Consideration of the Traditional Caloric Model Against the Concept of Food Energy Regulation

In order to present an analysis of caloric data in conjunction with a resistance program designed to minimize strength loss and preserve muscle mass while in a caloric deficit, I will discuss the relationship between caloric-energy intake to potential-energy output. I'm going to use the 3,500 calorie to 1 lb of body fat equivalency, not to argue that the traditional caloric model is unamendable, but to see the result when a client’s self-reported data is viewed in that traditional context. My intention is to present an explanation of how food energy is utilized in a dynamic system as it relates to strength training.

“The Wishnofsky Rule,“ is commonly accepted as stating that for every 3,500 calories a person can reduce from their caloric intake will result in 1 lb of weight loss. Although this measurement can be useful in a very general sense, the main difficulty with this premise is that it assumes the person’s level of energy expenditure remains constant.

I developed the tracking method presented in this article in response to the confusion, and at many times contradictory information that I’ve personally observed during my time in the fitness industry, working with other trainers and clients in a commercial setting, regarding the subject of weight loss, strength development and body recomposition. I will start by presenting the basic calculation developed by Max Wishnofsky in 1958:

1 lb is equivalent to 453 grams.

1 gram of pure fat contains 9 calories.

This calculates to 4,077 calories in 1 lb of pure fat.

Body fat, however, is not composed of pure fat. Body fat is approximately 85% pure fat. A small percentage of body fat is in fact protein (2%) and water (13-18%).

85% of 4,077 calculates to 3,465 calories in 1 lb of body fat.

The 3,500 equivalency has been generally adopted due to the utility in having a number that divides evenly into the cultural norm of the seven day week. With that said, here is my analysis of an actual client’s caloric and physical training data recorded over a period of twenty-one weeks.

Part 1:

— Take and Receive —

The exercises used during the deficit phase of training were performed with respect to the analytical models detailed in Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training 3rd Edition by Mark Rippetoe. The basis for the training program variables utilized during the deficit phase are described in the book Radically Simple Strength by Paul Horn.

Shown above in figure 1-1 are the first two weeks of caloric tracking and daily weigh-ins while the client was performing regular resistance training. The client logged a starting body weight of 244 lbs. A DEXA scan taken just prior to the deficit phase, reported a body fat percentage of 31.9%. The client’s stated goal was to cut body fat to 20%, which calculated to an estimated body weight goal of 207.5 lbs. We're going to start the analysis with caloric data from the end of week 2 since that is the first week where the client actually demonstrated being in a caloric deficit. The client’s daily caloric average for the first week in observable deficit (week 2) was 2,139.

Figure 1-2 shows the log data from week 22. Since we started with week 2 data, this is 21 weeks later. The client weighed in at this point at 212 lbs and reported a daily caloric average of 1,917.

We're now going to average the two previous daily caloric averages (from week 2 and week 22). This number represents the client’s daily caloric intake as a "weighted average" over the entire 21 weeks. A weighted average communicates the overall daily caloric average during the respective time frame. We're going to use this number later on which is why I gave it the double green underline. The client’s weighted average is 2,028 (figure 1-3).

We subtract 212 from 244 to determine the total amount of weight the client lost over the 21 week period, which is 32 lbs. We then divide 32 lbs by 21 weeks to get the average number of pounds lost per week during the respective time frame. This calculates to an average loss of 1.52 lbs per week (figure 1-4).

We multiply 1.52 lbs by 3,500 to get the caloric value of the average weekly deficit. This comes to 5,333 calories. We then divide 5,333 by 7 to get the average caloric deficit per day. This calculates to 761 calories as a daily deficit average over the 21 weeks period (figure 1-5).

Now recall the number from earlier with the double green underline. Remember that this number described the daily caloric intake as a "weighted average" over the entire 21 weeks. We are going to add the average daily deficit of 761 calories to the weighted average of 2,028 to get 2,789. This number now describes the client’s potential Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) as the sum of their average daily caloric-energy intake, added to the caloric value that their deficit reflects (figure 1-6).

Shown above (figure 1-7) is the BMR calculator's result based on the client’s current weight. Since the training program used during the deficit phase was consistently performed three days a week, the calculator estimates a caloric energy output of 2,718. Compare this estimation to the TEE number reflected in the client’s log data over the 21 weeks of 2,789.

We subtract 2,718 (BMR calculator estimation) from 2,789 (21 week log data) to observe only a 71 calorie difference. We then divide 71 by 3,500 in order to view this caloric variance conceptually as a percentage of 1 lb of body weight (fat). This turns out to be about 2% of a pound (figure 1-8). Given the margin for error on the typical consumer grade scale and day to day variations in water retention, this close of a correlation demonstrates the relative accuracy of the BMR calculator’s estimation of energy output, as well as support for the 3,500 calories to 1 lb general equivalence, in this particular instance.

