Posted: 4/11/2012 5:38:22 AM EDT
| There's always been talk that if you restrict your caloric intact too far you eventually hit a "plateau" at which point you really don't lose anymore weight. Supposedly, your metabolism slows down and your body goes into a sort of hibernation mode. It doesn't make much sense to me because it seems like it's basically boils down to a linear mathematical formula. What your body needs but can't be sustained from caloric intake has to come from somewhere else: namely stored glycogen. Is the idea of a "plateau" rooted in actual science? is it a slowing of the metabolism that's perceived as a plateau? and what about the idea that during sustained caloric restriction your body burns muscle instead of adipose tissue? |
|
There is the set point theory that says our body works like a thermostat and will set off changes to maintain a certain bodyweight based off of how are body weight and energy intake is. But your aren't going to create energy to sustain life from nothing, that would violate laws (not theories) of nature. The number of people that have starved to death while weighing 200 plus pounds has got to be pretty minescule.
Besides glycogen (and glucose) your body will also use fat and muscle for fuel, so that idea isn't BS. Im not really sure of just what conditions lead to burning up muscle beside extreme caloric restriction, but seeing as how our bodies are built for survival having sufficient fat stores will keep us alive more effeiciently than significant muscle mass. |
|
Or
Quoted: If you do a lot of excersize and are active during the day, will this help avoid a "plateau"? I have nothing scientific to offer. My weight loss has slowed dramatically over the last two weeks or so. That said my body has still changed for the better. My stomach is shrinking and i'm building muscle. This has to be from lifting weights and doing "cardio". |