer support.
Servicing Templestowe, Doncaster, Eltham and the surrounding area.

PS. When referring to energy content in kilojoules is easy. However, the terms calorie and Calorie are frequently interchanged and can cause some confusion. Calorie with a capital is 1000 calories. If the number you're expecting to see is out by a factor of a thousand then this is the reason. The energy content of food is often shown in Calories and kilojoules. If you see the energy content shown as calories, chances are it is an error and the word calories should have been capitalised. When we write about the energy content of food is it OK to use the word calorie, but do keep in mind when we are using the measurement of the amount of energy in a food item, we are usually referring to the Calorie value in capital 'c', because it is a more convenient smaller number. That is 1 Calorie equals 1000 calories. 1 Calories equals 4.2 kilojoules. 1 calorie equals 4.2 joules. 1 Calorie is also known as a kilocalorie.

Before and after photo shots. How they make those people look good almost instantly.

I thought I'd share the following two stories I read in the media. I've always seen those before and after shots and said 'yeah, right'. You know those things you say when you see such pictures. Not the same person. Definitely didn't use the product, etc., etc. But I really didn't expect that a few simple techniques could be used to make a person look so much worse and then so much better in a matter of minutes. It does of course make sense because a good photographer can take many pictures with many being average and a few gems worth framing.

The first article shows three people who simply change their appearance with no exercise, dieting, using photoshop, or fake tan. The results are impressive.

The truth about those 'before' and 'after' photos... Read More

The second is a personal trainer who shares how she set up a before and after photo shot.

Personal trainer exposes the 'hidden truths' behind before and after photos... Read More

There is absolutely no maths involved in these apparent staggering changes shown in the before and after shots. One could however say there are some very 'calculating' people out there who would like to have you believe things which simply aren't true;-)

Over time we all pick up a few photo tips to help us look better. The illusion created here really starts with a person with a good physique and then creates an illusion using a poor body pose, clothing and camera angle. If only it was so easy to go the opposite way for the rest of us.

What is interesting is that both articles promote that real transformation takes time. There really aren't quick fixes and once you understand the maths behind weight loss it is very easy to see why. Once you understand the maths behind weight loss you'll also no longer be susceptible to those promoting illusionary quick transformations simply to make a quick buck on the back of hard working but gullible people, which is a bit sad really.

Kelvin Eldridge

It takes less energy to convert fat you eat to stored fat than it does to convert other food.

I recently had a discussion with a friend who had watched a show on either the ABC or SBS. The documentary I was told, said it takes more energy to convert fat than sugar, so sugar is more of a problem than fat.

From what I've read this is not the case. The body is able to more easily convert fat to stored fat than sugar. From what I've read it takes around a tenth of the energy to convert fat to stored fat then sugar and other foods. Thus to me more energy is used from the food you eat that isn't fat and thus there is less energy that can be stored as fat.

According to the article for each 100 calories of fat it takes just 2.5 calories of energy to convert fat you eat to stored fat. Whereas it takes 23 calories of energy to convert glucose floating around in your bloodstream to stored fat. Sugar is converted to glucose as are carbohydrates. Thus the body uses around a tenth of the energy to store consumed fat to stored fat than it does glucose from sugar and other foods.

I can't say the ABC or SBS documentary was necessarily wrong because often what we hear we can interpret incorrectly. But I would suggest no matter whether you hear information from a commercial station or public station that you consider researching the information for confirmation. I hear so much misinformation the only way to know if the information is correct is to do your own independent research. I tend to trust .gov and .edu sites more than commercial domains, but I've also seen information on edu sites which could be much better. Simply gather information from a range of sites until you feel there is a consistent message. I saw one site which was reportedly by a doctor which was contrary to every other site I had read. When I then checked what the site was about I could see the site because of their agenda appeared to be deliberately promoting information to support their point of view, which wasn't backed by any other sites or research. Those sites become obvious sites you can dismiss. Many commercial sites have little desire other than to sell you something mixing half truths with good information only to promote their product.

