> In that case then needing to consume 5500-6000 calories to maintain weight is not unreasonable.
Let's assume that's correct, and the person in question is huge and needs 6,000 calories a day to maintain weight. To lose a kilogram a day you'd still need to eat nothing and do 1,700 calories of exercise a day above baseline to lose a kilogram a day.
You probably wouldn't be able to eat nothing for 18 days, so you'd actually have to burn the equivalent in exercise for whatever you ate.
Let's play with some numbers. Some of the heaviest athletes around are front-row rugby players. 150kg would be right around the top end of that range. If they were on a 50% calorie reduction diet they'd be needing to burn 4,700 calories a day. That's still about 100km of cycling even if you're 150kg. On a very restricted diet. For 18 days in a row.
I believe some Buddhist monks go in for multi-week extreme fasts, but I think they spend their time meditating rather than doing exercise.
Short-term fasting might. Long-term, extreme fasting slows metabolism.
> In that case then needing to consume 5500-6000 calories to maintain weight is not unreasonable.
Let's assume that's correct, and the person in question is huge and needs 6,000 calories a day to maintain weight. To lose a kilogram a day you'd still need to eat nothing and do 1,700 calories of exercise a day above baseline to lose a kilogram a day.
You probably wouldn't be able to eat nothing for 18 days, so you'd actually have to burn the equivalent in exercise for whatever you ate.
Let's play with some numbers. Some of the heaviest athletes around are front-row rugby players. 150kg would be right around the top end of that range. If they were on a 50% calorie reduction diet they'd be needing to burn 4,700 calories a day. That's still about 100km of cycling even if you're 150kg. On a very restricted diet. For 18 days in a row.
I believe some Buddhist monks go in for multi-week extreme fasts, but I think they spend their time meditating rather than doing exercise.