WD> What I find interesting - and I've read similar
WD> statements in a number of places now - is that most
WD> (if not all) weight loss diets seem to work in the
WD> short run, but lose effectiveness after an initial
WD> period of adaptation. It seems that in many cases it
WD> is *the change* in dietary habits that stimulates
WD> weight loss as much as the actual dietary variables.
WD> Which makes a lot of sense to me since the same
WD> principle can be seen working in so many other areas.

The body's ability to adapt certainly appears to have an effect on weight
loss, Wally.  I have found that caloric cycling on a daily basis is an
effective way of dealing with potential plateaus.  Probably the mistakes
that most of my clients have made at one time or other is not eating enough,
exercising too much, or a combination of both.  Generally speaking, it seems
that the body doesn't like to create a deficit of more than around a 1,000
calories a day.  (This is through a combination of calorie reduction and
exercise combined.  1,000 calories a day appears to be the outside limit.)
If the deficit is greater, the metabolism appears to compensate and "slows"
down a bit.

The idea of caloric cycling seems to be a good one; however, the vast
difference in the amounts in the bulking and cutting stages are pretty
dodgy.  A pound of muscle tissue only has about 600 calories whilst a pound
of fat contains about 3,500.  It's pretty easy to see how one could put on
fat doing the ABCDE as laid down by Akerfeldt.

The CKDs (Cyclical Ketogenic Diets) also use a type of calorie cycling and
are more effective at fat loss than the ABCDE; HOWEVER (a BIG "however"), if
one doesn't control the carb up part of the cycle, it would be easy to lay
on fat, too.  (You really eat a LOT of carbs for 24 to 48 hours on the
typical CKD.)

Francesco