Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
38 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah. If you eat too few calories your body goes into starvation mode and you can't lose shit. The last time I had to lose weight, I actually ended up having to up my caloric intake. It was like I had to hit a threshold to give my body permission to burn fat. 

You know, if I make any money in my life, I don't want to blow it on fucking elder care for a shitty back 15 years. I'd rather die young and leave an inheritance. That's what I'm telling myself. 

From ChatGTP

Starvation mode, often described as the body slowing metabolism to conserve energy during severe calorie restriction, is partially real but overstated. When you drastically cut calories, your body can adapt by reducing metabolic rate slightly, primarily through lowered activity levels and loss of muscle mass, which burns fewer calories. Studies, like those from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, show that prolonged underfeeding (e.g., 50% calorie reduction) can lower basal metabolic rate by 10-20%, but this is not a dramatic "shutdown" as pop culture suggests. Hormones like leptin and thyroid hormones also adjust to prioritize essential functions, which can make weight loss harder over time.

However, the idea that short-term dieting or skipping meals triggers a survival mode that halts fat loss is a myth. Weight loss plateaus are more often due to water retention, reduced activity, or inaccurate calorie tracking. For most people, consistent moderate calorie deficits (15-20% below maintenance) don’t cause significant metabolic slowdown. Extreme starvation can lead to serious health issues, including organ damage, but that’s far beyond typical dieting scenarios. If you’re concerned about dieting effects, focus on sustainable deficits and adequate protein to preserve muscle.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Derka said:

also, i had a buddy who showed me this reality show a bunch of years back. it only lasted one season and was on some niche channel, so i doubt many here have seen it, but the premise of a show was that they were going to pair up a fatty with a personal trainer- but the PT had to gain 30-40 lbs beforehand and lose the weight with the fatty.

i only watched one episode, but the PT was just a cockier version of everyone in this thread in the beginning. just talking shit about how “simple” it all is. then they made him gain weight.

this dude’s life got turned upside down. his blood sugar was all fucked up, he was always either angry or sad, he had no energy to do the things he loved to do, and his actual marriage got seriously affected terribly because he was such a hormonal POS to be around. the dude was literally crying at the breakfast table, and he wasn’t even *that* obese, plus he still had his foundation to build off of. but that’s something we don’t talk about, or realize- once you get fat, there’s a whole host of issues that make it so much harder than “just watch your calories in/calories out”. it’s like sleep depriving yourself and then telling yourself to stay awake at the wheel during a cross country road trip. it’s not about will power, it’s about biology, physiology, science. you wouldn’t “choose” to fall asleep at the wheel any more than you’d “choose” to not lose weight. but hey and still, the armchair scientists in this thread will persist with their “it’s a choice” BS. 

Fit to Fat to Fit, on A&E I think but lotsa eps are on YT.

It’s great reality TV but a terrible model.  Trainer packs in a buncha weight by eating terrible and quitting exercise then goes back to the healthy ways.  Heathy eating on top of the fact they’re burning gobs of calories doing their job.  News flash, they lose the weight very quickly.

The other party has been seriously overweight for years and has no healthy eating habits.  They get some coaching there but mostly just a trainer yelling at them to “RUN FASTER!”  A 300# man jumping straight in to high impact cardio is a terrible thing to do.  That plus marginal efforts to permanently improve diet and the fail is real.

But yeah the PT’s really struggled with fat life. Fitness is their identity and brand.  Take that away and it’s an existential crisis.

Edited by Parliament
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I run around with the River Oaks, HCC, and private school crowd due to where I live and where my kids go to school.  Go to a Kinkaid, St. John's or Episcopal football game on Friday night in the Fall -- almost zero obesity among the parents or kids.  Seriously, it's like stepping back in time and going back to the 1960s where there are almost no fat people. Or fat is carrying an extra 15 pounds.  When I got to my wife's hometown in East Texas and go out to eat, I am shocked by how common really fat people are.

