Losing 100 pounds sounds like a dramatic achievement. From the inside, it felt more like a slow, iterative research project — a long series of small experiments, each one teaching me something the previous one didn't. Some of my experiments were grounded in legitimate science. Some were based on things I'd read online and wanted to test. A few, in hindsight, were pure wishful thinking. What they all had in common was a willingness to observe what actually happened in my specific body rather than what was supposed to happen according to whatever approach I was trying at the time.
I want to be clear about the context: everything I did was in conversation with my GP and, at various points, a registered dietitian. I was not free-styling a medical intervention — I was systematically varying inputs and tracking outputs, with professional oversight as a safety check. If you are considering any of the experiments below, especially the caloric or supplementation ones, that professional check-in is not optional.
The honest summary before the experiments: I lost 100 pounds over roughly three years, not three months. The sustainable pace turned out to be about half a pound to one pound per week, which aligns with what NHS and WHO guidance actually recommends — a 600 kcal deficit producing 0.5–1 kg per week, prioritising fat loss over lean mass loss. Everything faster than that either didn't hold or made me feel terrible. The slow rate was the experiment that worked.
1. Experimenting with different dietary patterns
I approached this like a proper A/B test. I ran periods of low-carb eating (roughly 50g net carbs daily), then periods of time-restricted eating (eight-hour window), then periods of standard Mediterranean-style eating with calorie tracking. I kept each trial at six to eight weeks, long enough to get a real signal rather than water-weight noise.
What I found, and what the research supports: all three approaches worked when they produced a calorie deficit. A 2025 systematic review synthesising 30 RCTs (Nutrients, MDPI) found time-restricted eating reduced body weight by −2.82 kg and fat mass by −1.36 kg independently of explicit caloric restriction — but the benefit was greatest when the eating window was aligned with earlier circadian timing (eating most calories earlier in the day rather than late evening). The same review found that late eating — majority of calories after 8pm — is linked to lower resting metabolic rate and higher glycaemic response, even with identical calories. I noticed this myself: my late-eating periods felt stale and sluggish; shifting meals earlier made a tangible difference beyond what the scale showed. Starting point for your own experiments: 29 science-backed dieting approaches gives you a broader canvas to work from.
2. Tracking macronutrients
This was the experiment I resisted longest and eventually found most valuable. I spent about three months logging everything in Cronometer — not to achieve perfection but to get an accurate picture of what I was actually eating versus what I thought I was eating. The gap was significant: I was routinely underestimating by 400–600 kcal, mostly from cooking fats and drinks that I wasn't counting.
The research on this is clear. A 2022 systematic review of 59 weight-loss intervention studies found that completing at least 80% of expected dietary self-monitoring episodes was associated with significantly greater weight loss — one study found a 3.5 kg difference versus inconsistent trackers. Critically, simplified logging (meals but not every micronutrient) was as effective as exhaustive tracking. I eventually moved to a simpler system: protein target (1.6 g per kg of body weight), rough vegetable volume, and a loose estimate of everything else. Consistency of logging mattered more than precision.
3. Incorporating high-intensity interval training
Traditional gym cardio bored me into skipping it. I switched to HIIT after reading about its effects on after-burn (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, or EPOC). The reality was more modest than the hype: EPOC from HIIT adds perhaps 60–80 kcal of additional burn over the hours after a session, which matters but is not the transformative calorie incinerator it's sometimes marketed as. What HIIT did for me was practical: it was short, I could do it at home, and I stuck to it. The 8-minute morning routine was essentially the template I started with before building up.
The honest HIIT finding from my own data: I burned roughly the same total calories in a 20-minute HIIT session as in a 35-minute moderate jog, but I was far more likely to actually do the HIIT. Adherence is the variable that matters most in exercise research, and it was the variable I had most control over.
4. Exploring unconventional workouts
I spent two months rock climbing, a period doing trampoline fitness, and a surprisingly enjoyable stretch in an aerial yoga class. These experiments taught me something that no exercise physiology paper could have: the best exercise is the one you will actually turn up for repeatedly. I found formats I looked forward to, which solved the adherence problem better than any protocol optimisation.
The behavioural research supports this framing. People who maintain exercise long-term consistently report enjoying their chosen activity — enjoyment is not a soft metric, it is the variable that determines whether the habit survives the first six months. If you are forcing yourself through a training format you dislike, the experiment worth running is finding one you don't.
