So a person consumes 2200 calories a day. He burns 1850 per day. Losing 220 off the top of daily consumption means you have only 130 calories to cut out to not gain week or a lot less to cut to lose weight.
It's a free snack a day the person loses by eating slower. That's a HUGE difference when you look at the very small amount that they may be in excess of their burn rate (or increases the amount of the deficit they're managing to engender).
Then my argument is even stronger, and you're not consuming 330, 440, or 550 calories.
Body mass of any type ups your daily burn rate. If you weigh 350 pounds, you may be burning quite a bit more than 2950 calories by just sitting there being fat.
Baseline consumption does not raise linearly with body mass (otherwise no-one would gain weight.) While there is some truth to a larger gain, we are still talking about percentages in relation to existing mass and weight maintenance intake. I was merely making the point that at intakes sufficiently larger than the maintenance level, the 10% just means packing weight slower.
Overall, I think eating slower is a good idea, preferably after cooking it yourself. Eating less is too. But, ultimately, increasing expenditure is probably the best of the options (unless you do something dramatic like combine the approaches;)
So a person consumes 2200 calories a day. He burns 1850 per day. Losing 220 off the top of daily consumption means you have only 130 calories to cut out to not gain week or a lot less to cut to lose weight.
It's a free snack a day the person loses by eating slower. That's a HUGE difference when you look at the very small amount that they may be in excess of their burn rate (or increases the amount of the deficit they're managing to engender).