Do diets really work?

L

Laycock1

New Member
I'm not sure how to word this, but I'll give it a go. I've been doing some research and playing with my diet a little, and the following seems true:

To lose weight, we are supposed to restrict calories. However, any sort of caloric restriction will be matched by a slowdown of the metabolism, negating the effects of the caloric reduction. This is, of course, ignoring the effect of exercise and supplements.

For this reason, Berardi's G Flux diet makes all the more sense. It seems like staying at maintenance or slightly above (not including the effect of exercise), cleaning up one's diet, and increasing exercise calories out would be the best approach. Something that can be maintained over the long run. Basically keeping calories constant and addressing goals through exercise.

As an example:

Say you lose 20lbs over a few months with a ketogenic diet. Your metabolism has obviously slowed down considerably and your hormonal profile is all messed up. As soon as you start eating "normally" again, most of the weight will be put back on and you'll go back to your "regular" weight.

Any thoughts?
 
Once you stop losing weight you can't just go back to eating as you did before. That should be obvious. If you lose 20 lb.s dieting and want to keep it off, you have to slowly start eating more calories than when you were dieting. That is the problem with most people, they don't understand that once they are at their target weight they can't go back to eating as they did before, or they will just gain back all the weight....duh. Being lean is a lifestyle, not a phase.
 
diets dont work, nobody has ever lost weight by dieting.

Voodoo does work, and thats the best way to lose weight.
 
diets, like IKEA, are a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

Lifestyle changes work much better.
 
First, metabolic shutdown isn`t as huge as most like to believe, unless you do something retarded like cut your calories to 500 per day right off the bat, and even then.

Second, Berardi`s assumption is retarded, because it`s kindof unlikely to be able to bump up your activity indeterminately, just like you can`t continously drop caloric intake. You have to work both sides of the energy balance equation, and moderation coupled with constant progress evaluation is a far smarter thing to do.
 
Avoid anything by Berardi. He's a douchebag.

It takes a while for the metabolism to slow down. Weeks, at the very least, unless you are already at 6% bodyfat or less. Fatter people can likely go months before they have to worry about it.
And here's the great thing. All you have to do to kick your metabolism back up is to eat a little bit more for a while. Amazing, isn't it?
 
...or take stimulants!
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 18 2007,10:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">All you have to do to kick your metabolism back up is to eat a little bit more for a while.  Amazing, isn't it?</div>
How much more? For how long? And how often?

Thanks
 
About maintenance. 2 Weeks. Every 6-8 weeks of dieting. Happy now?
smile.gif


If we go into anal-ism, it`s possible to reset leptin, and other hormonal imbalances that are associated with caloric restriction and which tend to **** leaning-up with about 3-4 days of overfeeding, but the 2 week diet break is a far saner more satisfying approach then a few days of stuffing the piehole, IMO.
 
<div>
(Laycock1 @ Feb. 18 2007,10:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How much more?</div>
Around maintenance.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
For how long?
</div>

About a week or two.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
And how often?
</div>

Whenever your metabolism has significantly slowed down i.e. weight loss has stalled out despite cuts in calorie intake and sufficient activity.
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Feb. 18 2007,10:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">About maintenance. 2 Weeks. Every 6-8 weeks of dieting. Happy now?
smile.gif
</div>
Heh. I guess I took too long to type out my reply. That's what I get for answering the phone...


As sci pointed out, stimulants are also an option. They will kick up your metabolism a bit as well.
 
All are right... your metabolism will not slow down as much as you think. Take one to two weeks of eating back at maintenance. During an HST cycle, you can do this during SD. Exercise is the key element in a cut. It ultimately helps you keep up your BMR and retain LBM.

By the way, what the hell are Beradi's assumptions?
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Feb. 18 2007,17:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Too many and too shitty to post, i think he has all of them expressed in one T-nation article or another, if you feel inclined to read some doodoo:).</div>
I don't feel that inclined to read such &quot;doo-doo&quot;
tounge.gif
 
<div>
(Laycock1 @ Feb. 17 2007,22:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not sure how to word this, but I'll give it a go. I've been doing some research and playing with my diet a little, and the following seems true:

To lose weight, we are supposed to restrict calories. However, any sort of caloric restriction will be matched by a slowdown of the metabolism, negating the effects of the caloric reduction. This is, of course, ignoring the effect of exercise and supplements.

For this reason, Berardi's G Flux diet makes all the more sense. It seems like staying at maintenance or slightly above (not including the effect of exercise), cleaning up one's diet, and increasing exercise calories out would be the best approach. Something that can be maintained over the long run. Basically keeping calories constant and addressing goals through exercise.

As an example:

Say you lose 20lbs over a few months with a ketogenic diet. Your metabolism has obviously slowed down considerably and your hormonal profile is all messed up. As soon as you start eating &quot;normally&quot; again, most of the weight will be put back on and you'll go back to your &quot;regular&quot; weight.

Any thoughts?</div>
I think &quot;negating&quot; is too strong a word. Yes, there is some metabolic compensation as well as reduce metabolic stimulation as a result of less food intake.

All diets that reduce calories below what is required to maintain one's weight work. The problem is the dieter...

The recent study that came out comparing various diets long term failed to adequately place the blame for success or failure on the individual. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
biggrin.gif


As for weight regain, most of it comes from over eating. Obviously &quot;over&quot; is a relative term. However, keeping fat/calorie intake under control, and exercising daily will prevent &quot;fat&quot; regain. You will gain 4-5 pounds back in the form of total body glycogen and water and perhaps some fat, but overall you can maintain your fat loss if you are careful in the way you change your eating habits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top