True or Woo?

2»

Replies

  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    I do not think your body will readily cannibalize critical organs if there are fat stores available. That strikes me as preposterous.

    It doesn't cannibalize critical organs, it "cannibalizes" muscle which is not critical (well, SOME muscles are like your heart. The body taking energy from the heart after other lean tissue is gone is why many anorexics die of heart disease)

    I'm not sure what the scare quotes are about. It's the right word.

    I do agree that your body would cannibalize heart tissue if you were literally starving. This is basically just the observation that it is possible to starve to death.

    What I'm saying is that the degree of caloric deficit doesn't seem likely to cause this. For instance, say a 500lb man fasts while walking 9 miles a day. That will be a very steep deficit. If you want to claim this man is at risk for losing heart tissue, we'll say in the 500-200 window just to be comfortable... I can't believe that without data. I would need some information about why you think that is true because, on it's face, it looks like a preposterous claim to me.


    From my understanding of this, the theoretical limit for fat oxidation in a 24 hr period is 31 calories per Lb of BF. As I understand from some of my reading, this is because you don't actually oxidize subcutaneous fat...subcutaneous fat must be converted by the body and turned into Triglycerides which enter the blood stream and at that point can be used for energy...one of the issues is that if the deficit is too steep, the body simply can't keep up with the conversion of fat to triglycerides to provide the energy.

    Thank you for this simple explanation! I've read some of the material on the subject, but your summary was much easier to understand. :)
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    edited June 2017
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    I think you're getting all caught up in cannibalization of organs from the get go...that wouldn't really happen to any significant extent until one was basically, no fat left, no muscle left, etc. This would happen much quicker in, say, a person who is already at a very low weight or underweight, but they have head problems and think they just need to lose more and more and more until they actually kill themselves.

    It's the only thing I'm talking about. Of the claims in OP's quote, I singled that one out as being preposterous. I"ve not said anything else
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    that wouldn't really happen to any significant extent until one was basically, no fat left, no muscle left, etc. This would happen much quicker in, say, a person who is already at a very low weight or underweight, but they have head problems and think they just need to lose more and more and more until they actually kill themselves.

    That was my point. Looks like you completely agree with me.
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    From my understanding of this, the theoretical limit for fat oxidation in a 24 hr period is 31 calories per Lb of BF. As I understand from some of my reading, this is because you don't actually oxidize subcutaneous fat...subcutaneous fat must be converted by the body and turned into Triglycerides which enter the blood stream and at that point can be used for energy...one of the issues is that if the deficit is too steep, the body simply can't keep up with the conversion of fat to triglycerides to provide the energy.

    IDK, this isn't something I think about too much and have only done a bit of research on...I'm not an idiot and have never run a stupidly steep deficit...I think it's pretty much common knowledge that it's not a good idea.

    ETA: From a purely observational standpoint, it's pretty easy to see body composition wise...you can definitely tell who has lost more muscle than they otherwise would have had they kept a more reasonable deficit.

    I don't understand why you're telling me this. This doesn't address anything I've said. Why direct it at me?
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,213 Member
    An obese person can definitely starve to death. Especially if they have heart/cardiovascular issues to begin with.

    Starvation Injury after Gastric Reduction for Obesity
    "For a patient who reports vomiting, a distinction must be made between episodic improper eating and uncontrolled starvation. Three types of starvation injury are described: (1) sudden death from protein malnutrition; (2) refeeding syndrome; and (3) Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. "
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002689900507?LI=true

    Cardiovascular Complications of Weight Reduction Diets
    "Several case reports and small studies of patients receiving starvation diets have reported hypotension and sudden cardiac death. Myofibrillar damage was documented in 1 case. Very-low-calorie diets are generally safe and well-tolerated. However, low QRS voltage, QT interval prolongation, and both nonsustained ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death have been described in subjects treated with such diets. Orthostatic hypotension may complicate very-low-calorie protein diets because of sodium depletion and depressed sympathetic nervous system activity. Bariatric surgery is associated with disproportionately high mortality rates in both the perioperative and postoperative periods."
    http://www.amjmedsci.com/article/S0002-9629(15)34675-9/abstract
  • WendyLeigh1119
    WendyLeigh1119 Posts: 495 Member
    Right... OK. So no real limit. A "theoretical" limit that no one is sustaining long enough to burn organs... unless they're *quite literally* already starving to death. That's already common knowledge. So it sounds like the source where OP found this topic is really poor at simply saying: "When you starve yourself, it's not just fat... it's muscles and organs, too". So then the fat cut-off doesn't actually exist except in extreme circumstances.

    Every marathon runner would be at risk of organ- failure by the way this *source* worded this. So basically... still woo.
  • oolou
    oolou Posts: 765 Member
    I dunno. I'm finding it interesting and perhaps relevant for those who have only a few pounds to lose but who are mistakenly going for an overly aggressive rate of weightloss for a quick solution, not realising they may be hurting their non-fat mass rather than losing fat only. While the study it comes from is only available in the abstract, there's a fair amount of chatter about it in various forums.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    edited June 2017
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    Who's able to even go at a 31 calorie/pound per day deficit. Holy cow. I'd need to burn 7,800 calories to just eat 1,000 calories. Wonder how 3 days of that must feel haha

    Lol. It's (supposedly) 31 calories per pound of body fat. For a 140 lb woman at 25% bf that's a 1085 deficit, which is stupidly steep, likely 40%+ of her TDEE. Even if the 31 calorie number is true, it's not reasonably sustainable for an extended period of time for many people.

    Ohhh hahaha I see.

    But there is a drug that anecdotally allows people to lose up to a pound of body fat a day, albeit with the possibility of death, but if your body is able to metabolize that much fat, then it must be possible on your own as well. The guys I've seen talk about it did not have much body fat to begin with, so they definitely were burning more than 31 calories per pound of fat.

    If you're talking about the Notorious stack. Yes. I can say from experience. that I cut 30 pounds in 30 days. Of course there's the risk of blowing your heart up... so that's a bad thing

    And Kept it off for nearly 2 years... I went from 220 to 190. Combined with a progressive lifting and regular Aerobic activity. It came back when my lifting partner(and motivator) caught a bone spur in his shoulder and had to take some time off.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited June 2017
    WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »
    Right... OK. So no real limit. A "theoretical" limit that no one is sustaining long enough to burn organs... unless they're *quite literally* already starving to death. That's already common knowledge. So it sounds like the source where OP found this topic is really poor at simply saying: "When you starve yourself, it's not just fat... it's muscles and organs, too". So then the fat cut-off doesn't actually exist except in extreme circumstances.

    Every marathon runner would be at risk of organ- failure by the way this *source* worded this. So basically... still woo.

    Why? My wife is a marathon runner and eats (and drinks beer) like a horse when she's training...she's not running some steep deficit...maybe a tiny one of she needs to dump a little weight, but she usually trains at maintenance.

Categories