It is common for people to be slightly unclear as to the actual definition of Basal Metabolic Rate. BMR is the amount of caloric energy expended by a person who is in a neutrally temperate environment and in a post absorptive state (figure 1-9).

This means that the estimated values returned by a BMR calculator are contingent upon two things:

1) The individual is in an environment where they don’t need to expend energy to maintain their core temperature.

2) They have been in a fasted state for approximately 12 hours.

I’ve often heard BMR described as “the amount of calories you’d burn if you were in a coma.” This definition is somewhat useful in the context of casual conversation, or if trying to sell training packages to people in a gym, however this phrasing suggests that one might only rely on a BMR calculator’s estimation if they were indeed in a coma. If this were the case, I doubt the affected person at that point would have much use for a caloric deficit. The takeaway from this could be support for training in a fasted state of at least 12 hours, if one is in fact relying completely on a BMR calculator’s estimated values alone for their nutritional programming as it relates to a prescribed caloric deficit. It would also seem to require climate controlled training environments and for the person to not perform a warm up routine of any kind, as that would alter their core temperature by expending energy. The very concept of “a more accurate estimation” is in itself illogical. These discrepancies, although small, support a process in which the prescription for manipulating caloric intake is derived from data collected by the individual concerned, rather than relying solely on the BMR equation’s estimation. An explanation of this concept is presented in the companion article Datum Pretiosum: A First Principle of Nutritional Planning.

Part 2:

— Consistency and Parsimony —

The client’s nutritional log data as well as their training performance data remained consistent over the 21 week time frame for two reasons:

1) The practice of recording body weight and caloric/macronutrient data was consistent.

2) The protocol used to regulate the training intensity was designed to function in direct response to variations in training performance (training within rep ranges, increasing the training intensity if performance meets the rep criteria, repeating intensity if performance drops, and reducing top set intensity if performance plateaus or training consistency is interrupted).

The squat performance above (figure 2-1) reflects the highest intensity achieved during the entire 21 week period. A single set of 4 reps at 280 was performed in the 6th week of caloric deficit, resulting in the first of 4 resets over that time (figure 2-1). One of those subsequent resets was decided on based on repeated reports of joint pain rather than a drop in rep performance, as pain significant enough to be distract correct execution of the lift can be interpreted as a performance drop just as well.

Squat performance consistently got to 260 before requiring resets. Lapses in training consistency due to work schedule demands did occur at the time of these resets, but the trend of degrading rep performance was foreseeable regardless, as training lapses never extended for more than two sessions and none of the resets were required as a result of illness. Further support for this position can be drawn from general observations of correctly run Novice Linear Progression programming (NLP). During a well executed NLP, progress can be maintained even with up to a week off, often requiring the lifter to simply repeat the intensities from the last completed session. But the context is very different in this case, as effective NLP is not performed with a maintenance level caloric intake, let alone in a deficit phase already in its sixth week.

Caloric intake continued to reflect a deficit over the 21 week period, as the client’s body weight was observed to drop consistently. The resistance training program was maintained and strength performance in the squat reliably plateaued between 255-260. This trend would likely have continued with the squat, with strength performance eventually plateauing at increasingly lower intensities until a baseline was discovered, or the decision to no longer run the program in a caloric deficit was made.

Once the first reset down from 280 had occurred, strength performance stayed relatively consistent during the 21 week timeframe. Figure 2-2 above occurred the first week of training once a caloric deficit has been observed. A squat of 5 reps at 245 lbs on 4/23, with a note that the set was "Hard by end" (client’s note). The daily caloric average recorded the week of 4/23 was 2,173 (figure 2-3). Recall that for the week prior to this (week 2) the client’s daily caloric average was even less, logged at 2,139 (refer back to figure 1-1).

Compare the squat on 4/23 with the squat performance 20 weeks later on 9/15 (figure 2-4), a set of 5 at 255 (less than a 5% difference) with the note indicating that rep 5 was a "grind" (coach's note). I recall the set clearly and would describe rep 5 as a near stall.

Now compare this rep 5 “grind” on 9/15 to the top squat set performed six weeks earlier at nearly the same weight: a set of 4 reps at 260 lbs performed on 8/6, where the client noted that they believed they could have completed the 5th rep but chose not to (figure 2-5).

(Figure 2-5.)

