Comparing Eat To Perform to just eating less

Comparing Eat To Perform to just eating less

Comparing Eat To Perform to just eating a stagnant amount of calories (in this example 1,300 calories for 4 months to lose 16 pounds) and why not guessing is better than guessing
 
When my wife started Fat Loss her calories were roughly 2,400 going in and her first layer down went to 1806 for a calorie average. Even though that was the average her highest day was 1,932 calories, so on most days she had a good amount of flexibility. In this stage she lost about 3 pounds with some fluctuations. After 14 days we reduced her calories to an average of 1,472 which represents an almost 900 calorie reduction from just 2 weeks before. Because these calories were low she had one day she could eat more flexibly at 2,032 calories. In four weeks she lost 7.8 pounds. I think she would admit that she took the last 14 days a bit more serious than the first 14 days and likely left some pounds on the table. And just in case you think my wife is a gym killer and deserves so much more food than the rest of us, she workouts 3 times a week and gets 8-10k steps a day so conscious but not beast mode. My wife has a very demanding job that allows me to live in a lifestyle I have become accustomed to 😉
 
Her reverse will go like this, in the next two weeks we will add 147 calories twice a week and then after that it slows to every two weeks. If as an example she decides to do the second round after the new year her new calories base would be 2,501 calories. So it stands to reason she will lose as much as she did in the first stage or more.
 
Will her weight go up during this reverse? It certainly could but it’s really up to her to determine that. What we typically see is if the person improves at their workouts (8 pounds less usually means more pull-ups and more capacity in general when you weigh less). Like I have said before, how much do you want to struggle and what do you want that struggle to be? Maybe my wife adds another workout day to her week or just sticks to the walking and schedule and adds some pace, she should easily be able to go into the second round weight stable. What we also know from our modeling is that she should easily be able to lose another 8 pounds. Which would be 15.8 total.
 
The original poster suggested that Eat To Perform was hard, or more difficult than just eating 1,300 calories for 4 months. She also said she had no idea how to reverse. In this example my wife will lose the same amount of weight the OP lost but in that time my wife ate more than she did, suffered less than she did and worked out more efficiently than she did just based on available energy.
 
Eating 1300 calories a day seems much harder in comparison to me. The true score is that at my wife’s lowest calories she was eating 1,472 calories (and was not happy about it, trust me). If she does the second cycle as well that will mean she basically will spend 5 weeks at her lowest calories compared to the OP’s 16 weeks to lose the same amount of weight. None of this of course mentions muscle preserved which is usually much higher for Eat To Performers compared to regular dieters.
 
So I would like everyone to re-evaluate and answer the question, which one seems harder?

Latest posts by eattoperform (see all)