RMR Test Results- Very Very Surprised

jonnythan

I am glad that you are seeking this knowledge. It shows me that you are willing to learn and listen. That is progress from your prior attitude. So I am sure that if you make the effort you can seek the answer you are searching if you read 12 more studies tonight. I can review and we can discuss tomorrow as I absolutely fascinated with what answer you will come up. Please feel free to expand into the are of metabolism as well. Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Oh, I have formed opinions about the dietary factors that influence lean mass loss as a result of scientific research.

If I wanted information about scientific studies, I wouldn't ask you. I'm asking you because I am interested in your opinion.

Please, answer the question.

MelodyandBarbells

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

Dude you're MFP's new king of broscience. Rejecting scientific studies and relying instead on what some bodybuilders do or said is practically the definition of broscience.

I ask again: how come you gained weight while injured? Is it because you ate too much or because you couldn't go to the gym?

And your MFPs king of straw man arguments. Just skip over the scientific study I linked because it refutes your point though. I gained weight due to overeating and lack of activity. Should I post it a third time for you?

No, it doesn't. It does no comparison between different calorie deficits, different types of exercise programs, etc.

Anyway, this is the first time you attributed your weight gain to overeating as far as I can tell. That's good. You're taking responsibility for the weight gain instead of blaming it on an injury. This is progress.

In a way. Under activity is a beeach. On the mind and body. As there is a strong psychological component to weight gain. I always enjoyed working out and it kept me fit and motivated beyond the whole body image thing. And you are correct. Nobody ever forced me to stuff a Twinkie down my gullet. On me. But if I wasn't injured, I would have worked out and avoided the weight gain.

I'm gonna call BS on this one. To maintain a lower body weight all you had to do was starve yourself , which you've so bold facedly criticized people on this site for CHOOSING not to do and advising others not to do. Yet when push came to shove and it was your own life, you did not make a similar decision. Seems like you're making excuses much like you're accusing others of doing.

Not sure if this even qualifies as a coherent point.

1- I didn't starve myself
2- I have said people can do what they want
3- I made decisions that worked for me and shared them in the face of much hate
4- I have made no excuses
5- I spent 5 minutes of my life trying to respond to someone who made a rambling post of gibberish

So how did you like the study? Or do "call BS on that too" with all of your extensive knowledge.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I didn't ask you for any studies. I couldn't give two $h#%s less. Did you not make multiple posts of this nature:

Well, there needs to be at least one person on this forum who aint drinking the Koolaid and gives a different perspective. People have got to stop overestimating their RMR, BMR, TDEE and activity levels. Its a cluster bleep of people looking at every excuse to eat more and more and more. And an endless line of enablers who want to feed them the same BS that "you aren't nearly eating enough". Really? Doesn't seem that way to me. Quite the opposite. People eating way too much and not willing to create some pain to get in shape. Thats what it takes. So keep eating all of your favorites foods and lose a pound a month until you have the next never ending "setback" and create another excuse to over eat. They will have plenty of friends for the ride....

...Criticizing the idea of slow weight loss in favor of not depriving yourself of the foods you actually like? In fact when most posters come here complaining of being hungry on 1200 calories per day, they will indeed be advised to eat more that doesn't leave their tummy rumbling, for a moderate deficit, rather than rushing to lose 50lbs in four months. Needless to say, you already know your ideas of starvation diets will probably not be terribly popular on here. Can you handle it?

And you did make excuses, talking about no motivation to workout blah blah blah when you just had to starve yourself like you're advising. Of course I *am* assuming that you're hungry all the time eating so little , so there's that

Tigg_er

Just break up.

This thread has gone absolutely nowhere for pages and pages.

:laugh: :laugh:

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Actually if I would want advice about diet, nutrition, or strength training I would most certainly refer and take the advice of Dorian Yates over the internet guy who read twelve studies last night.

That is interesting, because our bodies (presumably) bear little resemblance to Dorian's. Dorian Yates used large quantities of chemicals such as hormones, steroids, fat burners, etc, to significantly alter his body chemistry. The things that would work for an extremely medicated person like Yates will not necessarily be the things that work for you or I, assuming you are not on copious quantities of gear.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us wondering what does work best for mere mortals not pumping themselves with megadoses of testosterone daily. How do we determine what works best for mere mortals? Probably not by asking a 6-time Mr Olympia.

