tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post117104651205205161..comments2024-03-13T06:54:20.063-05:00Comments on Weight of the Evidence: Adaptive Thermogenesis Can Impede Weight LossUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-28121164728470052572009-08-04T10:51:39.316-05:002009-08-04T10:51:39.316-05:00Why do people keep trying to find more excuses for...Why do people keep trying to find more excuses for people to latch on to? The fact is, most people do not get into a consistent routine of diet and excercise, and they want to point to some limiting factor that does not apply to the vast majority. Stop misleading and get people to do diet the right way. Eat right, excercise, and for the people that do it right and can't lose weight, find out if they have a thyroid problem or something else that truly is impeding them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171679291160140202007-02-16T20:28:00.000-06:002007-02-16T20:28:00.000-06:00Many low-carbers have verified that strength/weigh...Many low-carbers have verified that strength/weight training greatly increases weight loss.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171641107788650942007-02-16T09:51:00.000-06:002007-02-16T09:51:00.000-06:00Something to keep in mind is the state of your mus...Something to keep in mind is the state of your muscles, since muscle is a big driver of metabolism. Going on a crash diet can both lower your metabolism in reaction and also eat up muscle. And inactive people over 30 can lose a pound of muscle a year, further killing the metabolism..<BR/><BR/>I'd think that doing some strength training to increase or at least keep the current level of muscle would do a lot to help most people accomplish weight loss...Shawn Fumohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13919870579880694478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171574856366114852007-02-15T15:27:00.000-06:002007-02-15T15:27:00.000-06:00I do know that in every weight loss study that I'v...I do know that in every weight loss study that I've examined, there was less weight loss than the calories restricted, somewhere between 50 and 75%. The calories in and out theory also doesn't work by analogy. Try putting diesel fuel in your gas powered car. It wouldn't run or, at best, run badly before it died. Since cars with diesel engines get better milage, it's not the energy content. Same thing applied to octane ratings in gasoline which describes how easily the gasoline ignites. If I try running my super turbo hot rod for which premium is recommended on 86 octane, it will run poorly, knocking badly, if at all even though the energy content of regular and premium gas is the same.M. Levinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416463003930126093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171550933837282602007-02-15T08:48:00.000-06:002007-02-15T08:48:00.000-06:00Lady Atkins - Yeah, probably closer to the 50% dow...Lady Atkins - Yeah, probably closer to the 50% down (maybe even 75% down?) in some people, which means it doesn't fit the standard calories in, calories out "rule" of eat X number of calories, based on current weight + Y calories based on exercise type and time, and expect to lose Z amount per week, as if it's a tried and true formula. Just doesn't work like that for people whose bodies have adapted so well to using far fewer calories than the numbers claim they should be expending.<BR/><BR/>Then there's the thing of what <I>kind</I> of calories they are, because you and I both know that if we ate anywhere near the same number of calories exclusively from carbs as we do from our low-carb diets, we'd balloon up mighty fast.Caliannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00055882170095208056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171328854293805832007-02-12T19:07:00.000-06:002007-02-12T19:07:00.000-06:00It still comes down to "calories in, calories out....It still comes down to "calories in, calories out." It's just that the "calories out" goes down in some people.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13390991269990163088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171281364832465432007-02-12T05:56:00.000-06:002007-02-12T05:56:00.000-06:00Numbers, please. Lots of multisyllabic words there...Numbers, please. Lots of multisyllabic words there. But "impede" = what percent? According to the researchers, metabolism is more efficient by 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 50%? Calories to maintain in an "impeded" individual less by 5? 25? 50? 100? 500? 2000? Let's see some quantification.<BR/><BR/>The general conclusions of this paper are not new, if all it's saying is that metabolism varies up to about +/-5% over the population. If it's saying something else, like +/-50%, that would be news.<BR/><BR/>A five percent variation for a 2,000 calorie diet is 100 calories. So an "impeded" person would be "doomed" to eating 100 calories fewer per day to maintain her weight. This is not something that can realistically used as an excuse for being fat. And this is at the far end of the variation, applicable to few people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1171090717249803042007-02-10T00:58:00.000-06:002007-02-10T00:58:00.000-06:00Great find Regina!I will have to check it out, I h...Great find Regina!<BR/><BR/>I will have to check it out, I have been waiting to see something like this on paper..https://www.blogger.com/profile/16627887590504890131noreply@blogger.com