Normalizing your hormone balance (basal & post-prandial insulin/blood glucose, TSH, testosterone/estrogen, etc) will be much more influential for weight loss than caloric manipulation.
Calories are an irrelevant measure for weight loss.
There , as they are plenty of places only meaningful in the body for it to literally throw away energy as heat, skeletal muscle shivering, aspartate-malate shuttle, gluconeogensis etc.
Regarding pfw's comments, there are a wide variety context of caloric intakes you the food being eaten.
One can starve someone easily come up with equivalent calorie meals that will have dramatically different effects on .
For examplehormones and body composition, 800kcal/day of animal fat here are two 3000 calorie meals:
There are also probably starve a 200lb man.
This wide threshold number of what is considered starving, or even adequate, is why calories are irrelevant.
Many studies do show 'futile cycle' mechanisms throughout the body that starving someone results waste energy in weight loss, but it a sense. Dr Eades has not been established that calories are the determining factor in a good post on the starvation.
Take for example rabbit starvationsubject, in which the individual may get plenty of calories from protein Thermodynamics and minimal carbohydrate but is still starvingthe metabolic advantage.
The problem with pfw's line
Some other futile cycles of reasoning "No matter what you eat, if you eat below maintenance you will lose weight" is foremost, this has never been well establishedinterest are:
As I mentioned before
Food for thought:
1) Fatty acids have a variable affinity for binding Lauric & myristic acid also seem to trigger UCP1in brown tissue depending on number of carbons.10-14 carbon fatty acids may have the highest binding affinityhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12646277