Note that caloric intake for the day prior (8/5) was logged at 1,607 (figure 2-6), nearly 370 calories below the daily average for that week of 1,976 (figure 2-7). This certainly may account for the feeling of not wanting to complete the fifth rep despite believing it to have been possible.

When comparing the start and end weeks of the 21 week time frame, both the squat intensity as and the average caloric intake demonstrated less than a 10% reduction. There was a 4% change in the top set intensity of the squat and a 9% change when comparing the caloric deficit averages.

The squat plateau range of around 250-260 lbs is not necessarily the result of the lifter's reduced body weight, as the advantage of body weight in a strict sense applies to the biomechanical leverages in relation to the center of mass of the lifter/barbell system. The primary reason for a loss in performance is the result of insufficient caloric-energy input. i.e. a caloric deficit.

Although muscle mass was being preserved by the lifter by continuing to strength train regularly with heavy weights during the entire deficit phase, some amount of lean mass was inevitably lost, as the client did not fall into one of the three categories of people that are able to gain muscle mass and lose body fat simultaneously. Such individuals are either morbidly obese, significantly underweight, or using anabolic steroids to supplement their training. The ratio of muscle mass to total mass lost was revealed by the results of DEXA scans performed both before and after the deficit phase (figure 2-8).

Roughly 1 lb of lean muscle was lost for every 6 lbs of total mass lost. It’s important to note that the client’s daily average protein intake over the first 12 weeks was 199 g per day. However over the remaining 10 weeks of the deficit phase, daily protein intake averaged 175 g per day, a drop of 12%.

It cannot be known with certainty that if the client maintained a higher protein intake for the entire duration of the deficit phase if more lean muscle would have been retained. To better determine this would require another round of deficit training while keeping the previous nutritional log in mind, as such data may give light to what opportunities might lend to improvement during cutting phases in the future.

Part 3:

— The Great Compensation —

Human physiology has the capacity to auto-regulate its caloric energy allotment, but this does not mean that a calorie's energy value itself varies. A calorie is the amount of heat energy that is required to raise 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius. That is a fixed value. Caloric energy does not vary from person to person so much as the expression of caloric energy may vary. The reason why a person might reduce their caloric intake but then not observe any significant weight loss result for a number of reasons, of which so many factors exist that might affect such a scenario that I won't attempt to list them all here.

The statement “500 calories for one person isn't the same 500 calories for someone else,” although cryptic, is correct: the physiology's tendency toward homeostasis through the auto-regulation of caloric-energy output is a response to a reduction of caloric-energy input, and that phenomenon will manifest differently from one person to the next. Of course this is true. Different people exhibit different characteristics. The potential for varying activity for the body is as vast as the myriad of internal workings of the body. But the belief that a calorie's energy value changes because the physiology regulates its use is like saying the total number of people in a house changes when they walk into different rooms. Cryptic statements and inspiring adages are effective in a conversational context and for selling training packages to trusting people. However, they do little to aid in extracting scientific meaning from data.

A person might reduce their caloric intake, and even if they happen to observe themself to be in a deficit initially, they quickly plateau. They may then add exercise to their weekly routine, in addition to improving their diet, and yet the trend of weight loss ends prematurely. They ask how this could be. It may be that it is the result of energy output regulation that they don't realize is occurring. They may very well cut their daily caloric intake by 500 calories and still the scale doesn't move. The cut by 1,000 and still nothing seems to happen. At which point they assume that they have a hormonal problem, or a thyroid issue, or that their trainer is at fault, the whole world is at fault, and that all exercise science is a sham. And they might be right. But what this person also failed to realize was that they are now walking 10% slower all the time. That they sit on the couch and watch TV or scroll on their phone an average of an hour longer cumulatively every day. They can’t possibly know that the speed in which a cut on their arm heals takes longer than it used to, or that the rigidity of their fingernails or the growth rate of their hair has been imperceptibly reduced. They don't think anything of the fact that they’ve started to get up a little later than they have been, attributing the change to that they must just be having a "lazy day" for "some weird reason" and are just feeling "out of it" unexplainably. Conversely, if the situation involved an energy surplus, higher levels of energy expression might occur without the person necessarily being aware of it.

One may indeed fuck longer on a fuller stomach.

