Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what's known as an 'anecdote', and is at the crux of the issues surrounding men's weight loss. This approach, and other very obvious and straightforward ones do indeed work perfectly well for a fair fraction of the population, but they perform poorly for another large fraction, and fail abysmally for yet a third. While there are no doubt plenty of people that could lose weight fairly readily if they gave it s…
This is what's known as an 'anecdote', and is at the crux of the issues surrounding weight loss. Virtually every _controlled_ study shows that metabolic differences between adults are within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight. Virtually every study shows…
I'm 37, and 6'5". and if you're calling me a liar, you can fuck right off.
>within a margin of +/- 15%, with essentially no way to eat the same amount of calories as a 200lb person and stay at 465lbs. Not least of which because your basal metabolic rate is much higher at that weight.
I was not trying to indicate that the actual metabolic burn rate of humans varies by huge factors, "metabolism" is a colloquial term that encompasses a poorly defined set of features. The physical, psychological, and emotional components of your experience of a calorie deficit are what causes the experiential variance I'm describing.
Of course if I could eat a 2000 calorie diet consistently for a long period of time I would lose weight! I've performed that process numerous times, with various caloric deficits (my basal is a bit past 3k, so 2k is a pretty serious deficit - I wasn't able to hold that one past three weeks). This is when most thin people start rambling about "willpower", but maybe just skip that part this time? It's not useful to any of us actual fat people.