You would have to assess the overall impact of the chemicals that he ingested, quantities, cycling and what would be attributtable to his physique in conjunction with diet, nutrition, and training. Also I believe he stated he took Test, HGH, and insulin. Not sure about steroids or the specific doses of them. But that is another subject. And you have to consider his genetics and his potential versus the genetic potential of mere mortals. For instance, there was a time that he trained without chemicals and reached a specific level. I saw him at a seminar once. And there was never any Pro level BBs in the audience. It was basically a bunch of mere mortals who had their own separate goals rather wanting to acheive Olympia or IFBB pro card status. He recognized his audience but the foundation of his training regimen would apply to most anyone trying to achieve a certain level of fitness. Not just attaining Olympia status. Alex Rodriguez approach to hitting (and instruction) is not negated by his use of PEDs, though his overall performance was certainly influenced by PEDs. Now I have to go...

scottYBRIDGEWATER

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

Dude you're MFP's new king of broscience. Rejecting scientific studies and relying instead on what some bodybuilders do or said is practically the definition of broscience.

I ask again: how come you gained weight while injured? Is it because you ate too much or because you couldn't go to the gym?

And your MFPs king of straw man arguments. Just skip over the scientific study I linked because it refutes your point though. I gained weight due to overeating and lack of activity. Should I post it a third time for you?

No, it doesn't. It does no comparison between different calorie deficits, different types of exercise programs, etc.

Anyway, this is the first time you attributed your weight gain to overeating as far as I can tell. That's good. You're taking responsibility for the weight gain instead of blaming it on an injury. This is progress.

In a way. Under activity is a beeach. On the mind and body. As there is a strong psychological component to weight gain. I always enjoyed working out and it kept me fit and motivated beyond the whole body image thing. And you are correct. Nobody ever forced me to stuff a Twinkie down my gullet. On me. But if I wasn't injured, I would have worked out and avoided the weight gain.

I'm gonna call BS on this one. To maintain a lower body weight all you had to do was starve yourself , which you've so bold facedly criticized people on this site for CHOOSING not to do and advising others not to do. Yet when push came to shove and it was your own life, you did not make a similar decision. Seems like you're making excuses much like you're accusing others of doing.

Not sure if this even qualifies as a coherent point.

1- I didn't starve myself
2- I have said people can do what they want
3- I made decisions that worked for me and shared them in the face of much hate
4- I have made no excuses
5- I spent 5 minutes of my life trying to respond to someone who made a rambling post of gibberish

So how did you like the study? Or do "call BS on that too" with all of your extensive knowledge.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I didn't ask you for any studies. I couldn't give two $h#%s less. Did you not make multiple posts of this nature:

Well, there needs to be at least one person on this forum who aint drinking the Koolaid and gives a different perspective. People have got to stop overestimating their RMR, BMR, TDEE and activity levels. Its a cluster bleep of people looking at every excuse to eat more and more and more. And an endless line of enablers who want to feed them the same BS that "you aren't nearly eating enough". Really? Doesn't seem that way to me. Quite the opposite. People eating way too much and not willing to create some pain to get in shape. Thats what it takes. So keep eating all of your favorites foods and lose a pound a month until you have the next never ending "setback" and create another excuse to over eat. They will have plenty of friends for the ride....

...Criticizing the idea of slow weight loss in favor of not depriving yourself of the foods you actually like? In fact when most posters come here complaining of being hungry on 1200 calories per day, they will indeed be advised to eat more that doesn't leave their tummy rumbling, for a moderate deficit, rather than rushing to lose 50lbs in four months. Needless to say, you already know your ideas of starvation diets will probably not be terribly popular on here. Can you handle it?

