I added 500 cals of (mainly) carbs (no extra activity) for 3 weeks and this happened.

[AdamWW]

Literally nothing in terms of rate of gain on the scale.

I guess I might be one of those hyper-responders to caloric surplus, but after gaining at a slow rate (about .25-.5lb per week) consistently, adding in 500 calories from mainly carbs per day in no way changed the average weight gain.

I saw a transient bump the first 4 days, then everything leveled off.

Intentional activity was as controlled as can be, and the added calories came from pretty easily-measured items (oatmeal, bananas, bread) via a scale.

Only thing I did notice was going to bed feel very hot, and of course a decrease in appetite... maybe some extra sensations of hyper-activity and alertness.

Fun times.

[SuffolkPunch]

That is certainly in the realm of adaptation - I've read that you can get as much as 400 cal adaptation although admittedly that is going from deficit to surplus... If it's mostly carbs, there would be higher TEF than if it contained more fats. Perhaps you are still in a higher surplus but if it's only 1-200 calories after the adaptations have been accounted for it might take some time to be visible in the numbers.

Feeling hotter is definitely a clue IMO.

[AdamWW]

That is certainly in the realm of adaptation - I've read that you can get as much as 400 cal adaptation although admittedly that is going from deficit to surplus... If it's mostly carbs, there would be higher TEF than if it contained more fats. Perhaps you are still in a higher surplus but if it's only 1-200 calories after the adaptations have been accounted for it might take some time to be visible in the numbers.

Feeling hotter is definitely a clue IMO.

My thoughts as well.

Frankly I have zero desire to keep doing it just because my appetite dropped enough to make it feel like I was forcing it.

I wonder if the same reaction would happen with fats, but I don’t really want to try adding in all that unless I felt super hungry on an isolated day

[Markype]

3 weeks may be not enough to see results.

[AdamWW]

3 weeks may be not enough to see results.

Uh, what?

[Mrpb]

Unfortunately 3 weeks is not nearly enough to draw conclusions. When you're running an experiment with n=1 and these methods with rather larger error margins you need more data. 8 weeks would be a start, but 12 weeks would be better.

If you run this experiment for 12 weeks I'll be highly surprised if you're getting the same weight gain with say 3200 vs 3700 kcal.

Sometimes I bulk at 3500 kcal. Sometimes I'll gain 2-3 pounds in one month, sometimes I won't gain anything (on 7 day moving average).

PS. If the goal of eating a surplus is gaining weight, I'd call someone that doesn't gain weight while eating a surplus a non responder.

[AdamWW]

Unfortunately 3 weeks is not nearly enough to draw conclusions. When you're running an experiment with n=1 and these methods with rather larger error margins you need more data. 8 weeks would be a start, but 12 weeks would be better.

If you run this experiment for 12 weeks I'll be highly surprised if you're getting the same weight gain with say 3200 vs 3700 kcal.

Sometimes I bulk at 3500 kcal. Sometimes I'll gain 2-3 pounds in one month, sometimes I won't gain anything (on 7 day moving average).

PS. If the goal of eating a surplus is gaining weight, I'd call someone that doesn't gain weight while eating a surplus a non responder.

3 weeks not enough?

That's an additional 10,000+ calories on top of what I had before, which in THEORY should have been 3lbs of fat if it all was converted (I understand it wouldn't be).

I've been steadily monitoring weight, etc, for like 6 months now... I had a solid baseline to go off...

Maybe your weight fluctuates more than mine day to day, but IMO 3 weeks is enough time to assess...

[Mrpb]

3 weeks not enough?

Statistically speaking: no. Not enough.

This is why studies like to recruit more people and run studies longer, it increases statistical power.

As you said yourself: your rate of weight gain is normally "about .25-.5lb per week". That's a large margin. Food tracking has significant margins of error too. And there's a ton of other varying factors. Science is hard.

But hey you didn't intend to run a scientific study, you just did a fun experiment which is cool. I just wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I ate ~3470 kcal for the last 4 weeks, it seems like I lost 2 pounds on my moving average. I'm not drawing any conclusions from it, other than that I'll try 3500 kcal now.

