Eat To Perform Blog

If you have ever gone on a diet AND you have big goals there are a few things that haven’t changed since the late 1960’s (even though we have much better data and information)....

So let’s walk through some basic information and what I would call “things we know”

The first thing we absolutely know is that 3,000 minus 2,000 equals 1,000 (this is the basis for a calorie deficit). So if you have big goals, a few bad habits and you're over consuming food this is the ONE TIME that actually works in your favor.

For some people reading this they have been banging their head against 2,000 minus 2,000 and frustrated that they keep getting ZERO results. I will talk more about that as we go and the change that needs to happen.

So the basic formula, no matter what people say is “THE SECRET”, it’s not the psychology, it’s not the insulin, it’s the lower calories doing the magic. So let me explain why just going to the lowest number possible as soon as possible isn’t the best way to do it and what we now know is a much better way.

The standard most people will tell you is that ONE POUND A WEEK is a good guide and I would agree with that, anything faster you will put yourself at risk to lose muscle (which isn’t the goal).

So if you knew that was the goal then you would want the best approach to get to that end goal. So again, here is what we know.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your body reacts QUICKLY when you reduce food. In as little as TWO WEEKS your resting metabolic rate decreases drastically and it just gets worse as you go. This is why the ONE CALORIE NUMBER is inferior to a better approach. Your body adjusts and it gets frustrating fast. Does that mean you can’t reach your goals that way? What I am about to present to you is a scenario that is better and then you can decide for yourself.

For this example I am going to use a woman and she is going to sign up to a plan where she eats 1200 calories a day and right out the gate (let’s assume she was eating 3000 calories a day) she will lose a lot of water weight. Which is very motivating.

The problem is within weeks she hits a wall and often it’s just a matter of time before she quits.

Here is our approach, once again, let’s assume she was eating 3000 calories. Now instead of 1200, she starts at 1700. This has two advantages, one, you get more food and while it still sucks compared to eating 3000 calories you can still fit in a few things you like. You also STILL lose a similar amount of water weight and because you have a bit more energy you can keep up with your workouts.

So now we are at the two week period, the one number person is down let’s say 7 pounds and the higher number is down 5 pounds. Both are uncomfortable but 1200 is a drastic change from 3,000. It would be at 2,500 also. The problem for most people is that they don’t understand how important the amount of calories they WERE eating plays a role in how much they lose.

So the 1,200 calorie person is suffering more than the 1,700 calories person. That’s a factor in quitting.

It’s also a factor in willpower, the earlier you start testing your willpower the closer you are to failing. This is a big reason why TIERING DOWN is MUCH BETTER and I am shocked that these HUGE companies that have so much data don’t know this yet.

This is speculation of course but it makes sense for their model, most people don’t actually over consume the example I mentioned of 3000 (for women), they are more like 2500 or maybe even 2000. So if you default to as low as possible they are at least going to at least lose a few pounds.

But the chances of reaching BIG GOALS is virtually impossible with that math. In fact it would be impossible with our math also but as you will see, we have a better plan for ultimately reaching that goal. So if someone is struggling with the first calorie number we will often BUILD them up to normal to set up a better deficit round (I would say for most people it’s about 3 months later but we often make the argument for at least 6 months to be safe. In this scenario it would extend past the 52 weeks but it’s relatively rare, most people kind of know when they have been overdoing it for a bit and so that’s when they run a deficit.

The same can be said for people that under eat often, they kind of know.

Ok, since this is already long I will keep this last part short. After the first two weeks they land at about 1,450 or so and ultimately do get around 1,200 for the last two weeks. Then that phase is OVER. Six weeks total and then we move things back to normal for about 4 weeks and then we do roughly the same for the next 6 weeks and then the diet cycle is done and calories normalize for SIX MONTHS. If someone was over consuming they could easily lose 30 pounds in the first stage but it’s more normal for around 20 in the twelve week period.

In the six months (and in the 4 weeks calories go UP over 2,000) the goal is to keep the client weight stable but push their metabolic math up so that in the second stage they can have as much success or more. Let me also add that as calories normalize a person can still lose weight, that phase often comes down to effort.

So now let’s compare, 1,200 calories for 52 weeks of suffering (and let’s be real, most people quit WAY before they get anywhere close to 52 weeks). Our way the person eats 1,200 calories for what is ultimately about 8 weeks (in fact, it’s actually only about 16 days because the average is a bit higher).

All along the way you get breaks where you have more energy in the gym and also just doing daily tasks. The part about eating more isn’t just about metabolism, it’s also about adherence, it’s just easier to maintain a way of eating where you can have more foods that you like.

That’s not nothing, in fact, for almost everyone, that’s a big part of why they keep failing.

So you get to pick 8 weeks that suck versus 52. In both scenarios you lose 52 pounds. Which one do you think you can do?

When people see our transformation pictures what they don’t often realize is that most of the time those people aren’t dieting.

Nothing makes dieting more effective than NOT DIETING most of the time in a regulated way. We used 3,000 as an example and some people will think that’s a lot but when they actually count they are a lot closer than they might think (especially when you factor in alcohol).

So NORMAL is not 3,000. It’s somewhere in the middle and NORMAL won't be going back to the way you were eating before.

And once again, THESE ARE ALL THINGS WE KNOW.

Lastly the most important part of dieting isn’t the eat less part, it matters but where people fail is when food comes back. I feel very confident in saying we are easily the market leaders in that regard and if you really think about it, that’s where (for most people) they keep stumbling.

If you need a better approach we can help. Along with One on One coaching, ability to get a handwritten meal plan and weekly challenges to keep you motivated you get a well thought out PLAN that has been proven over the last 10 years to be more effective than cookie cutter models not personalized to you.

To get your EXACT plan and talk to a coach use the link below.

https://www.eattoperform.com/

To talk in REAL TIME to an Eat To Perform coach hit the button on the bottom right of that page.