So, have you ever wondered not just whether you have a fast or slow metabolism, but exactly how fast or slow it is?

I mean, can you put a number on that shit?

Oh yeah, yeah, you totally can.  But only IF YOUR SCIENCE IS AS POWERFUL AS MY SCIENCE.

So what you’re looking at is, in the first graph, the end-result of a horribly detailed analysis of my weight from the start of September last year right up to when I went on holiday for Christmas (at which point all bets were off, I couldn’t be bothered keeping track, and I pigged out like a happy happy big fat motherfucker).

We know how many calories are in a pound of fat, and therefore how many calories you need to burn to lose a pound of fat.  So, I reasoned, all I need to do is keep a track of how many calories I eat, and how many I use each day, and I should be able to work out how many pounds I gain or lose.

I looked up all the sums, I set up a spreadsheet to track and calculate everything, and I gathered rich, detailed data which I then processed like a fucking boss.

After three and a half months, I had the top graph.

My predictions for my weight-loss, based upon the number of calories I consumed, and the number of calories I used, had a similar shape to what my weight actually did, but the numbers fell short of what was actually happening.

Yeah, you can talk about water-loss, and there’d be a little at first, but I’ve been keeping track of the fat, muscle and water content of my body and, as I’ve got lighter, my muscle and water content have risen.  Plus my pants fit better.  So I can be confident my weight loss is primarily chub, as opposed to muscle wasting away.

Seriously, I have collected ALL THE DATA.

And y’know what?  Rich, detailed data is way more motivating me to get back in shape than anything else I’ve ever tried.  Ahhh, sweet, sweet numbers.

Anyway, the red line is my predicted weight loss, and the blue line is my actual weight loss (note the little peaks on the blue line - they’re weekends, because a diet is not as important as a party).

Clearly the two lines were diverging, but they were sort of the same shape.  The prediction seemed to need a scaling factor.

After some fiddling, as you can see above, I reckon taking the number of calories a typical person (because all my calculations are based upon data I could find for an average person, because I had no way to know for sure how my own body behaved) would burn, and assuming I’m burning an extra 11% on top of that seems to correct the prediction in line with the observations.

I BURN AN EXTRA 11% MORE CALORIES THAN HUMANS DO.  I AM OBVIOUSLY A GENERATION X-5 MANTICORE TRANSGENIC BURNING THROUGH THE CALORIES LIKE A LIGHT BULB JUST LIKE JESSICA ALBA DARK ANGEL OMG SKIP TO 12.41 TO GET THE CULTURAL REFERENCE BECAUSE NOBODY WATCHED THE SECOND SEASON OF THIS SHOW BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO MAKE IT UTTER SHITE ETC ETC AND SO FORTH.

I drank like three beers as I wrote this.  I think it came off pretty well, despite that.

(140 kCal in every can of Carlsberg, FYI)

P.S. 206 lbs start-weight? Yeah, I know.  I’ll be in the 170’s by May.