From what I've learnt the main thing to consider is the energy content of the food it you wish to lose weight. Fat is more energy dense then non fat foods but this will be taken into account with the energy content of the food.

Knowing the body can convert fat nearly ten times more easily into stored fat than other foods is interesting. To put this into context consider what proportion of your daily intake is fat as compare to non-fat food. According to this article from the Heart Foundation , it is recommended that energy from the daily energy requirement be limited to around 20 to 35% and around 7% from saturated and trans fat. That means you shouldn't aim to eliminate fat, but to keep the fat intake at a reasonable level and of the fats known to be better for you.

This blog is about the maths behind weight loss and I don't claim any medical or nutritional focus. In essence, the higher your fat consumption the less energy the body uses to convert the excess fat to stored fat. If your body is receiving sufficient energy the excess fat you consume could potentially be stored as body fat more easily.

Now as I was writing this article a thought occurred to me. Perhaps there is some merit in what my friend was saying. Until now I've only read about the energy required to convert consumed fat or other foods into stored fat. But that is only half the story. If you eat fat and it is stored, to use the energy in that fat, it needs to be converted to glucose by the liver at a later time when needed and that would require energy. How much energy this requires I've not ascertained.

In keeping with Weight Loss Maths strategy you should focus your efforts where you get the greatest return for your efforts. One article I read indicates the energy required in converting excess energy to fat only amounts to around 5 per cent of your daily intake. To put that in context about the same as a chocolate biscuit. Whilst the complex processes in the body are interesting, when it comes to weight loss it is important to keep your focus on efforts which give you the best weight loss return. Not having a single biscuit a day is much easier than trying to work out the complex relationships in the chemical reactions occurring in the body.

A low energy diet will result in your losing weight. Reducing the energy which comes from undesirable fats could assist, but the difference won't be that great.

All we can however do easily is to ensure we keep our fat intake at the appropriate level and also consume the appropriate level of saturated and trans fat.

Kelvin Eldridge

 

I had a really big weekend where I partied, ate lots of food and had a few drinks. What should I do?

Be happy you enjoyed yourself. Life is too short to be too worried about breaking your diet. Just get back onto the diet and you'll find the effect of the excess food and drink won't hang around for very long.

What I found is if you do break your diet by having a night out, your weight does increase. I put some of this down to increased liquid, waste food in the intestines and some weight gain due to excess energy intake being converted to fat.

Liquid will pass through your body fairly quickly, but keep in mind waste in your intestines can take two to three days to pass through. All you then need to be concerned about is the energy converted to fat and chances are it wasn't really that much after all. In fact if you party on the Saturday and get back onto the diet, then by around Wednesday of the following week you'd generally find you're close to the weight you were before that great weekend.

There is a small chance you may still end up weighing less at the end of the week, but I wouldn't be concerned if you didn't.

The way I think about it is if I splurge, then the dieting for the week will counter the effect of the splurge. In effect it takes about a week after a splurge to get back to where you were.

That in itself is a good lesson. If you think about it, splurging once a week really means that week is written off in terms of losing weight but you still had to diet for the rest of the week. Not a great outcome really.

So where possible try not to splurge and you'll find the weight continues to come off. If you do splurge, just consider dieting for the week balances the splurge.

The difficult times tend to be Christmas and Easter where we can continue to eat treats over an extended period of time. It is very easy over the Christmas period to put on quite a few kilograms and it takes quite a lot of hard work to get that weight off. Watch those periods where those less nutritious food (OK, junk food) are available in plenty for an extended period of time.

Don't beat yourself over having a good time. Life is for living and you can't stop living just because you're dieting, but do try to keep those moments of excess to a minimum.

Recently it was my birthday and we went out as a family for a lovely meal and show. Followed with another day with relatives and other activities and I'd put on nearly a kilogram. Having also lost focus on dieting I tended to nibble a little more than desired. (OK, more like a binge on M&M's.) However, I largely kept to the diet and by the end of the week I was back to close to the weight I'd achieved the week before. When you fall off the horse don't worry. The horse will still be there. Just get back on when you're ready.

Kelvin Eldridge