This Wasn’t a Study—It Was a Setup: How a 10K Fat Loss Challenge Got Hormones and Science Wrong

Recently, a coach shared that he was “at UCLA” and had offered $10,000 to any perimenopausal or postmenopausal woman who claimed she couldn’t lose fat, so long as she followed a specific 30-day deficit. The prize? Prove you can’t lose weight on a 750-calorie deficit, wear a fitness tracker, log food, and use a DEXA scan.

He said 348 women came, and none collected.
He also said they offered $30,000 to fast for 14 straight days—and again, no one “proved” hormones were to blame.

This might sound like bold science-backed confidence. But in reality?
It’s a classic case of confirmation bias dressed up like research.
And it's time we unpack the problems with this setup—because they're not just misleading… they’re dangerous.

This Was Not a Scientific Study. It Was a PR Stunt.

Let’s be clear: real science involves peer review, protocols, control groups, informed consent, variable tracking, ethical oversight, and most importantly… publication.

This challenge offered none of that.

There’s:

• No IRB approval

• No published methodology

• No clear definition of “in range” or “without disease”

• No control over confounding variables (sleep, stress, meds, menstrual phase)

• No actual data

This was not a research study. It was an unregulated challenge built to confirm a preexisting belief:

“It’s always just about energy balance. Hormones don’t matter.”

And everything about how it was designed ensured that result.

“Without Disease” = Excluding Most Midlife Women

Let’s look at the eligibility requirements:

“Peri or pausal women in range without disease.”

Sounds scientific… but it’s not. It’s a filter to remove complexity.

It excludes:

• Women with thyroid dysfunction (up to 20% of midlife women)

• Women with insulin resistance, PCOS, autoimmune issues

• Women using HRT, antidepressants, or sleep medications

• Likely anyone with surgical menopause, chronic stress, or cortisol dysregulation

That means this challenge eliminated the very people who are most likely to experience hormonal barriers to fat loss.

When you control your sample group so tightly that only “perfectly regulated” midlife women are included, you’re not proving hormones don’t matter—you’re just studying the outliers.

A 750-Calorie Deficit for 30 Days Isn’t a Proof of Anything

Even if these women followed the deficit perfectly (which we’ll get to), this design makes several flawed assumptions:

It assumes calorie tracking is accurate.

But tools like MyFitnessPal can be off by 20–30%. Food labels? Also flawed. Most people under-report even when they try not to.

It assumes wearable tech is reliable.

Garmin, Lumen, or Fitbit devices are helpful tools—but they're not scientific-grade metabolism monitors.

It assumes fat loss is linear.

A deficit doesn't guarantee visible or measurable fat loss in just 30 days. Body composition, water retention, muscle gain, digestive changes, menstrual cycle shifts, and cortisol can mask fat changes—especially in midlife women.

The 14-Day Fast Offer Is Flat-Out Irresponsible

“We offered $30,000 to fast for 14 days.”

This isn’t research. It’s starvation-as-evidence.
And for midlife women, especially athletes or those under stress, this is outright harmful.

Fasting that long can lead to:

• Muscle breakdown

• Severe cortisol elevation

• Thyroid suppression

• Electrolyte imbalance

• Post-fast weight rebound

• And in some cases, disordered eating

A lack of visible fat loss in that window doesn’t mean hormones aren’t involved—it means the body was under stress, and protected itself accordingly.

What Real Research on Menopause Actually Shows

The data does exist—and it's good. It just doesn’t support this oversimplified narrative.

Estrogen loss leads to:

• Increased visceral and abdominal fat

• Reduced insulin sensitivity

• Increased inflammation and cortisol response

• Slower muscle protein synthesis and lean mass loss

These effects are shown in randomized controlled trials, long-term cohort studies, and cross-sectional analyses—not gimmicky cash challenges. 

Menopause & Body Fat: Human Research Table

Why This Matters

Women in midlife are being gaslit out of their own lived experience. They’re being told:

• “You’re just not tracking well enough.”

• “It’s not your hormones, it’s your habits.”

• “Eat less, move more.”

All while battling disrupted sleep, energy crashes, shifting fat storage, and unexplained performance declines.

And instead of helping them navigate that reality with nuance and empathy, these oversimplified “challenges” reinforce shame and self-doubt—while ignoring the biology.

The Truth Midlife Women Deserve to Hear

• You’re not broken.

• You’re not lazy.

• And your body isn’t lying to you.

Your physiology has changed. And the way you train, fuel, recover, and adapt needs to evolve with it.
That doesn’t mean you’re doomed. It means your strategy needs to match your stage of life.

That’s what real science helps us do—when we let it be complex, honest, and woman-centered.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Confuse Confidence for Credibility

The next time someone waves around a flashy claim, a high-dollar challenge, or a one-size-fits-all answer, ask:

• Who was studied?

• What was measured?

• What was excluded?

• And who benefits from the message being that simple?

Because real science doesn't fear nuance. And real coaching doesn’t dismiss lived experience just because it’s harder to quantify.