I have been considering the V-Diet for a really long time. It was only when my trainer suggested it that I decided to really go for it.
I do have what might be a silly question. When I first looked at the V-Diet, the calories calculated for me were 1300/1600 (I’m 64" and 160lbs, female) Now, when I go to the new 3.0 calculator, the calories are much higher (1400/1700). Currently I am following Berardi’s 7 points and stalled eating roughly 1600 kcals a day. IF I go higher or lower I will put on a few lbs, so that’s why we’ve been watching the kcals. So the questions is why did the kcals increase? Was there something in your research that showed it was beneficial? I’m tempted to base my intake on the V-Diet 2.0 numbers.
Part of the reason my trainer suggested the V-Diet is because I have seriously plateaued despite changing things up and cycling etc. He said it was best to take the ‘diet’ out of the equation so going with the shakes seems like a good choice to jump start things back to the downswing.
Any words of wisdom before I start? My MD and Surge is on its way…[/quote]
The 3.0 calories are much better - rapid fat loss AND muscle preservation, without so much hunger. Plus, it’s only like 100 calories difference. That’s needed to because the 3.0 workouts are tougher than the 2.0 suggestions. You’ll need that fuel for the V-Burn and Waterbury dull-body program.