I think it is because wealthy people tend to take care of themselves and being fat is a stigma.  Healthy people who are not otherwise disabled are healthy because make healthy choices.  They largely pass that down to their kids.  Most of the dads who I am friends with are not trust funders with nothing but leisure time.  They are business owners and professionals with very demanding careers.  They still take the time to workout and they are careful with what the eat. This is what my grandparents and parents modeled for me.  No one in my family is fat.

It is easier for people with money largely because healthy habits are both modeled by their parents and are passed down.  So in a sense you are right, it is much easier for privileged and wealthy people.  Because they have proper examples.

I think you're drawing the conclusion you want to draw. It's easier for wealthy and privileged to lose weight because healthy food is more expensive than cheap AF processed food with fillers and additives. And it goes bad over a longer timeline. And lots of poor or underprivileged areas don't have as much of a stock of healthy food because it won't sell or goes bad. And you talk about people passing down good habits and behaviors to their kids, well, guess what. People from poor backgrounds with lagging education don't know what good habits they're supposed to pass down. Because THEIR parents weren't privileged. Poor people aren't fatter or more overweight because they said "I want to be fat and have shitty habits." 

5 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

From ChatGTP

Starvation mode, often described as the body slowing metabolism to conserve energy during severe calorie restriction, is partially real but overstated. When you drastically cut calories, your body can adapt by reducing metabolic rate slightly, primarily through lowered activity levels and loss of muscle mass, which burns fewer calories. Studies, like those from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, show that prolonged underfeeding (e.g., 50% calorie reduction) can lower basal metabolic rate by 10-20%, but this is not a dramatic "shutdown" as pop culture suggests. Hormones like leptin and thyroid hormones also adjust to prioritize essential functions, which can make weight loss harder over time.

However, the idea that short-term dieting or skipping meals triggers a survival mode that halts fat loss is a myth. Weight loss plateaus are more often due to water retention, reduced activity, or inaccurate calorie tracking. For most people, consistent moderate calorie deficits (15-20% below maintenance) don’t cause significant metabolic slowdown. Extreme starvation can lead to serious health issues, including organ damage, but that’s far beyond typical dieting scenarios. If you’re concerned about dieting effects, focus on sustainable deficits and adequate protein to preserve muscle.

I can only speak from my personal experience. I was tracking the same routine, the same food, same myFitnessPal, same diet. I elevated my caloric intake by 230 and the pounds started rolling off after a month of jack shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

This is what's really maddening to me.  I watched a documentary about sugar once, and then started reading labels at the grocery store.  It's fucking crazy how much added sugars are in a lot of foods.  Granola bars and yogurt are two things that I used to think were healthy snacks so I ate them a lot and I've given them up completely.  

There are low/zero versions of both, just FYI. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I think you're drawing the conclusion you want to draw. It's easier for wealthy and privileged to lose weight because healthy food is more expensive than cheap AF processed food with fillers and additives. And it goes bad over a longer timeline. And lots of poor or underprivileged areas don't have as much of a stock of healthy food because it won't sell or goes bad. And you talk about people passing down good habits and behaviors to their kids, well, guess what. People from poor backgrounds with lagging education don't know what good habits they're supposed to pass down. Because THEIR parents weren't privileged. Poor people aren't fatter or more overweight because they said "I want to be fat and have shitty habits." 

I can only speak from my personal experience. I was tracking the same routine, the same food, same myFitnessPal, same diet. I elevated my caloric intake by 230 and the pounds started rolling off after a month of jack shit. 

Plenty of healthy or healthier meals you can make much cheaper than processed junk.  Beans, rice, frozen veggies, chicken, ground beef, etc.  There are entire subreddits dedicated to eating cheap and healthy and those meals cost a lot less than processed shit.  My family was in the grocery business.  You cannot imagine how much SNAP was spent on shit that provided no nutritional value and does not fill you up by poor people.  Sugary drinks alone account for about 10% of all SNAP spending.

I can afford to buy what I want.  I can tell you I spend way, way less on food now that I eat healthier and cut out all drinks with any calories.

