[quote]Pauli D wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
zdrax wrote:
The decrease in one’s metabolic rate is largely overstated when on a low-calorie diet. I wouldn’t be concerned at all if your number one goal is fat loss. Drop the calories as low as you possibly can stand it and monitor your carb ups closely.
I think it depends on the situation. If someone has been on a 3,000 calorie for months, then switches over to 2,500 calories, then to 2,000 calories, I would tend to think they would lose weight.
Now, if someone has been on a 1,500 calorie diet for months and they continue to stay on that 1,500 calorie diet, I don’t think they will lose much. Their metabolism is so slow.
That is why some people who don’t eat much for a long period of time can’t lose weight. My gf is on this diet and I started her at 2,500 calories and she didn’t gain anything at first. She actually lost 1-2 pounds. Then, from there, we can drop the calories and she can drop the weight.
Good, good post!
It really is highly individualistic and situation specific -you’re oh, so correct HoA.
I hope our newbie, DtAlexOne, is paying close attention. He seems to have all the motivation and discipline necessarry to succeed…but perhaps he’s lacking in the patience dept(??).
Cutting cals works -there is no doubt. However it is possible to go too far and lose body ‘weight’ instead of body-fat as Sasha pointed out in a previous post. And that is not a good thing…is it?
The very best recipe for success is a moderate reduction is overall caloric intake coupled with a moderate increase in physical activity.
“The mean between extremes is a virtue.” as Aristotle said (or something like that).
And if you’re going to be cutting calories (energy source) and increasing activities (which requires energy) -it only makes sense to make sure the calories you DO take in are replete with energy (energy rich).
And on the AD we get out energy from fat…correct?[/quote]
At some point, however, I think people believe they’ve stalled, and start reading all the literature about depressed metabolic rate (which is dodgy at best). The infamous Minnesota semi-starvation study still saw, at maximum, a 16% energy expenditure deficit caused by adapative metabolic processes (pure slowed metabolism). The rest came from reduced NEAP. And most people aren’t rapidly and suddenly cutting their maintenance calories in half. Keep in mind, these guys lost basically all of their body fat.
Especially in the later stages of a diet, you really just have to grit it out if you want to get really really lean.