And you did make excuses, talking about no motivation to workout blah blah blah when you just had to starve yourself like you're advising. Of course I *am* assuming that you're hungry all the time eating so little , so there's that

Is English your native language? I literally have no idea what you are rambling about and what it has to do with this thread? Who is starving??? And what is blah, blah, blah???

scottYBRIDGEWATER

I am glad that you are seeking this knowledge. It shows me that you are willing to learn and listen. That is progress from your prior attitude. So I am sure that if you make the effort you can seek the answer you are searching if you read 12 more studies tonight. I can review and we can discuss tomorrow as I absolutely fascinated with what answer you will come up. Please feel free to expand into the are of metabolism as well. Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Oh, I have formed opinions about the dietary factors that influence lean mass loss as a result of scientific research.

If I wanted information about scientific studies, I wouldn't ask you. I'm asking you because I am interested in your opinion.

Please, answer the question.

There would be many factors not exclusive of dietary factors that would influence lean mass loss. Metabolism, body composition, genetics. Carbohydrates, fats and proteins and caloric intake and expenditure would all be additional factors. Food, drinks, water, stress, and sleep would be additional factors. Or perhaps you are looking for my dietary regimen, unless I am missing your point? Or are we back to Dorian Yates or the woman with the bad English?

And now its my turn for a few questions. Why after I was challenged to produce a study about LBM does everyone now do a disappearing act? Why did you quickly change the subject and want to go off on a bunch of side issues? What are you opinions of that study? Why is that study being dismissed as "broscience". Is this called a derail in internet terms. Oops, OP proved his point we better change the subject or go back to Low Brow Memes...

jonnythan

I'm asking for specific dietary variables that influence lean mass loss. You list some possible variables but make zwronkwntion of how or whether they influence lean mass loss. For example, you mention carbs. In what way does carb intake modulate muscle loss during calorie deficit?

Iron_Feline

Well, you are 8 pounds away from goal weight according to ticker. Are you raising your calories to a 10% calorie deficit? Or you are just raising them to a higher but still too aggressive deficit?

No. The Body builder does not want an immediate and drastic caloric increase. He wants to reset them gradually each week. I am alternating 1300/1700 right now. Probably 1400/1800 per day next week. That still gives me a good deficit where I can hit my goal weight fairly fast and maybe set a new goal of 199. 209 is a big milestone for me, so I am leary of bringing up the calories too quick or all at once. I can be more patient shooting for 199.

Understandable that you don't want to bring them up too quickly. 1800 is still going to be more than a pound a week loss. Still very aggressive. This is a body builder who is making these recommendations and he hasn't been concerned about loss of LBM, with a rate of 4 pounds a week loss?

Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts.

Studies on this, please.

Sure. Several people asked for a study and went so far as to say they would change their mind if one existed. I'll never understand why people here need a study, when there is an an entire professional bodybuilding subculture for 50+ years with apple evidence to support this view. Here is the study and an abstract conclusion:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/

Objective:
Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).

An important objective during weight loss is to maximize the loss of body fat while minimizing the loss of metabolically active fat free mass. Limited studies of modest weight loss suggest that adding exercise to a weight loss program may help spare FFM (19–21). In the present study, we found that individuals undergoing rapid and massive weight loss through a combination of diet restriction and vigorous physical activity preserved much of their FFM, with less than 18% of the total weight loss coming from the fat-free compartment. We suspect that the relative preservation of FFM was due to the maintenance or possible increase of skeletal muscle tissue during the vigorous exercise program (31). Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss.

okay?

I found this part of the conclusion fascinating.

"Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained."

This seems to imply that losing fast will make it harder to keep the weight off in the future. So that means this method is not best for keeping the weight off long term.

Oh and the study appears to have been done on the biggest loser contestants. INTERESTING!

"This study involved measures of body composition and energy expenditure in individuals competing in a nationally televised weight loss competition."

"Once in the competition, participants were housed together at an isolated ranch outside Los Angeles"


Oh look

"Limitations of this study include the lack of experimental control group throughout the competition. We can assume that the degree of energy deficit was different among subjects as was the amount and type of exercise and calorie restriction. Therefore, we cannot make claims regarding the relative effects of the exercise per se on the weight loss and body composition changes. "

"In conclusion, our study shows that participants in this competition experienced a relative preservation of FFM. Unfortunately, FFM preservation did not prevent the slowing of metabolic rate during active weight loss, which may predispose to weight regain unless the participants maintain high levels of physical activity or significant caloric restriction."