Yes, if you want 100 percent organic with proteins from Central Market, it can be expensive.  But some rice, chicken thighs, and frozen veggies you can buy at any store in the country will be a hell of a lot healthier and cheaper than processed bullshit. And water is free whereas your Mountain Dew costs about a buck a serving off the shelf.

 

Edited by Frank Drebin
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

From ChatGTP

Starvation mode, often described as the body slowing metabolism to conserve energy during severe calorie restriction, is partially real but overstated. When you drastically cut calories, your body can adapt by reducing metabolic rate slightly, primarily through lowered activity levels and loss of muscle mass, which burns fewer calories. Studies, like those from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, show that prolonged underfeeding (e.g., 50% calorie reduction) can lower basal metabolic rate by 10-20%, but this is not a dramatic "shutdown" as pop culture suggests. Hormones like leptin and thyroid hormones also adjust to prioritize essential functions, which can make weight loss harder over time.

However, the idea that short-term dieting or skipping meals triggers a survival mode that halts fat loss is a myth. Weight loss plateaus are more often due to water retention, reduced activity, or inaccurate calorie tracking. For most people, consistent moderate calorie deficits (15-20% below maintenance) don’t cause significant metabolic slowdown. Extreme starvation can lead to serious health issues, including organ damage, but that’s far beyond typical dieting scenarios. If you’re concerned about dieting effects, focus on sustainable deficits and adequate protein to preserve muscle.

I don’t have the studies handy but everything I’ve read supports this summary. However, they suggest a moderate deficit in order to retain muscle mass. Your body will want to burn fat before muscle but an extreme deficit will burn both. High protein also helps preserve muscle during weight loss.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I don’t have the studies handy but everything I’ve read supports this summary. However, they suggest a moderate deficit in order to retain muscle mass. Your body will want to burn fat before muscle but an extreme deficit will burn both. High protein also helps preserve muscle during weight loss.

There were no fats at Auschwitz

Posted
55 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I went from being a very athletic and fit HS Senior to a fucking tub of lard by the end of my freshman year in college. 15 pounds to my neck alone. 

IMG_4456.gif.8a97138fd67ca85c9e90a84976398c4b.gif

Posted
36 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I think it is because wealthy people tend to take care of themselves and being fat is a stigma.

They don't make the designer clothing in double extra fat. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Celery Man said:

The shit with kids food is bananas. Wife and I are much much more “target” than “granola” but have always paid a lot of attention to that with the kids, and it’s jarring to be around even other people highly similar to us with little kids. We left our daughter with my sister for a day and were mouthing “oh fuck” to each other when we came back to find her strung out on capri sun. I’m constantly intercepting “snacks” made mostly out of corn sugar. Why would they even need to eat that shit?

 

our kids are great sleepers, and I think we’ve done a good job with sleep training and schedules and routines and whatever but I also think what a lot of parents are doing to fuck themselves up is stringing their kids out on sugar water and fruit snack candy all day long and then expecting their kids to go down.

Just getting them prepped for their Ritalin regimen. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Deej said:

They don't make the designer clothing in double extra fat. 

For women, they do.  They call them caftans instead of muumuus. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Frank Drebin said:

it is easier for people with money largely because healthy habits are both modeled by their parents and are passed down.  So in a sense you are right, it is much easier for privileged and wealthy people.  Because they have proper examples.

If you want to go back to psych 101 and Maslow's hierarchy of needs - I think those more well off have the time and resources to be choosy with what they eat.  They have the resources and the time to investigate what they chose to consume.  I know that sounds a little patronizing, as anyone with a phone can research food and ingredients, but often it comes at a much lower priority.  

Posted
58 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Plenty of healthy or healthier meals you can make much cheaper than processed junk.  Beans, rice, frozen veggies, chicken, ground beef, etc.  There are entire subreddits dedicated to eating cheap and healthy and those meals cost a lot less than processed shit.  My family was in the grocery business.  You cannot imagine how much SNAP was spent on shit that provided no nutritional value and does not fill you up by poor people.  Sugary drinks alone account for about 10% of all SNAP spending.

I can afford to buy what I want.  I can tell you I spend way, way less on food now that I eat healthier and cut out all drinks with any calories.

