I am aiming for 4lb a week loss! Is this realistic

kk_inprogress

workout_freak89 wrote: »

kkenseth wrote: »

PrizePopple wrote: »

@workout_freak89 so what you're saying is you advocate outright lying to someone, or worse yet telling them in all seriousness that their desire to undereat to achieve weight loss is okay? I'm all for Darwinism, but when the person is outright asking if it's realistic that's not the time in which you feed them a crap cake of answers.

Yup. This.

not undereat btw. Over eat ( above maintainence). Then create a deficit with exercise.There's a difference

He's referring back to the OPs post, and your desire to make her think it's possible.

kk_inprogress

UltimateRBF wrote: »

workout_freak89 wrote: »

kkenseth wrote: »

PrizePopple wrote: »

@workout_freak89 so what you're saying is you advocate outright lying to someone, or worse yet telling them in all seriousness that their desire to undereat to achieve weight loss is okay? I'm all for Darwinism, but when the person is outright asking if it's realistic that's not the time in which you feed them a crap cake of answers.

Yup. This.

not undereat btw. Over eat ( above maintainence). Then create a deficit with exercise.There's a difference

What's the advantage of this over simply eating at a deficit and exercising because you enjoy it and want to be fitter? I'd rather do that than having to exercise like a hamster on a wheel, and always be wondering if I burnt off enough calories to get the deficit.



Actually now that I think of it your way sounds like a short ride to disordered thinking or orthorexia. Yeah I'll pass.

Agreed. Not sustainable for someone who doesn't work out 5 times a week already.

kk_inprogress

workout_freak89 wrote: »

MarciBkonTrk wrote: »

Anorexics actually eat nothing. Maybe they don't eat at all, maybe they throw up what they eat, maybe they eat and then spit out what they are chewing. Those anorexics actually begin to have the same metabolism as a child starving. That's how they end up looking the way they do. But for the rest of us who eat very low calories our bodies adjust to burning calories so that we don't lose that precious fat (that when we first became people) that gets us through the winter. And because we usually to revert to our regular way of eating now we are dealing with a higher set point for losing weight.

thank you for explaining it so clearly...hopefully the receptive few among them would actually care to read and understand instead of impulsively trying to win the argument with pointless replies

Like how starvation mode is a myth? Yup. That's pointless.

kk_inprogress

workout_freak89 wrote: »

UltimateRBF wrote: »

workout_freak89 wrote: »

kkenseth wrote: »

PrizePopple wrote: »

@workout_freak89 so what you're saying is you advocate outright lying to someone, or worse yet telling them in all seriousness that their desire to undereat to achieve weight loss is okay? I'm all for Darwinism, but when the person is outright asking if it's realistic that's not the time in which you feed them a crap cake of answers.

Yup. This.

not undereat btw. Over eat ( above maintainence). Then create a deficit with exercise.There's a difference

What's the advantage of this over simply eating at a deficit and exercising because you enjoy it and want to be fitter? I'd rather do that than having to exercise like a hamster on a wheel, and always be wondering if I burnt off enough calories to get the deficit.



Actually now that I think of it your way sounds like a short ride to disordered thinking or orthorexia. Yeah I'll pass.

1. sustainability
2. safety
3. workout performance
4. fat loss and NOT muscle loss
5. micronutrient demand ( mostly for those with anti supplements and pro organic cult mentality. Someone mentioned a thing about people limiting supplement use in above posts)

you can overlook the obvious advantages to justify your laziness and the short cut approach to things (which rarely works in the long run).

"short cuts will cuts your life short"

Fine by me if its sustainable for you, but since the OP hasn't mentioned working out at that high of a deficit, ever, in the post or otherwise, it's probably not going to work.

kk_inprogress

workout_freak89 wrote: »

kkenseth wrote: »

workout_freak89 wrote: »

MarciBkonTrk wrote: »

Anorexics actually eat nothing. Maybe they don't eat at all, maybe they throw up what they eat, maybe they eat and then spit out what they are chewing. Those anorexics actually begin to have the same metabolism as a child starving. That's how they end up looking the way they do. But for the rest of us who eat very low calories our bodies adjust to burning calories so that we don't lose that precious fat (that when we first became people) that gets us through the winter. And because we usually to revert to our regular way of eating now we are dealing with a higher set point for losing weight.

thank you for explaining it so clearly...hopefully the receptive few among them would actually care to read and understand instead of impulsively trying to win the argument with pointless replies

Like how starvation mode is a myth? Yup. That's pointless.

kwashiorkar and marasmus and countless other condiions of protein energy malnutrition are perfect exaples of starvation mode...wonder when will people learn

That's not what we're talking about, at all. We all agree that malnutrition occurs and that it causes medical conditions. The "starvation mode" that gets thrown around on the forums and that we are referring to (and debunking) is when people say they are gaining weight because they are eating too little and their body is adapting and storing fat for survival. This isn't true, as is proven by the Minnesota experiment and children and adults with conditions like you described that look emaciated and continue to lose weight.

lseed87

I think it's doable, just not at that calorie range.

Angelfire365

workout_freak89 wrote: »

Angelfire365 wrote: »

No. No it doesn't. Nobody trusts politicians or people in power, and most people seriously question most supplements on the market nowadays.

and yet all the major decisions which will affect the outcome of the country and therefore your life are taken by them. It is the abuse we don't want, but if power used constructively, like to help the OP is a wise decision.
Also, supplement use has actually increased. No professional body builder has ever stepped on Stage after 2000( even before i think) without steroids.

Angelfire365 wrote: »

All it does is prove you cannot be trusted.
Manipulations are the quickest way to lose respect, trust and friendship.

and also the most effecive way to get things done and get results. Choose what you want : respect or weight loss.. I think OP wants the latter. DESPERATELY.

Angelfire365 wrote: »

Maturity levels also have nothing to do with knowledge; just because someone is a noob does not mean they're immature.

without knowledge how do you expect to make a decision? and Practical knowledge aka experience is something you cannot explain verbally to someone, least of all on a public forum

[edited by mod]. And I'll take respect over weight loss any day. Actually I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing, not lie to people, and have both.

Liftng4Lis

workout_freak89 wrote: »

^^still doesn't explain your response about being wrong about starvation mode
nice gif though

So, you're comparing starvation mode with malnutrition and calling it good..............YEP, I'm so going to respect your opinions now.



SNORT!