Quote:
Originally Posted by SenseAndSensibility
I also thought that the "starvation theory" was more about finding the weird zone between not enough calories and extreme dieting issues like anorexia where you just stay reasonably steady. I would never doubt that eating almost nothing would make you lose weight over time (albeit with serious harmful consequences to your body) but I always thought that people who ate too little without starving themselves just put themselves in a really slow spot, because the body is just trying to conserve energy. It would make you lose weight eventually, just much slower and frustrating enough that it makes people give up or think they aren't getting results, when upping the calorie intake would have been a more immediate fix to the situation as a sort of jump start.
My understanding of the science is that your metabolism slows down progressively the more you restrict calories, but never to the point that you lose weight more rapidly by upping your calories. You'll lose more weight eating 1,000 calories per day than 1,500 calories per day (though the differential may not be as great as expected by the standard formula). You'll lose more weight at 800 than 1,000, more weight at 600 than 800, and so on. I agree you'll get less bang for your buck if you restrict beyond a certain point, but you won't ever retain more fat than if you ate more.
Sort of like taxes. A lot of people have a misconception about tax brackets and believe you can reach a level of taxation at which your net income is lower than if you were earning less money. In fact, this doesn't happen.
Freelance