Yes, if you want 100 percent organic with proteins from Central Market, it can be expensive.  But some rice, chicken thighs, and frozen veggies you can buy at any store in the country will be a hell of a lot healthier and cheaper than processed bullshit. And water is free whereas your Mountain Dew costs about a buck a serving off the shelf.

You skipped over WHY there are whole subreddits dedicated to that.....because people without that info DON'T KNOW.  In fact, like most cases of basic ignorance, they don't even know what they don't know.  I've perused some of those subreddits, and find it objectively fascinating; someone is genuinely learning and having their eyes opened when people explain that if you buy whole chickens/chicken parts and roast them in the oven yourself, that both 1) saves money and 2) is much healthier than buying the frozen bag full of processed chicken.  But also realize that for every person who stumbles onto that subreddit and asks a question, there are 100 who don't.

Knowledge is a resource.  Time is a resource.  Money is a resource.  For those who don't have much of any of those, and have never been shown how to manage what they DO have of those resources....fuck, man.  They are in for a world of hurt.  When you realize that better than 90% of America has less knowledge and money than 99% of the posters on this board, it's humbling shit.  For a lot of America, "choose not to be fat" is as pointless a berating as "choose not to be poor."  They don't have the first fucking clue how to do anything BUT that.

Posted

There’s a chicken and egg debate regarding poors and delayed gratification. Some argue they’re poor because they make decisions that are fun in the short term but detrimental in the long run. Other people believe it is the circumstances of being poor that lead to short term decision making. Food is intertwined in this debate. 

I worked in schools in East Austin and west Austin. The mindset regarding food and exercise could not be more different. Derka hit on this earlier in the thread and I largely agree. The situation is crisis level bad in our low income communities. 

I don’t really have an answer for it but I have tried some school programs to promote healthy eating and at least being exposed to new foods at a young age. Chicken nuggets won that battle.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I don’t have the studies handy but everything I’ve read supports this summary. However, they suggest a moderate deficit in order to retain muscle mass. Your body will want to burn fat before muscle but an extreme deficit will burn both. High protein also helps preserve muscle during weight loss.

That's essentially how the high protein diet work.  You are getting elevated levels of protein from your meals and little else.  Lots of people do well on a diet like this, but it takes a level of discipline and resources many don't have or care to have.  But it's a misnomer than you can burn fat and grow muscle at the same time.  You can't be anabolic and catabolic at the same time, but you will burn reserves when working out that are not replaced with more carbs.  There's also a level of satiety with meat you don't get with carbs, so you feel full and stop eating.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

There’s a chicken and egg debate regarding poors and delayed gratification. Some argue they’re poor because they make decisions that are fun in the short term but detrimental in the long run. Other people believe it is the circumstances of being poor that lead to short term decision making. Food is intertwined in this debate. 

I worked in schools in East Austin and west Austin. The mindset regarding food and exercise could not be more different. Derka hit on this earlier in the thread and I largely agree. The situation is crisis level bad in our low income communities. 

I don’t really have an answer for it but I have tried some school programs to promote healthy eating and at least being exposed to new foods at a young age. Chicken nuggets won that battle.

Not just poor.  Wife's family from E.Texas eat like it's their damn job.  Holidays, get togethers, etc. it's a GD feast of carbs and shit.  Gravy, potatoes, pasta, dressing, rolls, etc.  Took me  awhile to "learn" how to eat around them, what to eat, and when to eat before so I'm not starving when I get there.  And some asshole always brings a tray of Chick-filet nugs that are impossible to ignore.  So before and after I have to behave myself to make up for all the shit I eat when I'm there.  

Posted
8 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

There’s a chicken and egg debate regarding poors and delayed gratification. Some argue they’re poor because they make decisions that are fun in the short term but detrimental in the long run. Other people believe it is the circumstances of being poor that lead to short term decision making. Food is intertwined in this debate. 

I worked in schools in East Austin and west Austin. The mindset regarding food and exercise could not be more different. Derka hit on this earlier in the thread and I largely agree. The situation is crisis level bad in our low income communities. 