[AdamWW]

Statistically speaking: no. Not enough.

This is why studies like to recruit more people and run studies longer, it increases statistical power.

As you said yourself: your rate of weight gain is normally "about .25-.5lb per week". That's a large margin. Food tracking has significant margins of error too. And there's a ton of other varying factors. Science is hard.

But hey you didn't intend to run a scientific study, you just did a fun experiment which is cool. I just wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I ate ~3470 kcal for the last 4 weeks, it seems like I lost 2 pounds on my moving average. I'm not drawing any conclusions from it, other than that I'll try 3500 kcal now.

Food tracking may have errors, but I've been 'tracking' for the last 15 years and I don't really use foods that are prone to significant error.

I understand what you're saying, but if 3 weeks isn't enough to know if 10,000 extra calories actually lead to 'true' weight gain... then... tracking bodyweight change seems really problematic in general.

I guess mine just doesn't swing as much as you're saying tho...

[Mrpb]

Food tracking may have errors, but I've been 'tracking' for the last 15 years and I don't really use foods that are prone to significant error.

I think you're underestimating that. Even a different harvest of fruit can have different calories. The calorie count for an apple you use is the average. The real calorie content can be lower or higher.

The amount of fiber can also be different. Eat more fiber and it can also impact how you absorb other calories. Then there's a whole list of other factors.

All these factors can be disturbing the experiment. That's one of the reasons why scientists usually don't accept a conclusion from a single study even if it has enough statistical power. They want to see the study repeated in a different environment.

[Mrpb]

I guess mine just doesn't swing as much as you're saying tho...

My expenditure is all over the place. I'm not trying to control it. For example: if the weather is nice I'll walk more. If I feel tired I may watch more TV.

If I wanted to control my expenditure for an experiment I'd probably get myself a good step counter. Something better than a smart phone or watch.

[AdamWW]

My expenditure is all over the place. I'm not trying to control it. For example: if the weather is nice I'll walk more. If I feel tired I may watch more TV.

If I wanted to control my expenditure for an experiment I'd probably get myself a good step counter. Something better than a smart phone or watch.

Yeah that makes sense.

I don’t usually ‘control’ mine but for the purpose of this little experiment I did..

[Mrpb]

Yeah that makes sense.

I don’t usually ‘control’ mine but for the purpose of this little experiment I did..

You probably mean you tried to control it, meaning you mentally tried to keep it the same. But that's not the same as controlling it.

For your calorie intake I'd say you controlled it.

[AdamWW]

You probably mean you tried to control it, meaning you mentally tried to keep it the same. But that's not the same as controlling it.

For your calorie intake I'd say you controlled it.

I controlled it to the best of my ability... I think you know what I mean.. being basically locked inside for 3 weeks made it pretty easy

[Strawng]

You making clickbait now, bro? This title reads like every other article heading on Vice or Buzzfeed lol. Speaking of, as soon as I saw the title, I knew Mrpb would get extremely rustled by this. He fuking hates personal anecdotes with the fiery hot passion of a million suns lol

I've actually tried the exact same thing when I stopped gaining on what used to be a very small surplus and I upped my calories by 500 (I only really ever add in carb sources) for roughly 8 weeks a couple months ago and had the same results. I bumped calories by another 100 and then started to very slowly gain gain. I had the same increased heat/sweatiness and hyper-alertness you describe. I'm quite certain we're both NEAT hyper-responders when eating a surplus. I purposely kept my activity consistent with the activity tracker on my phone. I keep my phone on me at all times, and like you said, it's very easy to track during covid times.

While my caloric increase involved carb sources (bananas, oats, cereal), I've noticed less adaptation in the past when I primarily increased fats. I still seemed to gain a bit slower than predicted, but it was far more in line with what I expected. I think Suffolk may be right that the macro profile could play a role. I'd be interested to see if you tried this same thing with fats and notice something similar.