These are all potential examples of caloric auto-regulation. That fact that they occur does not prove a variance in the value of caloric energy, in fact it demonstrates exactly the opposite. Caloric energy is fixed, it is the person's expression of it that is potentially inconsistent, unplanned or unspecified. When input drops, output drops. In some way it drops, because human physiology is not a static system. It is a dynamic system, which is the very reason that physical training is so effective a method for skewing the results of caloric surplus or deficit in the individual's favor when performed effectively. This is how a physiological shift in the energy pathway is made, as the body pulls from its fat stores or muscle mass when the most immediate form of caloric food energy (carbohydrates) is reduced. This is also why coaches, training partners, programming, adherence to specified goals and individual volition are critical to the successful disruption of homeostasis i.e. change, because the individual themself might not be aware of the auto-regulation taking place.

Although the 3,500 calorie to 1 lb bodyweight equivalency model may not be outright wrong, it must be described as incomplete at best. Auto-regulation of the energy input/output relationship is one of the missing pieces to that incomplete model.

Part 4:

— Alternate Power —

Part of the misunderstanding surrounding the concept of caloric-energy regulation may be that it has been conflated with the energy value of an actual calorie. The problem with this is that the concept of variance has been doubled unnecessarily by assuming that because caloric regulation is variable, that means the energy value of a calorie itself is variable. Caloric variability is related to the macronutrient consumed, its differing effect on blood sugar, the corresponding insulin response, and what energy pathway the body will be urged toward as a result of incorporating different diets.

For example, the macronutrient ratio of a standard ketogenic diet requires a majority of the calories consumed to come from fat, approx 70%. Carbohydrates are kept very low, no more than 10%. What is important to remember is that protein must be kept very low as well, around twenty percent. For a 2,000-calorie, this calculates to around 60-70g of protein, depending on the food source as well as the index used to determine its value. The protein recommendation in this example is in direct conflict with that which is widely cited as necessary for building and retaining muscle mass, even at the low end of the generally accepted recommendation of 1.6g of protein for every kg of body weight (72% of body weight if using pounds), especially for one whose training regimen requires the lifting of increasingly heavier weights and enough protein in the diet to support the synthesis of new muscle and connective tissue, as well as to recover from consistently overloaded workouts.

In the typical diet, carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the form of glucose, which is absorbed into the bloodstream to then be delivered to cells for energy. This process is very fast compared to other energy pathways, and it’s a good thing that it is because this helps to prevent the body from consuming its own muscle mass for energy. A keto diet aims to have the body turn to its fat stores for energy, but this process needs to be coaxed a little into action. If burning fat for energy was the default energy pathway, everyone would be lean and feeling fantastic all the time. What kind of world would that be like? The horror! But with carbohydrates greatly taken out of the picture, energy has to come from somewhere. In order for the body to convert its stored fat into energy effectively it must adapt to do so. This process is called ketosis.

When a person is in a state of ketosis, it is converting fat stored in the liver into “ketones,” which are super fuel for the brain. The brain can’t feed on unconverted fat, so this conversion process has to occur. And the brain is damn hungry for ketones at this point. Remember, direct carbohydrate energy in the form of glucose has been significantly reduced. With carbs taken out, protein is next in line to be drawn from, but you can’t go right to that because 1) you want to preserve your muscle mass and 2) the goal is to cut down this goddamn fat you’re hauling around. So what must one who believes a ketogenic diet to be an appropriate course for them do? They need calories for energy, but are depriving their body of the most accessible forms of it. The desire is to shift to a different pathway in an attempt to access the least accessible energy source, so the idea is to increase dietary fat so as to make up the majority of one’s diet, since the body is being forced to utilize it out of necessity.

Conceptually, an intentional ketogenic diet might sound disturbing, perhaps even dissociative. The notion of two parties, the conscious self and the physical body, fighting over the dinner table like estranged siblings trapped in perpetual, holiday hell. That one may make a conscious decision to starve their own brain of the glucose it needs to function, in an effort to drive their autonomic nervous system to scrounge around the dive bars of their abdomen and back alley hole-in-the-wall nightclub of their own ass for some fatty scrap to suck on. And even if they manage to search long enough to find something, hungry and weak, when they do finally come across that fatty, fortuitous morsel, they still can’t eat it as it is. They must work to make it into something they can actually ingest, and in the process expend even more energy, drawing from a bank on the verge of collapse, charging on an account approaching its limit, like a resentful minor come across their parent’s credit card.

This is not a prescription in support of adopting one specific diet type over another, only to illustrate how shifts in the nutritional profile might correspond to the changes to the energy pathway in response. Whether or not a person can cut their carbohydrate intake down to less than 10% and still drive their deadlift to a set of 5 at 455 will depend on a number of factors, not least of which is whether or not they have already performed 455x5 at some point in the past. It also depends on how long such a macronutrient ratio has been in effect, the time of day the training was performed in relation to eating, the psychological enthusiasm of the person, their stress level, their warm up routine, and their capacity for grit on the day.

