[indoordin0saur]

> my lived experiences would contradict the laws of physics.

Unless you're the size of a small child or were in an extreme state of inactivity and low metabolism you were almost certainly were utilizing more than 1k calories per day. Where was this extra energy coming from if not from your body's fat reserves? This does indeed seem to violate the laws of physics.

[fsniper]

Most of the time, people without weight problems, or who has bodies that acts in favor of calorie restriction likes to reject claims of this kind.

If I had a nickel everytime I heard "You have to be doing something wrong".

However science is not clear cut, our bodies and genetics are less so. My personal experience also suggest trying to limit calories is not working for me either. It’s absolutely more complex than that. And I managed to lose 45 kgs to 72 once , and recently around 20 to 105. As this implies yes it was not long term at all. ( 3-4 years of slim body ).

Psychology, Hormones, Stress, Sedantal everyday life, eating habit changes has different effects and if the stars don’t align the correct way I can’t lose weight, or keep doing it. Particularly trying to limit calories with conventional ways requires steel nerves which also affects everyday life inversely.

In my experience this satiety looks like has some - small or big- effect.

There are different effects like NEAT, p-ratios or Adaptive Thermogenesis. As google gemini told me recently, (check for facts as I didn’t do much) there are few theories working towards understanding these body responses to similar diets like set point theory, or thrifty gene theory.

So instead of rejecting these claims perhaps we need to look with more accepting eyes to understand these kinds of calori restriction responses for different gene compositions.

[anon291]

While I don't know of this guy's diet. I can say I agree with his observations, having seen it in myself. I was on 1800/day for a year (6'2", 33yo male here)... Absolutely no change in weight. I weightlift heavy 4x week. I walk 15k steps a day (walk for most chores) and biked (again for daily life). No change whatsoever.

I recently bumped up to 2200 and the weight has shed off. This was on chatgpts suggestion.

I have no explanation. I feel much warmer on 2200 and my workouts are easier for sure.

But yeah, I started at 1800 / day thinking I'd do it for a few months and lose 15-20 lbs and then go to maintenance, but that did not work.

Now you can claim I wasn't measuring or whatever... Maybe that's true. However, I've followed my same methodology in increasing my calories, which means, if I was over counting then , then I am over counting now too.

But the conclusion is the same .. I ate more and lost weight. That is simply an objective reality

[JackMorgan]

One thing that I almost never see counted in studies of weight loss is the energy acquired from breathing.

We extract out oxygen from the air constantly. I tried to guestimate it once and came up with the rough number that it's possible as much as half of our total energy comes from the air.

So it's not always a violation of the laws of physics, but rather an equation where we're only counting half the variables.

[indoordin0saur]

Maybe you're trolling. But if not, ask yourself what is the oxygen reacting with?

[IAmBroom]

Um, no. We require oxygen to release the electrons that our cells use to do work (ATP + oxygen = free electrons + waste products), but no one generates calories of energy from breathing without food.

That has been tested for thousands of years, and it's technically called "starving to death".

If you're suggesting the opposite - oxygen restriction - that is called "suffocating to death", and again, probably isn't an optimal weight loss plan.

[tekla]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/22/gerardseenan1