[AdamWW]

You making clickbait now, bro? This title reads like every other article heading on Vice or Buzzfeed lol.

haha!

That was 100% the intention =o)

[Mrpb]

I've actually tried the exact same thing when I stopped gaining on what used to be a very small surplus and I upped my calories by 500 (I only really ever add in carb sources) for roughly 8 weeks a couple months ago and had the same results. I bumped calories by another 100 and then started to very slowly gain gain. I had the same increased heat/sweatiness and hyper-alertness you describe. I'm quite certain we're both NEAT hyper-responders when eating a surplus. I purposely kept my activity consistent with the activity tracker on my phone. I keep my phone on me at all times, and like you said, it's very easy to track during covid times.

Adam's post is reporting something different though. He's suggesting his rate of weight gain is identical on X calories and on X+500 calories. This I consider unlikely to happen if the time frame is long enough. If the time frame is long enough the X+500 will likely result in more weight gain, I expect.

Well he actually said it's "about 0.25-0.5 lb per week" over 3 weeks. Now if you've got any feeling for statistics and statistical significance you realise that's not nearly enough or good enough data to draw such conclusions.

What you're reporting is quite a common phenomenon: stop gaining on a certain amount of calories and then having to increase calories by a lot to keep gaining. I'm not skeptical that that could happen longer term too. The increases in body temperature are very common and normal reaction to increased food intake, although it doesn't happen to everyone to the same extent.

You making clickbait now, bro? This title reads like every other article heading on Vice or Buzzfeed lol. Speaking of, as soon as I saw the title, I knew Mrpb would get extremely rustled by this. He fuking hates personal anecdotes with the fiery hot passion of a million suns lol

Just to inform you: I don't hate personal anecdote. What I oppose to is the posts that draw overconfident conclusions based on limited, poorly controlled n=1 data.

A good way to talk about personal anecdotes is to say "well I know this is just my personal anecdote but I really believe I have a relatively high NEAT response when I eat a surplus".

I'm quite certain we're both NEAT hyper-responders when eating a surplus.

Now to Adam's credit he only said "I guess I might be one of those hyper-responders". It seems like he's aware of the uncertainty in the claim. You're saying you're quite certain. I would obviously disagree on that. You're not certain at all. In fact what you wrote actually suggest you didn't have an increased NEAT response: the fact that your phone didn't pick up an increase in movements makes it less likely that you're a "NEAT hyper responder". Increased body temperature and sweatiness actually suggest you're a "TEF hyper responder".

For the record, I haven't seen any scientific paper that talks about "NEAT hyper responders" and "hyper-responders to a caloric surplus". Even Google doesn't find these terms. You guys seem really fond of using the terms but I thought I'd let you know. And yes I realise what you guys mean with it and yes I'm aware of Lyle's article on individual variability in the response to overfeeding.

As for future experiments: I'd be interested in an experiment where you guys don't overfeed on higher fiber foods like oats and fruits but on low fiber low protein high carb foods, perhaps something like white bread. I suspect you both already have a high fiber intake, increasing it even more might explain some of the increased TEF effects you're reporting.

[Strawng]

You're not certain at all. In fact what you wrote actually suggest you didn't have an increased NEAT response: the fact that your phone didn't pick up an increase in movements makes it less likely that you're a "NEAT hyper responder". Increased body temperature and sweatiness actually suggest you're a "TEF hyper responder".

As for future experiments: I'd be interested in an experiment where you guys don't overfeed on higher fiber foods like oats and fruits but on low fiber low protein high carb foods, perhaps something like white bread. I suspect you both already have a high fiber intake, increasing it even more might explain some of the increased TEF effects you're reporting.

I was including TEF as a part of NEAT, but you’re right. As far as NEAT, it was actually agonizing moving less. I was exceptionally fidgety & absolutely hated limiting my steps. I actually had an extremely strong impulse to increase my movement.

Also, good point about the fiber. I’d imagine that absolutely contributes to the lack of gain from the TEF.