This scenario also alludes to the many internal conflicts that may arise if a person has only half an understanding of multiple diet types, vaguely stated and conflicting goals, which are likely informed by negative emotions.

Part 5:

— Potential Zen —

A common concern for individuals that have recently performed a training phase involving a caloric deficit, is the question as to the number of calories necessary to reestablish a maintenance level of caloric-energy input in relation to energy output, i.e. “an energy balance.” They have just gone through a long and grueling experience, no doubt suffering under the razor’s edge of their so-called friend’s chiding jives, their jabbing comments, when it is finally revealed why they aren't ordering what they normally get, engaging like they usually engage, going out on the weekend as they typically have, the truth eventually spilling out like the sweetest of all desert syrups, and the words that so many have thought but have been too terrified to say out loud, finally ring out: “I’m on a cut.”

They have cut down on many of their favorite things to eat, replaced them with healthier alternatives or eliminated them altogether. They have made social sacrifices, deciding against going out with their friends on a reckless weekend, to a radical dive bar or some excellent new food cart, or that one café with this one thing with the weird, wonderful cream. And if they do venture out, they make the necessary sacrifices, by not ordering the item on the menu they desire at that moment more than anything else in their entire life, or at least in their short term memory, because at that terrible moment, when they are faced with temptation, it is not failure that they actually fear, but rather the fear comes from the possibility that they might cave to their craving in a flash of succulent, salivary panic, only to discover that they don’t actually care. That the dread of failing to achieve their once singular and unshakable goal, has slipped quietly into obscurity, a whisper in the dark, drowned out by the murmurs of a satisfied crowd, of shuffling footsteps, and the gelatinous brown-noise of craft gelato.

This isn’t to suggest that if the client were to raise their caloric intake from the weighted average of 2,028 up to 2,789 that they would remain exactly the same weight for the rest of their life. Weight gain would certainly occur in response to an abrupt caloric increase, as it is far easier for one to raise one’s daily caloric average by 30% overnight than it is to increase one’s 5RM squat by 30% in that same amount of time. What’s important to remember is that the energy output potential is what has been raised when calories are added into the post-deficit phase. In this particular case, the potential energy increase translates to higher training intensities and additional reps completed over time, along with other physical attributes both in and out of the gym relating to energy expression. This is how recomposition occurs, given the nutritional profile of the person supports sustaining the progress already made.

For recomposition to occur, the assumption is that the energy output activity of a person who raises their caloric intake by their average reflected deficit (calculated by observing the average rate of weight loss, in this case 716) will be lifting weights in a program that contains training protocols that utilize this increase of potential caloric energy, should the increase be demonstrated sufficient. In this context "sufficient" is appreciated when reps are completed at the top end of the specified training range, form is correct and recovery is occurring between training sessions.

This is why physical training using a program that minimizes variables, and training models that effectively develop strength, are so effective in conjunction with changes in caloric intake in the context of body recomposition. In his context, a training program directed at strength and muscle development is the attempt to reduce the body's natural tendency to auto-regulate energy-output (exercise activity) down, when less energy-input (calories) are being provided. While the statement “two people might use the same number of calories differently” could be true, it has no use. Caloric energy taken in by one person cannot be used for energy expression by another person, so the concern is ultimately irrelevant.

My first job as a trainer was in a commercial gym. I had only begun working out myself only a year prior. I would lay on the blue turf in my oversized basketball shorts and plain white t-shirt after completing whatever celebrity workout routine I had just found online, watching the guys on the platform pulling three-fifteen sumo, with straps and long socks, before I even knew the difference between a dumbbell and a barbell, let alone how much three red bumper plates actually weighed, and would think, “maybe in like, five years I’ll be able to do three red ones on both sides like that.”

One of my favorite sayings related to training is “you work the program. The program doesn't work you.” I thought it sounded cool the first time I heard it. I nodded my head and said “right on, man” to the person that said it, like I was already hip to it, when in fact I had no idea what this could possibly mean. The phrasing turns in on itself, opens back up and internally repeats, like a Zen question or a Mobius strip, things that prompt but have no clear answer, the point being only that you contemplate them. I like it because it sounds like the meaning is obvious, but it would be many years later, training myself and learning first hand, that I finally began to really decode it. I’ll think of it every so often and have a slightly different take on the phrase, see it from a different angle, however slight, and have a deeper understanding of what it’s getting at and update its meaning for me.

Good programs make use of what they’re given.

Give To Get: Consideration of the Traditional Caloric Model Against the Concept of Food Energy Regulation