Originally posted by rwfresh
Can you tell me what happens when you do these two diets for a week... say when the BMR begins to increase to compensate for an increase in calories.
Increase in calories? What increase. There is a 500 cal deficit.
My apologies, I was rushing. To be more realistic, since it's highly unlikely that you'll find someone with a BMR of 3000kc: If you were to eat
1000kc of burgers and fries and your BMR is 2000kc, you'll begin to lose weight. Whether that's fat or lean body mass will depend heavily on
insulin levels. In any case, but especially if lean mass is being lost, BMR will begin to lower. Body heat will reduce, hunger will increase,
cravings will increase and energy loss/lethargy will begin.
What's his body fat percentage? Did he lose muscle mass or fat? Did you know he also ate protein shakes and multivitamins? How many shakes did he
drink a day? I honestly couldn't care less about anecdotes. You're determining "healthy" based on blood lipids and BMI...over a two month
Just a reminder: When you eat less than you burn, your body will compensate (smart, remember?) by synthesizing less molecules...
including cholesterol. Those numbers probably don't don't mean much.
If you eat an excess of 100 calories a day for a year, you'll have gained about 10lbs, right? Well, no. Mathematically that works. And calorically
that works. But physiologically it doesn't. You're right, the body is smart. It works to maintain homeostasis. In extreme cases (like an 800
calorie deficit), the body can't maintain that homeostasis. In real life cases, it can and does by inducing cravings and reducing cravings.
Increasing body temperature/decreasing body temperature. By making you tired or "full of energy." These things combined work together to reach
Not sure why you posted this. Is it to prove that someone can be a frugivore? Or that you can eat that much sugar and not die of a diabetic coma?
Well, yeah. You can... if you're eating it throughout the day and if you're burning it through running 16 miles a day. Jesus. Remember... let's
look at real life examples. Not these ridiculous extremes.
Regardless of physiology, I find it hard to believe that there was ample fruit for us to sustain and thrive as early humans in the wild.
What would happen if you ate 3000 calories of fat over your BMR? You would get fat. You want more details?
Yeah... you'd get fat, but you wouldn't run the risk of hyperglycemia.
eating less calories of ANY diet will produce guaranteed results. And it's not anymore complicated than that.
Ok it's more complicated. There is a secret that statistically has more effect on weight loss than calories. No there isn't. I can post
thousands of studies, articles, papers, PERSONAL stories etc.
If it's so obvious and easy, then why do the majority of obese people fail when simply cutting calories? Why do leading obesity experts readily
admit that caloric restriction does not work long term? The people who do this for a living will tell you to your face that the efficacy of
restricting calories on treating obesity is unimpressive.
I don't understand the motivation to argue the obvious. I am not some nutritional scientist with secret knowledge that you yourself don't
already know. It is simple for 99% of the population. Yes other things can have an effect on weight-loss when you get to extremely low BF. But the
effect is DWARFED by the law of calorie in calorie out for 99% of overweight people. Eat less, lose weight. Simple as that.
You mean the first law of thermodynamics? I understand that it seems simple. And I understand how thermodynamics work. Maybe it's your lack of
expertise or scientific know how... but you're confusing cause and effect. You're also forgetting one major important factor... the first law
applies to closed systems
which the body is not.
Change in Energy Store = Energy In - Energy Out
All that says is: The change in how much fat we carry, or how much energy we carry, is equal to the amount of food energy we consume less the amount
of energy we burn. That's it. There is no arrow of causation. For all we know, a change in energy stores could be causing energy out (which it
does) or energy in (which it probably does).
You're also assuming that the variables are independent, which they are not. What you eat will change how you expend energy. Not only how much you
eat... but also WHAT you eat. This is not controversial.
This isn't controversial but, when discussing weightloss/gain, we ignore it and simply say "calories in - calories out." And that just isn't how