| Rank | Name | Calories | Weight (lbs) | bf% | Fat Free Mass (lbs) | Kg | Kcal per Lb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Durian Rider | 5680 | 140 | 7.00% | 130.2 | 59.18 | 43.63 |
| 2 | Nick Bare | 4000 | 205 | 12.00% | 180.4 | 82.00 | 22.17 |
| 3 | Abbey Sharp | 2350 | 145 | 25.00% | 108.8 | 49.43 | 21.61 |
| 4 | Paul Saladino | 3500 | 180 | 10.00% | 162.0 | 73.64 | 21.60 |
| 5 | Kate Deering | 2400 | 145 | 23.00% | 111.7 | 50.75 | 21.50 |
| 6 | Becca Bristow | 2350 | 140 | 20.00% | 112.0 | 50.91 | 20.98 |
| 7 | Meghan Livingstone | 2200 | 135 | 20.00% | 108.0 | 49.09 | 20.37 |
| 8 | Jay Feldman | 3250 | 185 | 13.00% | 161.0 | 73.16 | 20.19 |
| 9 | Mike Israetel | 3500 | 205 | 12.00% | 180.4 | 82.00 | 19.40 |
| 10 | Shawn Baker | 4000 | 245 | 15.00% | 208.3 | 94.66 | 19.21 |
| 11 | Gabrielle Lyon | 2500 | 150 | 12.00% | 132.0 | 60.00 | 18.94 |
| 12 | Mike Matthews | 3000 | 190 | 12.00% | 167.2 | 76.00 | 17.94 |
| 13 | Marc Lobliner | 3200 | 200 | 10.00% | 180.0 | 81.82 | 17.78 |
| 14 | Robb Wolf | 3000 | 200 | 14.00% | 172.0 | 78.18 | 17.44 |
| 15 | Cole Robinson | 2100 | 150 | 8.00% | 138.0 | 62.73 | 15.22 |
| 16 | Brian Johnson | 2250 | 165 | 10.00% | 148.5 | 67.50 | 15.15 |
| 17 | Andrew Huberman | 2500 | 190 | 12.00% | 167.2 | 76.00 | 14.95 |
| 18 | Mark Sisson | 2250 | 172 | 12.00% | 151.4 | 68.80 | 14.87 |
| 19 | Mindy Pelz | 1500 | 135 | 22.00% | 105.3 | 47.86 | 14.25 |
| 20 | Mark Hyman | 2000 | 170 | 14.00% | 146.2 | 66.45 | 13.68 |
In the paper “Daily energy expenditure through the human life course” published in Science 13 Aug 2021, Vol 373, Issue 6556, pp. 808-812 DOI: 10.1126/science.abe5017
Researchers investigated the effects of age, body composition, and sex on total expenditure using 6500 people across 29 countries who were 64% female using doubly labelled water (gold standard metabolism measurement).
They found that “both total and basal expenditure increased with fat-free mass in a power-law manner” which is on the whole unsurprising. However, this power-law was incredibly tight and as such can be used to reasonably expect with a high degree of confidence where you metabolism both should be and could be.
Matt covered this in depth in a post on uncivilized.
This chart is interactive and should allow you to workout where your full, healthy metabolism should and could be.
If like many, you find that your current total energy expenditure is way below where expected on the graph do not worry.
There are several reasons for this. Fundamentally, when we restrict food intake repeatedly, our body learns to become more efficient at metabolic processes or in other words suppress our metabolism to survive to the fullest extent.
Additionally, years of processed foods and the ingestion of seed oils will lower your metabolic capacity.
There are several ways this shows up, but fundamentally it’s usually through subclinical hypothyroidism, and a very aggressive re-apportioning of energy expenditure when we exercise.
This is why the idea of “eat less, move more” is generally nonsense.
If you already have a suppressed metabolism, when you move more or exercise more, you’re not actually burning net additional calories. Your body will be stealing them from existing metabolic processes, further forcing your body to be more efficient.
Sadly, most leading health influencer voices on the internet have seriously suppressed their own metabolisms to remain lean. When you try and chase their lifestyle, you just drive your body into the ground with stress.
How they rank is shown in the top table. Anything lower than 20Kcal/lb is less than ideal.
Where do you stack up?
Leave a Reply