I'm confused. Can you really eat too little?
Replies
-
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
I don't think anyone believes that. That said, I see no advantage to purposefully losing muscle...
0 -
Large deficits + high levels of physical exertion will absolutely, positively break down the body. Fat will be burned, muscle will be burned, freakin' everything will be burned, and you will come out of it in worse physical shape than you went into it.
Using one example I'm familiar with - US Ranger School - the result of 2 months at 2000 calories intake coupled with 4000+ calorie TDEE is massive loss of fat and muscle and it is common for people going through the experience to need a full year to fully recover their previous level of fitness.
I do believe there are personalities for whom this is, in fact, the most reliable path to weight loss & fitness - but the vast majority of people will crash and burn HARD on that kind of program because it is BRUTAL.0 -
kerimanuel wrote: »
I think there was some confusion. No one said you were *eating* 500cal per day. But your NET intake (after burning say 400cal from exercise) is 500 calories (eat 900, exercise 400), which is probably not all that healthy.
So what's the use of working out to burn calories if you just have to eat more to make up for what you burned? Does this mean I would be better off eating my 800-1000 calories and not exercising? That doesn't seem right.
OP, I don't know if you're still reading this, but I wanted to highlight this. Working out is about a lot more than weight loss. You work out for health, strength, and body composition. Cardio keeps your heart in shape, and resistance training preserves muscle mass, improves strength, reduces the likelihood of osteoporosis, and generally makes you able to do more. As mentioned, working out also gives you more calories to eat, so if you find you're not able to hit your macros and micros within your calorie goal, this lets you eat more and get adequate nutrition.WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm not so sure someone trying to get down to the lowest healthy BMI number cares if it costs them a little muscle.
That was a little snarky. The OP has already said she wants a healthy, toned look and is going to do some research to evaluate her goal better. She has said the weight gain is fairly recent, so she's probably been close to 115 for a good chunk of her life and knows she liked how she looked there, and that's why it's her goal.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.0 -
I didn't mean it snarky. I have no judgement on anyone's weight goal. Most women I know want to lose WEIGHT and SIZE, and are not going to spend twice as long doing so on the off chance they might have a .5% lower body fat number at the end.crystalflame wrote: »kerimanuel wrote: »
I think there was some confusion. No one said you were *eating* 500cal per day. But your NET intake (after burning say 400cal from exercise) is 500 calories (eat 900, exercise 400), which is probably not all that healthy.
So what's the use of working out to burn calories if you just have to eat more to make up for what you burned? Does this mean I would be better off eating my 800-1000 calories and not exercising? That doesn't seem right.
OP, I don't know if you're still reading this, but I wanted to highlight this. Working out is about a lot more than weight loss. You work out for health, strength, and body composition. Cardio keeps your heart in shape, and resistance training preserves muscle mass, improves strength, reduces the likelihood of osteoporosis, and generally makes you able to do more. As mentioned, working out also gives you more calories to eat, so if you find you're not able to hit your macros and micros within your calorie goal, this lets you eat more and get adequate nutrition.WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm not so sure someone trying to get down to the lowest healthy BMI number cares if it costs them a little muscle.
That was a little snarky. The OP has already said she wants a healthy, toned look and is going to do some research to evaluate her goal better. She has said the weight gain is fairly recent, so she's probably been close to 115 for a good chunk of her life and knows she liked how she looked there, and that's why it's her goal.
There's not a lot of overwhelming evidence that you make much difference at a 500 vs. 1000 calorie deficit level. 2000, like the Ranger level deficits mentioned, probably an issue.
But most authorities feel 2 lbs/week is a safe, conservative loss rate, after weighing all the evidence. The MFP forums are heavily influenced by the bodybuilding school of thought which is "preserve muscle at all costs". Most of us aren't bodybuilders. We want general health, sure, but that's where the general recs apply. Just my opinion.
0 -
I'm not a bodybuilder, but I want to lose maximum fat and minimal muscle. It matters to me. A lot.
0 -
crystalflame wrote: »kerimanuel wrote: »
I think there was some confusion. No one said you were *eating* 500cal per day. But your NET intake (after burning say 400cal from exercise) is 500 calories (eat 900, exercise 400), which is probably not all that healthy.
So what's the use of working out to burn calories if you just have to eat more to make up for what you burned? Does this mean I would be better off eating my 800-1000 calories and not exercising? That doesn't seem right.
