No, you just google it and copypaste. 
I’m not asking for anyone to believe me; I know full well it’s possible. I’m asking for a cite stating the percentage, that’s all.
Thanks for the responses. I guess I should have been more clear. Obviously if a person consumes nothing, he will waste away to nothing.
I guess my real question is that are there people (if so, a significant amount) that have such a medical condition that the small calorie intake required of them to lose weight (200, 500, 800?) would be so low that they couldn’t get the vital nutrients/sugars/whatevers they need in order to sustain long term health, or even sustained short term health?
In other words, sure she could lose a bunch of weight through tremendous willpower, but now she’s anemic, has a serious vitamin deficiency, teeth falling out, etc?
In even more other words, if I hear another person say that they “have a medical condition” and that “no matter what they do they can’t lose weight” implicity meaning “lose weight with no physical long term ill-effects” is this person factually full of shit?
I started using “mule muffins”, but people kept asking me what they were so I had to stop.
On the subject of breath-holding, this page at the University of Michigan Children’s Hospital says only about 5% of children tend to do it via an “abnormal reflex”, which adds backing to your assertion of it being uncommon.
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_bbreath_hhg.htm:
Presumably, such an abnormal reflex does not manifest itself later in life so extrapolating to the general adult population isn’t wildly unlikely.
Oh, goddamnit.
And one of them is the proverbial “always quiet fellow” that you need to watch out for.
One thyroid’s worth, at the very least.
But you have to read the whole article -
The study uses a particular meaning of diet- which does not appear to include a permanent change in eating habits. . Sure, “diets” and “dieting” don’t work- because when people use those words, they are generally speaking about a short -term, drastic change in eating habits in order to lose weight quickly. After the goal is achieved, they return to their prior eating habits. Of course they put the weight back on- that’s how they gained it in the first place.People who intend to make a permanent change don’t refer to being on a diet , and when (most) doctors talk about "diet and exercise " being the key to weight loss, they don’t mean “diet” in the sense of something a person is on or off. They mean “diet” as in “a healthy diet”.
This is what I was driving at in my previous posts. If you check out weight watchers one of their ad slogans is “stop dieting, lose weight”. If you follow the points plan you’re not dieting at all because there is no food stuff or type that is forbidden, you’re just rationing yourself in a way that means you probably can’t eat very much of the bad stuff. Success on weight watchers is undisputed, it’s why doctors will often recommend it because it’s so simple and, as it’s based on the basic principle that if you eat less/better and do more you will lose weight it does work (as opposed to telling you to eating your carbs with your fibre but not with dairy, or eating according to your blood group or something).
Another reason it works so well is that it’s gradual. Certainly there is a bit of a change that has to happen when you begin but you don’t find yourself thinking “I have to eat a diet that makes me miserable for the rest of my life and I can’t do it”, you think “this isn’t so bad, and once I’ve lost the weight I can even relax a little”. By the time you’ve achieved the weight loss you wanted you’ve effectively retrained yourself into a healthier lifestyle in lots of different ways, rather than just not eating bread for several months.
If it didn’t work I wouldn’t have lost 28lb in less than a year, and I will laugh in the face of anyone who suggests that the minute I stop counting points I’ll immediately put it all on again.
I don’t know about full of shit…
My good friend J is a big girl, but thanks to regular exercise at the gym and Weight Watchers, she’s not a huge girl. In high school she had a paper route that she did every morning, she played basketball and she rode her pushbike everywhere, and she was still the largest girl in our group despite being by far the most active. Blame her diet then, maybe (I’m not sure what she ate) but of later years I know that following Weight Watchers has lead to good eating habits and she puts more effort into her physical fitness than anyone else I know. She is still quite a solid girl.
If J ate and lived the way I do, she’d be much, much bigger than I am. If I had the same dedication to diet and exercise that she has, I’d be a heck of a lot smaller than I am now. That’s what I think people mean when they say that they can’t lose weight - they have an easier time gaining and a harder time losing than other people. It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for them to lose weight, but it does mean that they have to have closer to 100% compliance to their diet/exercise regimen than other people. They may have willpower in bucketloads, but a small slip has greater consequences.
Well, no shit. I did, in fact, read the whole article, thank you. However, let me remind you of the particular point I was addressing:
See, you have to read the whole thread.
In addition to the variability of the rate that different individuals, burn calories, there also appears to be variability in rate that different people absorb calories. Variability in the makeup of the microbial community in the gut appears to be a cause. Link.
Some types of lymphoedema can make it hard to impossible to “lose weight” in a certain sense… but this weight is water rather than body fat. These people’s systems cannot remove excess fluid normally and the result is the fluid pools in their bodies, giving them a very puffy/fat appearance. It doesn’t matter how little they eat, they can get stuck with dozens of pounds of water weight they simply can’t shed, even with water pills. People unfamiliar with the condition (that is most people) would see legs like this http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/uploads/RTEmagicC_4.jpg.jpg and assume the person was simply a weak-willed pig and lecture them about diet. The condition doesn’t even have a cure. Yes it’s rare, and yes these people can still gain/lose body fat like anyone else… but even with minimal calorie intake they’ll still be stuck with excess “weight” that diet can’t remove.
And my dog in this fight is that I know exactly how much I eat, when I eat it and my diet is as much a prescription as my metformin and byetta are. I do not eat less than 800 calories because I have specific requirements for fiber, protein, carbs and assorted micronutrients. I have a specific portion size that i follow, and specific numbers of portions of different food types to be eaten in a day [really, a nutritional plan is not rocket science.] it is specific enough that I have a specific ‘salad’ for lunch that meets my nutritionists specifications, specific snacks and timing of snacks, a specific breakfast … specific portions of what food types for dinner …
I am certain that if I want to risk further health issues by eating nothing more than half a cup of rice 3 times a day with plain water I could lose weight - and watch my nutritionist die from an apoplexy while i get some spiffy malnurishment based conditions.
Ill stick to what many would still consider to be too few calories for my size [5’7] because my medical team has authorized it … and it prevents me from actually gaining weight. I also am not going to get one of numerous deficiency diseases.
And yes, 800 calories is considered famine level … in general most people recommend 1000 calories as the absolute minimum to keep the body from dropping into famine mode, but I already AM in famine mode [more or less]