So how does this study prove that a rapid rate of weight loss means only a small amount of LBM is lost?

I personally think 18% is a pretty high rate tbh. Especially consider the conclusion that the RMR is much lower making weight gain more likely. This is pretty much everything you don't want to happen when you lose weight.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

I'm asking for specific dietary variables that influence lean mass loss. You list some possible variables but make zwronkwntion of how or whether they influence lean mass loss. For example, you mention carbs. In what way does carb intake modulate muscle loss during calorie deficit?

You seem to answer questions,but simply asking more questions. Or seem to have trouble staying on topic and constantly changing the subject. Tedious. If you want to start acting like and adult and have a dialogue that’s fine. But your impersonation of a biology teacher is getting old. This will be the last time I will be taking your 6th grade biology exam. So I will answer your question with respect to some of the protocols I have been following. As that would be more interesting:

- HIT Weight training 3 days per week. Train to failure.
-Cardio (Tmill) 3 days per week with sessions totaling 900 calories burns
- 1 Rest day. However I can’t sit around and don’t rest and end up doing cardio that day as well. Also on weight training days, I usually throw in a few sessions of cardio that total 400 calorie burns.

As for my diet.

- I IF with an eating window between noon and 8 pm. 3 meals per day. 12,4,8pm.
- I will occasionally fast one a week or once every 2 week. For about 36 hours.
- I tend to work out early AM before work or prior to lunch if I can sneak out of the office.
- I work out in a fasted state.
- I carb and calorie cycle on alternating day
- Hi calorie and Hi carbs (1700/100) on weight training days and low calorie and low carbs (1300/20) on cardio days. Which I have been cycling up. Until this week.
- I consume about 200g of protein per day most days
- My approach to carbs, is to try to to do several things which may answer your question. The low carb days are to burn fat and use fat as a primary energy source. I am reducing glycogen levels during these days. The Hi carb days are to promote insulin production and avoid suppressing T3/T4 and Leptin levels, which is a problem for low carb diets. I tend to have my highest carb meal post workout and then reduce those amounts with the smallest carb meal at 8 pm. My protein come from primarily from protein shakes, chicken, turkey, lean meats etc. Carbs from baked potato, sweet potato, or brown rice. Greens are salad, green beans, spinach. Primarily have a salad and then mix and the proteins. I count, weigh, and measure the macros and have them on a spreadsheet. My exact macro %s is the "tweaking" and "experimenting" that I referenced earlier. And not an "I dunno" answer. okay professor?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Well, you are 8 pounds away from goal weight according to ticker. Are you raising your calories to a 10% calorie deficit? Or you are just raising them to a higher but still too aggressive deficit?

No. The Body builder does not want an immediate and drastic caloric increase. He wants to reset them gradually each week. I am alternating 1300/1700 right now. Probably 1400/1800 per day next week. That still gives me a good deficit where I can hit my goal weight fairly fast and maybe set a new goal of 199. 209 is a big milestone for me, so I am leary of bringing up the calories too quick or all at once. I can be more patient shooting for 199.

Understandable that you don't want to bring them up too quickly. 1800 is still going to be more than a pound a week loss. Still very aggressive. This is a body builder who is making these recommendations and he hasn't been concerned about loss of LBM, with a rate of 4 pounds a week loss?

Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts.

Studies on this, please.

Sure. Several people asked for a study and went so far as to say they would change their mind if one existed. I'll never understand why people here need a study, when there is an an entire professional bodybuilding subculture for 50+ years with apple evidence to support this view. Here is the study and an abstract conclusion:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/

Objective:
Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).

An important objective during weight loss is to maximize the loss of body fat while minimizing the loss of metabolically active fat free mass. Limited studies of modest weight loss suggest that adding exercise to a weight loss program may help spare FFM (19–21). In the present study, we found that individuals undergoing rapid and massive weight loss through a combination of diet restriction and vigorous physical activity preserved much of their FFM, with less than 18% of the total weight loss coming from the fat-free compartment. We suspect that the relative preservation of FFM was due to the maintenance or possible increase of skeletal muscle tissue during the vigorous exercise program (31). Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss.

okay?

