I have read all over that if you hit a plateau with your reduced calorie diet... to go back to your maintenance level "for a while" to reset your metabolism (basically) then resume your reduced calorie diet. So how long is a while? and how do you gauge it if its different for everyone?
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on things like how long you've been dieting, what you've been eating, what your caloric intake has been, if you're truly plateaued or simply miscalculating your intake vs. requirements, etc, etc.
Im thinking thats not the answer a lot of people who may read this wanted....![]()
Most people who claim to be plateauing - really aren't... and they don't want to hear that either...Im thinking thats not the answer a lot of people who may read this wanted....![]()
Im thinking thats not the answer a lot of people who may read this wanted....![]()
[Focus];461955 said:On a long enough timeline, success is inevitable. Provided you don't quit. Or die. And aren't screwing things up royally.![]()
[Focus];461955 said:On a long enough timeline, success is inevitable. Provided you don't quit. Or die. And aren't screwing things up royally.![]()
You may want to look into the work of Dr. John Berardi at John Berardi - Articles He has documented several cases where he had to UP peoples' calories significantly to get them to lose fat.
If you have been dieting hard for a long period, then your plateau is probably real and lowering calories further or doing more exercise is just going to be counterproductive.
Now simply adding more calories isn't always the answer. Some types of calories are going to be stored as fat because the body has been waiting for them to be around so that it can do just that (while you dieted, your endocrine system produced a nett fat-storage metabolic profile).
If I were going to be looking to read an author/researcher though about the topic I'd probably lean toward Lyle McDonald. I mean, he's the one that really brought Leptin into light for the fitness community.
This really depends on how much body fat one is carrying. You left that out here and that makes a big difference. If one plateaus and is still carrying a good bit of fat, chances are it has more to do with not dropping calories enough below their new maintenance than anything else.
Granted, a break is a great psychological buffer, but beyond that in an overweight individual, I wouldn't use the word "probably" above.
You mean some types of nutrients?
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Oh yea, and the link in your sig was removed. You might want to read over the forum rules before posting.
Just thought I'd get in on this fun.![]()
I've lost almost 60 pounds so far at a constant rate of 2-5lbs a week. There are no "plateaus" they are what you make of them.
Just thought I'd get in on this fun.![]()
allyphoe said:FWIW (which is exactly nothing, because the plural of anecdote isn't data), I lost 60+ pounds at a consistent 15 pounds every 2 months, and slowed down for the next 10+ pounds because I intentionally raised my calories. No plateaus, no stalls, no slowdowns. Plenty of times when I was frustrated, sure, but looking back at the numbers, I lost at exactly the same pace when it felt hard as it did when it felt easy. No days off, and an insignificant amount of variance in my intake levels (<10% up or down from average on any given day).
Well, I said "look into the work of Dr. John Berardi", not "prostrate and pray to an image of".
So you're implying that we should discard any offerings from the likes of Berardi, Lonnie Lowery, Will Brink, Mike Roussell, Joel Marion, Tim Ziegenfuss, Chris Lockwood, Christopher Mohr and all the other knowledgeable men and women working in this field?
What about those working silently in the 'background', including the people that the current experts have (or are) studied under. I'm not even sure that McDonald would be flattered by your sentiment.
And leptin? There's nothing magical about leptin. You may want to re-read your Lyle McDonald collection.
I have seen many cases where a highly motivated dieter was eating far fewer calories than recommended at time. Sometimes as few as 500 calories, which only became apparent after looking at the person's food log. This seems to happen *after* the dieter 'unknowingly' lowers calories in response to a plateau. Not everyone screws up their 'diet' by eating too much.
In those cases, what I recommended works - and on the ground - not just on a piece of paper that cites dozens of scientific publications to support a pet viewpoint...
Which is exactly what you nutrition experts say when you mean to talk about the calories from protein, fat, carbs, alcohol, ketones, etc. But yes, I wasn't clear and thanks for pointing it out.
I'm surprised that you even say that a calorie is a calorie after citing Lyle McDonald. As I said, re-read your Lyle McDonald collection.
Well, this is from the FAQ, but point taken, I'll read the rules again:
Signatures, Avatars and Profile Pictures
What are signatures?
'Signatures' contain information that you want to include at the bottom of all your posts. This might include pictures, links to your site(s), quotes, etc."
The link in my sig was simply to my blog. In fact, it's the bold, uppercase, extra-large font "LOOK INTO MY EYES" link in YOUR signature that I took the lead from. But as I said, I'll have another look at the rules.
Those are fantastic achievements, and you guys are obviously doing things perfectly for you.
The problem is that there are far too many people that adopt the 'less is better' mentality and end up hitting a wall, or even making themselves very sick.