Quote:
Originally Posted by javamannen2  I'm sorry, but you haven't understood the concept.
The only real requisite for this to work is that the desired average weight loss rate over the whole period of the "diet" is less than or equal to the average longterm weight loss rate of water fasting. If the rates are close to equal (not recommended), then you have a full on water fast. If the desired rate is less than the fasting rate, you'll get some eating days and some fasting days. In the long run it will be a linear weight loss. It's really that simple. You don't have to complicate things with calorie calculations. B.T.W I'm not claiming that it's healthy. You may lose muscle instead of fat. But you'll lose the weight in the alotted timeframe (if it's realistically set to begin with). I've lost 27 kg using variations of this method. |
Well, I get it. You're just wrong. If you eat as much as you want because your weight goes down and then don't eat when it goes up, you're just doing the same thing that got you fat in the first place. It will not be a linear weight loss if you are still consuming the same number of calories. Math is power!
But, you know, what do I know? I just maintain a low weight. Don't listen to me.
As you lose weight, losing weight is increasingly harder. Matt actually mentioned the other day he lost 4 lbs. in a week. I really could never do that, as my weight is 105 lbs. and I'm 5' 8". You can't figure that if I weighed 120, I'd be losing at the same rate as now. (I don't want to cut weight; this is just a point.) Besides, who wants to cut weight just to cut weight? I mean, I understand having a goal like being able to ride faster on your bike (why I dropped ten lbs.) or fitting better in clothes or feeling better, but why lose to lose?