I don’t really have an answer for it but I have tried some school programs to promote healthy eating and at least being exposed to new foods at a young age. Chicken nuggets won that battle.

People were thinner when they had less money to spend or at least chose not to eat out like people do now.  It is much easier to eat healthy when you cook your own meals and portion your own plates.  
 

Step one for poor people would be to stop drinking calories.  Just doing that will cut a ton of calories.  And save them money.  Guarantee you poor people consume more sugary drinks than people with money.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not just poor.  Wife's family from E.Texas eat like it's their damn job.  Holidays, get togethers, etc. it's a GD feast of carbs and shit.  Gravy, potatoes, pasta, dressing, rolls, etc.  Took me  awhile to "learn" how to eat around them, what to eat, and when to eat before so I'm not starving when I get there.  And some asshole always brings a tray of Chick-filet nugs that are impossible to ignore.  So before and after I have to behave myself to make up for all the shit I eat when I'm there.  

I live in Texas but my work territory is the Deep South. It’s a spectacle.

Posted
1 minute ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I live in Texas but my work territory is the Deep South. It’s a spectacle.

I mean, I think of how heavy Tex Mex is. And then I went to Santa Fe. Damn that food was heavy. But everyone was out biking or walking or hiking 

Posted
5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's essentially how the high protein diet work.  You are getting elevated levels of protein from your meals and little else.  Lots of people do well on a diet like this, but it takes a level of discipline and resources many don't have or care to have.  But it's a misnomer than you can burn fat and grow muscle at the same time.  You can't be anabolic and catabolic at the same time, but you will burn reserves when working out that are not replaced with more carbs.  There's also a level of satiety with meat you don't get with carbs, so you feel full and stop eating.  

Yep.  When I ate in a deficit to lose weight I wasn’t hungry.  Because I ate nothing but protein and veggies. Literally that was it.  Chicken.  Eggs.  Elk.  Bison.  Venison.  Protein shakes.  And all the green veggies I could handle eating.   Nothing else for three months other than one slice of pizza when I was in Aspen for my birthday.  


Weight just fell off.  Why?  Because protein fills you up. 200 calories of chicken or elk is a lot more filling than 200 calories of Mountain Dew or Oreos.  I wasn’t ever hungry and I was in Montana for most of those three months hiking up the top of a mountain first thing every day and doing all sorts of active shit — walking, hiking, biking, jogging, swimming, slalom skiing, fishing, etc.  

You want to lose weight?  Cut out everything but lean proteins and veggies. Almost impossible to bust your calorie budget doing that.  Was for me at least.  Pretty sure I was in ketosis for months.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

I mean, I think of how heavy Tex Mex is. And then I went to Santa Fe. Damn that food was heavy. But everyone was out biking or walking or hiking 

Building in a cushion of 300-500 calories a day  through movement helps a lot. A lot of the weight in trying to lose was from when I went from being a school administrator walking all over the building to a desk job. Didnt change my diet at all during that switch but it probably added a pound every few weeks.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Building in a cushion of 300-500 calories a day  through movement helps a lot. A lot of the weight in trying to lose was from when I went from being a school administrator walking all over the building to a desk job. Didnt change my diet at all during that switch but it probably added a pound every few weeks.

Exercise helps.  Especially weights or resistance training.  But it’s 90 percent diet for most of us.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I think you're drawing the conclusion you want to draw. It's easier for wealthy and privileged to lose weight because healthy food is more expensive than cheap AF processed food with fillers and additives. And it goes bad over a longer timeline. And lots of poor or underprivileged areas don't have as much of a stock of healthy food because it won't sell or goes bad. And you talk about people passing down good habits and behaviors to their kids, well, guess what. People from poor backgrounds with lagging education don't know what good habits they're supposed to pass down. Because THEIR parents weren't privileged. Poor people aren't fatter or more overweight because they said "I want to be fat and have shitty habits." 

I can only speak from my personal experience. I was tracking the same routine, the same food, same myFitnessPal, same diet. I elevated my caloric intake by 230 and the pounds started rolling off after a month of jack shit. 