OP, I don't know if you're still reading this, but I wanted to highlight this. Working out is about a lot more than weight loss. You work out for health, strength, and body composition. Cardio keeps your heart in shape, and resistance training preserves muscle mass, improves strength, reduces the likelihood of osteoporosis, and generally makes you able to do more. As mentioned, working out also gives you more calories to eat, so if you find you're not able to hit your macros and micros within your calorie goal, this lets you eat more and get adequate nutrition.WalkingAlong wrote: »I'm not so sure someone trying to get down to the lowest healthy BMI number cares if it costs them a little muscle.
That was a little snarky. The OP has already said she wants a healthy, toned look and is going to do some research to evaluate her goal better. She has said the weight gain is fairly recent, so she's probably been close to 115 for a good chunk of her life and knows she liked how she looked there, and that's why it's her goal.
+1 on the bolded. Exercise daily because it truly is the fountain of youth. Don't diet. Eat to support your activity level and goals.
0 -
That's great. But if the reality of the matter is you can lose x grams of muscle if you spread your loss over six months and x times 1.02 if you do it in three, would you still do it in six?I'm not a bodybuilder, but I want to lose maximum fat and minimal muscle. It matters to me. A lot.
What if that extra three months of careful logging could be better spent at something that replenished that muscle so you wound up with x times 2? The logical choice is to do the latter.
Unfortunately we don't know the true numbers so you have to pick your approach based on which authorities you trust and what they recommend.
0 -
WalkingAlong, I am no expert, so this is a valid query.
Re:
Deficit 6mth = x times muscle loss
Deficit 3mth = x times 1.2 loss
Deficit 3m + muscle replenishment = x times 2 gain.
How does this work in a 3mth muscle replenish time span as everything I have read on these boards says it is harder and takes longer to regain?
Again, just trying to understand your premise.
Cheers, h.0 -
pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.
Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.
Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.
Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?
0 -
There is something called the BMR, this is your Basal Metabolic Rate. It is the amount of energy (Calories) that your body needs to just function. Your heart beating, your blood moving through your body, new cells being generated, all of these biological functions require a certain amount of energy. Your body will not go after only the fat, it will go after your organs, and your muscles for the protein. The 1200 calorie limit is so your body won't start getting its fuel from your organs and muscles. You should definitely be able to lose weight by eating at least 1200 calories. You can just google "BMR" to calculate your BMR. it takes 3500 calories to lose a pound. if you Want to lose one pound a week, subtract 500 calories from your BMR, or burn them by exercising. Hope this helps!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.
Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.
Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?
The body only turns muscle into energy (glucose) if the body is getting less than 10 g of carb/day. This is called a starvation response. It is most commonly seen in very low carb diets, starvation, and vigorous exercise. If you have more that 10g carb a day intake, and any fat stores, your body will use carbs and fat as energy instead. If you don't, and muscle is converted to glucose for the basic needs of the brain, that protein is taken from all muscles in the body, not just skeletal muscles. If this is because of intense exercise, protein synthesis will increase and the body will rebuild the muscles that were broken down (and sometimes build a little more) so long as there is sufficient amino acid intake over the following 48 hours.
You would only see a net loss of muscle in the case of nutritional deficiency, or lowered stress on muscles. Loss of muscle from dieting comes from inadequate protein intake (not enough precursors to build muscle and maintain lean mass), and lowered protein synthesis (maintaining activity level with lower weight stimulates muscles and protein synthesis less - use it or lose it).
The body does oxidize some amino acids, but at extremely minimal levels. Muscle is more likely to be broken down to be reused in protein sythesis (i.e. damaged muscle is broken down, and then turned back into muscle/tissues).0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.
Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.
Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?
The body only turns muscle into energy (glucose) if the body is getting less than 10 g of carb/day. This is called a starvation response. It is most commonly seen in very low carb diets, starvation, and vigorous exercise. If you have more that 10g carb a day intake, and any fat stores, your body will use carbs and fat as energy instead. If you don't, and muscle is converted to glucose for the basic needs of the brain, that protein is taken from all muscles in the body, not just skeletal muscles. If this is because of intense exercise, protein synthesis will increase and the body will rebuild the muscles that were broken down (and sometimes build a little more) so long as there is sufficient amino acid intake over the following 48 hours.
You would only see a net loss of muscle in the case of nutritional deficiency, or lowered stress on muscles. Loss of muscle from dieting comes from inadequate protein intake (not enough precursors to build muscle and maintain lean mass), and lowered protein synthesis (maintaining activity level with lower weight stimulates muscles and protein synthesis less - use it or lose it).
The body does oxidize some amino acids, but at extremely minimal levels. Muscle is more likely to be broken down to be reused in protein sythesis (i.e. damaged muscle is broken down, and then turned back into muscle/tissues).
I'm well aware of the process.
And the fact that this literally has nothing to do with what I said.
