3 ms·

> If you normally eat 3,000 calories/day, and cut it to 2,000 calories/day, you won't necessarily lose weight You're absolutely correct, because what you said

by grecy 8y ago

> If you normally eat 3,000 calories/day, and cut it to 2,000 calories/day, you won't necessarily lose weight You're absolutely correct, because what you said has nothing to do with what the article said. What the article said: If you normally put 10 gallons in your car every day, but you only burn 5, you need to put in less than 5 every day to make sure you will eventually run out (ie lose weight) What you said: if you normally put 10 gallons in your car every day, but you only burn 5, cutting down to only 7 gallons a day doesn't mean you'll run out eventually (i.e. lose weight). In conclusion: It doesn't matter how much you've been eating, it only matters that from now on you eat less than you're burning!

crazygringo 8y ago
I'm not sure you're understanding. > What the article said: If you normally put 10 gallons in your car every day, but you only burn 5, you need to put in less than 5 every day to make sure you will eventually run out (ie lose weight) I'm saying that if you respond by putting 4 in your body, your body may respond by only burning 4 instead of burning its usual 5 -- and you don't lose weight. This is why weight loss can be so much more difficult for some people than others. (In practice, people trying to lose weight can feel a loss of mental energy, get cold easily and start wearing hoodies instead of t-shirts at the office, they no longer fidget, etc. -- there are lots of ways for your body to slow down in response to less fuel, and they don't always include weight loss.)
- grecy 8y ago
  > your body may respond by only burning 4 instead of burning its usual 5 Absolutely. In fact your body will repsond and burn less (because you weigh less). So what that means is this is an iterative process. Put 4 in your body and watch how much you're burning. If you're now burning less than 4, put 3 in your body. Now watch how much you're burning. If you're now burning less than 3, put 2 in your body. It's an ongoing process of re-evaluation and adjustment, and every body is different. But they are very much the same in the one way that science limits to universe. If you put in less energy than you use, your body can't invent that extra energy it needs to function, and therefore your body must start to consume it's energy reserves. It's not possible for anything else to happen.
- dahart 8y ago
  Your metabolism is a little bit elastic, it is most definitely not 100% elastic, which is what you argued. The vast majority of people will definitely lose weight if they cut a third of their intake, all else being equal. You're arguing about a marginal effect, and arguing against the primary effect. The primary effect is that eating more than burned is what caused the weight gain, and eating less than burned will cause weight loss. That's true regardless of metabolic elasticity, but even so changes in metabolic rate account for only a small fraction of changes in intake.

by grecy 8y ago

crazygringo 8y ago

I'm not sure you're understanding. > What the article said: If you normally put 10 gallons in your car every day, but you only burn 5, you need to put in less than 5 every day to make sure you will eventually run out (ie lose weight) I'm saying that if you respond by putting 4 in your body, your body may respond by only burning 4 instead of burning its usual 5 -- and you don't lose weight. This is why weight loss can be so much more difficult for some people than others. (In practice, people trying to lose weight can feel a loss of mental energy, get cold easily and start wearing hoodies instead of t-shirts at the office, they no longer fidget, etc. -- there are lots of ways for your body to slow down in response to less fuel, and they don't always include weight loss.)

grecy 8y ago
> your body may respond by only burning 4 instead of burning its usual 5 Absolutely. In fact your body will repsond and burn less (because you weigh less). So what that means is this is an iterative process. Put 4 in your body and watch how much you're burning. If you're now burning less than 4, put 3 in your body. Now watch how much you're burning. If you're now burning less than 3, put 2 in your body. It's an ongoing process of re-evaluation and adjustment, and every body is different. But they are very much the same in the one way that science limits to universe. If you put in less energy than you use, your body can't invent that extra energy it needs to function, and therefore your body must start to consume it's energy reserves. It's not possible for anything else to happen.
dahart 8y ago
Your metabolism is a little bit elastic, it is most definitely not 100% elastic, which is what you argued. The vast majority of people will definitely lose weight if they cut a third of their intake, all else being equal. You're arguing about a marginal effect, and arguing against the primary effect. The primary effect is that eating more than burned is what caused the weight gain, and eating less than burned will cause weight loss. That's true regardless of metabolic elasticity, but even so changes in metabolic rate account for only a small fraction of changes in intake.