Systematic Obesity.

Posted
1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

Exercise helps.  Especially weights or resistance training.  But it’s 90 percent diet for most of us.  

I like to do a 500 deficit then add 300-500 additional calories burned from movement. Not to lose weight faster, just to account for how bad most people are at counting calories accurately. Also helps me keep a positive mindset when I get off track because of a holiday or vacation or whatever.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You skipped over WHY there are whole subreddits dedicated to that.....because people without that info DON'T KNOW.  In fact, like most cases of basic ignorance, they don't even know what they don't know.  I've perused some of those subreddits, and find it objectively fascinating; someone is genuinely learning and having their eyes opened when people explain that if you buy whole chickens/chicken parts and roast them in the oven yourself, that both 1) saves money and 2) is much healthier than buying the frozen bag full of processed chicken.  But also realize that for every person who stumbles onto that subreddit and asks a question, there are 100 who don't.

Knowledge is a resource.  Time is a resource.  Money is a resource.  For those who don't have much of any of those, and have never been shown how to manage what they DO have of those resources....fuck, man.  They are in for a world of hurt.  When you realize that better than 90% of America has less knowledge and money than 99% of the posters on this board, it's humbling shit.  For a lot of America, "choose not to be fat" is as pointless a berating as "choose not to be poor."  They don't have the first fucking clue how to do anything BUT that.

Access to information is so much better now.  Just about everyone has a powerful computer in their pocket that allows access to all the information you need at no cost.  You can easily track what you need with free apps.  Some will do a pretty decent estimate with a photo of your food.  
 

You don’t have to listen to bad government food pyramids that are carb heavy.  Many places list calories on menus.  That didn’t exist until pretty recently.  Yet people keep getting fatter and fatter.  Not just here but all over the world.  

People need to take responsibility for their own health.  The teens I sponsor down in Haiti are broke as shit.  They eat mostly rice and beans.  They walk a lot.  They have to just to get water for the house, making multiple trips to the well with their 5 gallon buckets for household needs.  
 

They don’t have access to the information the average poor American does.  Yet they are fit and could walk from one place be it the island to the other.  Amazingly, they somehow manage to not look like slobs when they dress despite not having a washing machine or dryer.  Because they take pride in their appearance.  

Posted

If you're a decent person and you've ever spent any time around families without.... a generational structure of wisdom, it's easy to be compassionate towards people who grow up that way and for whom making what seem like obvious good choices to folks like most of us is much much less obvious and much more difficult. And just a rudimentary understanding of the world and numbers and statistics can inform you how you should understand things in the aggregate while also recognizing that people aren't limited to whatever "their" average is and have the ability to make choices to change their lives. Poor people (in the aggregate) eat like shit because it's generally cheaper and easier and the wisdom of making different choices has been spoonfed to them less and their lives are fucking hard. I feel a lot of compassion for those folks, and also I posted in the thanksgiving thread about the wife's little 1 year old second cousin from Louisiana walking around with coke in a baby bottle, holy fuck wow. Maybe it was a cherry coke, had a little vodka.  I dunno. That little baby is probably going to be feeding her own little baby cheetos in 16 years. Or maybe not.

Goddamn.

Anyways, it's structurally more difficult for poor folk in the aggregate to be thin for a multitude of reasons. Most not all of them could make different choices and not be fat, but it's not easy to make those choices and I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that it is.

 

3 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

I, for one, completely agree with you regarding the calories in/calories out stuff.  That myth has become so ingrained over the years that some people evangelize it as if it's gospel, despite most of the science pointing to the contrary.  At the very least, it's massively reductive and not helpful for most folks struggling with obesity.   Here's just one article from Harvard Medical School supporting what you've been saying:  https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting-calories  

even this is really saying the same thing that people who swear by calories in/calories out are. those folks recognize that you can plateau, your body can slow down if it thinks it is starving, its harder to keep a deficit if you're eating shitty calories, not everyones body burns calories the same way all things equal. But there's no such thing as magic.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...