0 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf+html
"Evidence from other sources suggests that the heart participates in the overall protein loss that occurs during caloric privation" Sources referenced included the Minnesota starvation study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2596424
Women on 660-720 cal day VLCD studied did not show the prolonged QT intervals associated with VLCD deaths in 1970s. Researcher proposes that access to high-quality protein (70s death's meal replacements had poor-quality protein) of 140 g/day and vitamin/mineral supplementation prevented heart damage that would manifest in longer QT intervals.
When the body is starved of protein, it cannot repair itself. It will be unable to repair all muscles, not just skeletal. When the body is completely starved of cabohydrate, it will break down protein for energy (but just a bit, and less muscle is broken down for the same amount of energy with experience), and it will take the protein from everywhere it can, not just skeletal muscle, as evidenced by the Minnesota starvation study.
Muscles can be replenished, but not providing the body with enough carbohydrate or protein for basic needs is not necessary, or safe, for weightloss, and can have severe health consequences.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.
Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.
Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?
The body only turns muscle into energy (glucose) if the body is getting less than 10 g of carb/day. This is called a starvation response. It is most commonly seen in very low carb diets, starvation, and vigorous exercise. If you have more that 10g carb a day intake, and any fat stores, your body will use carbs and fat as energy instead. If you don't, and muscle is converted to glucose for the basic needs of the brain, that protein is taken from all muscles in the body, not just skeletal muscles. If this is because of intense exercise, protein synthesis will increase and the body will rebuild the muscles that were broken down (and sometimes build a little more) so long as there is sufficient amino acid intake over the following 48 hours.
You would only see a net loss of muscle in the case of nutritional deficiency, or lowered stress on muscles. Loss of muscle from dieting comes from inadequate protein intake (not enough precursors to build muscle and maintain lean mass), and lowered protein synthesis (maintaining activity level with lower weight stimulates muscles and protein synthesis less - use it or lose it).
The body does oxidize some amino acids, but at extremely minimal levels. Muscle is more likely to be broken down to be reused in protein sythesis (i.e. damaged muscle is broken down, and then turned back into muscle/tissues).
I'm well aware of the process.
And the fact that this literally has nothing to do with what I said.
"It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond."
You wrote about losing aggressively. As people lose lean mass due to weight loss from lowered stress due to lowered weight on non-aggressive weight loss approaches, I assume you are talking about very high deficits when you are saying "aggressive". As getting adequate protein and carbohydrate in a very low calorie diet can prevent muscle wasting, I can only assume that by "aggressive" you are talking about taking dangerous measures (less than 10 g carb a day, inadequate protein intake), and causually assuming that the deficits can be made up for later. This risks cardiac events and death.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »pscarolina wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".
I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.
It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.Iwishyouwell wrote: »I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.
It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.
If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.
The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.
Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.
Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?
The body only turns muscle into energy (glucose) if the body is getting less than 10 g of carb/day. This is called a starvation response. It is most commonly seen in very low carb diets, starvation, and vigorous exercise. If you have more that 10g carb a day intake, and any fat stores, your body will use carbs and fat as energy instead. If you don't, and muscle is converted to glucose for the basic needs of the brain, that protein is taken from all muscles in the body, not just skeletal muscles. If this is because of intense exercise, protein synthesis will increase and the body will rebuild the muscles that were broken down (and sometimes build a little more) so long as there is sufficient amino acid intake over the following 48 hours.
You would only see a net loss of muscle in the case of nutritional deficiency, or lowered stress on muscles. Loss of muscle from dieting comes from inadequate protein intake (not enough precursors to build muscle and maintain lean mass), and lowered protein synthesis (maintaining activity level with lower weight stimulates muscles and protein synthesis less - use it or lose it).
The body does oxidize some amino acids, but at extremely minimal levels. Muscle is more likely to be broken down to be reused in protein sythesis (i.e. damaged muscle is broken down, and then turned back into muscle/tissues).
I'm well aware of the process.
And the fact that this literally has nothing to do with what I said.
"It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond."
You wrote about losing aggressively. As people lose lean mass due to weight loss from lowered stress due to lowered weight on non-aggressive weight loss approaches, I assume you are talking about very high deficits when you are saying "aggressive". As getting adequate protein and carbohydrate in a very low calorie diet can prevent muscle wasting, I can only assume that by "aggressive" you are talking about taking dangerous measures (less than 10 g carb a day, inadequate protein intake), and causually assuming that the deficits can be made up for later. This risks cardiac events and death.
And, at what point do you imagine the risk for "cardiac events and death" occur? As I never advocated aggressively cutting to the point in starvation when the body would begin to consume vital organs and muscle tissue in order to survive.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions