Cut out 300 cals or you'll pile the pounds back on?

darrenlees

Read this article this morning,and wondered if its the normal Daily Mail drama or if people think there is truth in it?

"Lost weight? Cut out 300 calories for good or you'll pile the pounds straight back on

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2144989/Diet-tips-Cut-300-calories-good-youll-pile-pounds-straight-on.html#ixzz1v13f3wyR
"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2144989/Diet-tips-Cut-300-calories-good-youll-pile-pounds-straight-on.html

yarwell

there's some logic behind it. If you have lost weight you'll be using less than before as there is less of you - so you can't maintain at the same calorie intake.

A secondary intake may be a reduction, short term or otherwise, in response to having lost the weight - this would be additional to the "being smaller" effect and seems to be what the article refers to - comparing with someone the same size who hasn't lost weight.

Pebble321

Sound like a good reason not to "diet" - but to eat healthy and not cut calories drastically.
My theory is that a moderate calorie deficit, bit of exercise and keeping it up for the long term is a better way to make changes than "diets".

saraht131

Why do people read the Daily Mail?? Why why why?

yarwell

[q] My theory is that a moderate calorie deficit, bit of exercise and keeping it up for the long term is a better way to make changes than "diets". [/quote]

Sounds a bit like semantics. A calorie deficit is a diet by another name. Metabolic slowdowns occur with "calorie reduction" too.

poptastic

It's not rocket science is it, if you're bigger you need more calories to stay that size; if you're smaller you need less calories to maintain and going back to your big person portions will cause you to be a big person once again!

ElizabethRoad

It's not rocket science is it, if you're bigger you need more calories to stay that size; if you're smaller you need less calories to maintain and going back to your big person portions will cause you to be a big person once again!

Didn't read the article, did you?

rml_16

That's actually some recycled news. Studies years ago said essentially the same thing and I think it was because of the increase in fat cells in the body or something like that.

darrenlees

some interesting points, just in response; its not saying that you have to eat less calories than when you were bigger as thats obvious, its saying you have to eat less calories than someone who is your CURRENT slimmer size and who has not dieted.

- also i read the daily mail for fun, not to take it too seriously as with all news sources :-), i just thought this was interesting.