Re: Starting CRON... Quickly vs. gradually

[Guest guest]

Yes. As Dr W says: if you are losing substantially after the first few months, then raise your calories so that you start losing more gradually. It's all there in " B120YD " .

on 3/18/2006 9:43 AM, mwrightweb at mwrightweb@... wrote:

I've read so much that advises reducing calories very gradually, over

a few years...

Forgive me if this has been covered before and I've just missed it...

But is the general concensus that SLOW reduction is the only way to go?

[Guest guest]

Yes. As Dr W says: if you are losing substantially after the first few months, then raise your calories so that you start losing more gradually. It's all there in " B120YD " .

on 3/18/2006 9:43 AM, mwrightweb at mwrightweb@... wrote:

I've read so much that advises reducing calories very gradually, over

a few years...

Forgive me if this has been covered before and I've just missed it...

But is the general concensus that SLOW reduction is the only way to go?

[Guest guest]

mwrightweb wrote:

> I've read so much that advises reducing calories very gradually, over

> a few years...

>

> Forgive me if this has been covered before and I've just missed it...

> But is the general concensus that SLOW reduction is the only way to go?

>

>

>

>

The answer is " it depends " or perhaps I should say " reducing calories

gradually relative to what " ?

I believe that you want to first, satisfy your nutritional requirements,

then if overweight (?) operate at a modest energy deficit. There is a

great deal of debate over how much energy restriction to target and with

respect to what baseline? It should be pretty obvious that by

maintaining a permanent energy deficit relative to our actual needs we

would waste away and die.

I don't have any better picture today than years ago. However if you

adopt a moderate, sustainable pattern of eating healthy while less, yet

meeting full nutritional requirements, you will have plenty of years to

figure out the finer details of your personal choices.

This is not a short term diet but a long term lifestyle so weight loss

targets and such are not meaningful long term considerations.

JR

[Guest guest]

mwrightweb wrote:

> I've read so much that advises reducing calories very gradually, over

> a few years...

>

> Forgive me if this has been covered before and I've just missed it...

> But is the general concensus that SLOW reduction is the only way to go?

>

>

>

>

The answer is " it depends " or perhaps I should say " reducing calories

gradually relative to what " ?

I believe that you want to first, satisfy your nutritional requirements,

then if overweight (?) operate at a modest energy deficit. There is a

great deal of debate over how much energy restriction to target and with

respect to what baseline? It should be pretty obvious that by

maintaining a permanent energy deficit relative to our actual needs we

would waste away and die.

I don't have any better picture today than years ago. However if you

adopt a moderate, sustainable pattern of eating healthy while less, yet

meeting full nutritional requirements, you will have plenty of years to

figure out the finer details of your personal choices.

This is not a short term diet but a long term lifestyle so weight loss

targets and such are not meaningful long term considerations.

JR

[Guest guest]

There is evidence that weight loss releases toxins stored in fat

cells, therefore it would follow that the more rapid the weight loss

the greater the concentration. So depending on the amount of fat to be

lost, I guess you're right, it depends.

Nick

>

> The answer is " it depends " or perhaps I should say " reducing calories

> gradually relative to what " ?

>

> I believe that you want to first, satisfy your nutritional

requirements,

> then if overweight (?) operate at a modest energy deficit. There is a

> great deal of debate over how much energy restriction to target and

with

> respect to what baseline? It should be pretty obvious that by

> maintaining a permanent energy deficit relative to our actual needs we

> would waste away and die.

>

> I don't have any better picture today than years ago. However if you

> adopt a moderate, sustainable pattern of eating healthy while less, yet

> meeting full nutritional requirements, you will have plenty of years to

> figure out the finer details of your personal choices.

>

> This is not a short term diet but a long term lifestyle so weight loss

> targets and such are not meaningful long term considerations.

>

>

> JR

>

[Guest guest]

There is evidence that weight loss releases toxins stored in fat

cells, therefore it would follow that the more rapid the weight loss

the greater the concentration. So depending on the amount of fat to be

lost, I guess you're right, it depends.

Nick

>

> The answer is " it depends " or perhaps I should say " reducing calories

> gradually relative to what " ?

>

> I believe that you want to first, satisfy your nutritional

requirements,

> then if overweight (?) operate at a modest energy deficit. There is a

> great deal of debate over how much energy restriction to target and

with

> respect to what baseline? It should be pretty obvious that by

> maintaining a permanent energy deficit relative to our actual needs we

> would waste away and die.

>

> I don't have any better picture today than years ago. However if you

> adopt a moderate, sustainable pattern of eating healthy while less, yet

> meeting full nutritional requirements, you will have plenty of years to

> figure out the finer details of your personal choices.

>

> This is not a short term diet but a long term lifestyle so weight loss

> targets and such are not meaningful long term considerations.

>

>

> JR

>