5. Testing cold exposure
I ran a 90-day cold shower experiment after reading about brown adipose tissue (BAT) activation. The theory: cold exposure stimulates BAT, which burns calories to generate heat. My honest assessment: the effect on the scale was subtle enough that I couldn't confidently separate it from normal variance. The current research agrees that the signal is real but modest for most adults — BAT activation in cold exposure contributes perhaps 100–250 kcal per day under sustained conditions, but adaptation occurs within weeks, reducing the effect. Where cold exposure genuinely helped me was mood and alertness in the mornings, which made the rest of the day's habits easier to execute. As a direct fat-loss tool, the evidence is preliminary and the effect size is small. As a morning routine anchor, it was more useful than the thermogenesis data alone would predict.
6. Practising mindful eating
I spent a deliberate month eating without screens, chewing slowly, and paying attention to when I actually felt full rather than when the plate was empty. This experiment genuinely changed something. I was routinely eating past comfortable fullness without noticing, and slowing down gave the satiety signal time to reach my decision-making before the damage was done.
The research evidence here is more nuanced than the popular version suggests. A 2025 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Springer) found mindfulness-based interventions significantly reduced binge eating versus non-psychological controls (Hedge's g = −0.65) but showed negligible advantage over active psychological controls on weight itself. The strength is in reduced disordered eating and improved relationship with food — not consistent direct fat loss. For me, the value was practical: it closed a portion-control gap that tracking alone hadn't fixed.
7. Testing sleep as a variable
This was the experiment that surprised me most. I started tracking sleep alongside food and weight, and the correlation was visible within weeks: poor sleep nights (under six hours) reliably produced higher caloric intake the following day — not by a trivial amount, but by what felt like 300–500 extra calories, mostly from snacking. A 2023 randomised crossover trial (Appetite, Elsevier) subsequently confirmed this pattern in a controlled setting: restricting sleep to five hours for three nights significantly increased hunger, desire for fatty foods, and snack energy intake. A 2022 RCT of 195 adults with obesity (Sleep journal) found that short sleepers regained 5.3 kg more over a 52-week weight-maintenance period than normal sleepers.
Protecting sleep became one of my highest-leverage experiments. Fixed wake time, caffeine cutoff at 2pm, no alcohol during active loss phases, cool bedroom. The caloric impact of consistently sleeping seven to eight hours was, in my data, comparable to a significant dietary intervention. For the practical strategies that made this work for me, the article on sleep strategies for better weight loss covers the toolkit in depth.
8. Investigating nutritional supplements
I experimented with several supplements in consultation with my dietitian: creatine (for lean mass preservation during caloric restriction — evidence is strong here), vitamin D (I was deficient, which is common in adults with obesity), and a brief period with various metabolic-support products that I eventually stopped. The honest finding: the creatine and vitamin D were genuinely useful, for reasons backed by clear evidence. The metabolic-support products produced no discernible signal above placebo and are not something I would revisit.
The general rule I developed: a supplement with a single well-replicated mechanism and a clear deficiency or use case is worth considering. A supplement with a list of claimed benefits and no replicated mechanism is not. "Natural" is a marketing word, not a safety descriptor, and herbal products can interact with medications and carry real risks. Everything went through my GP before I took it.
9. Building a support network
Throughout the three years, I maintained a small, honest group of people who knew what I was doing and why. Not a cheerleading squad — people who would tell me when an experiment seemed ill-advised, and who checked in on whether I was still logging and still sleeping. The social accountability research on exercise behaviour is consistent across decades: people with a training partner, group, or coach maintain higher adherence than those going entirely alone. The same logic applies to a longer-term lifestyle change. The lone-wolf model works for a small minority; most people benefit from at least one external accountability anchor.
My mad-scientist approach let me go beyond conventional methods and find what actually worked in my specific body. The key discipline was treating every approach as a hypothesis to be tested rather than a programme to be believed in. What worked for me may not work identically for you — body composition, hormonal profile, lifestyle, and starting point all matter. Safety and professional oversight are non-negotiable. Weight loss is a long experiment; the most important finding is the pattern that holds over years, not the result that shows up in two weeks.
Comments (0)