Sun, Dec-18-11, 11:52
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
|
|
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
|
|
I can't argue with your personal experience, but I do disagree with your interpretation of it. I never said that bodies can run off of zero energy; that would have been a reducto ad absurdum logical fallacy. Such an assertion would be similar to what Anthony Colpo claims: that near-starvation-level metabolic ward studies that show no difference in high- and low-carb diets prove that there is no difference between the two. What I'm saying is that it's possible, at caloric levels above starvation, for a person to run a caloric deficit and not lose weight. This is especially true on a high-carb diet, but due to hormonal factors, long term obesity or repeated weight cycling, this phenomenon can be true for low-carbers, too.
For example, I know that a lot of Latinos in california are in the moving business. It's hard, physical work and long hours. When I hired my moving company, I bought them a traditional, high-carb lunch at a tacqueria. The young guys on the crew were skinny, but the older guys had a big belly. Same work, different results.
Maybe the older guys' metabolisms were slower, and therefore, they were, in effect, overeating, and not creating a caloric deficit. The point is, even anecdotal evidence contradicts the simple linear assertion you propose between calories and weight loss.
If you want to continue this discussion further, let's take it to the war zone. It wouldn't be appropriate for this thread.
Last edited by aj_cohn : Sun, Dec-18-11 at 15:27.
|