Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerberos
If you can go from 6'1 350 lbs eating 2800 calories down to 6'1 250 or less in one year with NO exercise at 40+ years old ..... Then good luck with that.
If you happen to actually lose the weight in a year with a 2800 calorie diet without exercising and keep said weight off then I whole heartily say... GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
Mind you that there might be VERY few people at the age of 40 that could do that. But for most of us that would be a "Pipe Dream" .
I have lost weight in the past with diets and no exercise when I was 20 years old. I am 6'1.... and back then I went 320 to 220 lbs and I was not proportioned well for that weight.
@ 26 years old I went on a high carb low fat diet, Hit the gym 6 days a week and went from 320 to 255 in 1 year with less than 7% body fat. Proportioned very well.
@ 47 w/diabetes I have gone from 380 lbs to 305 in 2 1/2 years and the only fat I have is around my middle. For me and most people my age dieting alone will get you minimal results and usually with minimal results people go back to what got them there in the first place.....eating anything they want. With exercise and dieting you get more bang for your buck and more return on your investment.
So I'm really not trying to be a dick but if you can take off 100+ pounds with a 2800 calorie a day diet and keep it off at the age of 40+ ....I honestly envy you and anyone that can do that. But I am skeptical so .... good luck with that.  |
Got it. Saul wasn't suggesting a plan of action. Nor was I. I believe he was just saying that a person would not remain at 350 while eating 2800 calories per day even if he/she were mostly inactive. At least that's how I read it. Like I said, that's a lot of food. It would not be difficult to consume fewer calories and add exercise.
You've got the right idea with diet & exercise. I was just suggesting that it's not necessary to have the extremist attitude that you MUST always eat healthy and you MUST be at a level 7 on your intensity scale at all times. That's simply not the case.