I found this part of the conclusion fascinating.

"Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained."

This seems to imply that losing fast will make it harder to keep the weight off in the future. So that means this method is not best for keeping the weight off long term.

Oh and the study appears to have been done on the biggest loser contestants. INTERESTING!

"This study involved measures of body composition and energy expenditure in individuals competing in a nationally televised weight loss competition."

"Once in the competition, participants were housed together at an isolated ranch outside Los Angeles"


Oh look

"Limitations of this study include the lack of experimental control group throughout the competition. We can assume that the degree of energy deficit was different among subjects as was the amount and type of exercise and calorie restriction. Therefore, we cannot make claims regarding the relative effects of the exercise per se on the weight loss and body composition changes. "

"In conclusion, our study shows that participants in this competition experienced a relative preservation of FFM. Unfortunately, FFM preservation did not prevent the slowing of metabolic rate during active weight loss, which may predispose to weight regain unless the participants maintain high levels of physical activity or significant caloric restriction."


So how does this study prove that a rapid rate of weight loss means only a small amount of LBM is lost?

I personally think 18% is a pretty high rate tbh. Especially consider the conclusion that the RMR is much lower making weight gain more likely. This is pretty much everything you don't want to happen when you lose weight.

I agree with a lot of your points. There is no question there was slowed metabolism, they may gain the weight back, and the diet and level of weight training may not have been optimal. Perhaps this diet and exercise program was not ideal. But keep in mind that the petulant acting 3 year olds ITT were demanding a scientific study on weight loss and LBM. Not a great weight loss plan or diet plan. You may have found an 18% LBM loss to be "pretty high". The researchers came to a different conclusion. Perhaps they felt that since many of the people lost 1/3 their body weight and improved other areas of their health, it was a fair trade off. Take the same study but introduce some different protocols and maybe that 18% is much lower, people can stick to it, and there is little to no metabolic slowdown. That was the initial point of my OP which seems to have gotten lost in the demand for a study. The study seemed to prove some narrow points, not that its a great program to follow. Its probably as bad as some of the programs you find here on MFP, with the same lack of success.

kgeyser

Well, you are 8 pounds away from goal weight according to ticker. Are you raising your calories to a 10% calorie deficit? Or you are just raising them to a higher but still too aggressive deficit?

No. The Body builder does not want an immediate and drastic caloric increase. He wants to reset them gradually each week. I am alternating 1300/1700 right now. Probably 1400/1800 per day next week. That still gives me a good deficit where I can hit my goal weight fairly fast and maybe set a new goal of 199. 209 is a big milestone for me, so I am leary of bringing up the calories too quick or all at once. I can be more patient shooting for 199.

Understandable that you don't want to bring them up too quickly. 1800 is still going to be more than a pound a week loss. Still very aggressive. This is a body builder who is making these recommendations and he hasn't been concerned about loss of LBM, with a rate of 4 pounds a week loss?

Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts.

Studies on this, please.

Sure. Several people asked for a study and went so far as to say they would change their mind if one existed. I'll never understand why people here need a study, when there is an an entire professional bodybuilding subculture for 50+ years with apple evidence to support this view. Here is the study and an abstract conclusion:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/

Objective:
Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).

An important objective during weight loss is to maximize the loss of body fat while minimizing the loss of metabolically active fat free mass. Limited studies of modest weight loss suggest that adding exercise to a weight loss program may help spare FFM (19–21). In the present study, we found that individuals undergoing rapid and massive weight loss through a combination of diet restriction and vigorous physical activity preserved much of their FFM, with less than 18% of the total weight loss coming from the fat-free compartment. We suspect that the relative preservation of FFM was due to the maintenance or possible increase of skeletal muscle tissue during the vigorous exercise program (31). Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss.

okay?

I found this part of the conclusion fascinating.

"Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained."

This seems to imply that losing fast will make it harder to keep the weight off in the future. So that means this method is not best for keeping the weight off long term.

Oh and the study appears to have been done on the biggest loser contestants. INTERESTING!

"This study involved measures of body composition and energy expenditure in individuals competing in a nationally televised weight loss competition."

"Once in the competition, participants were housed together at an isolated ranch outside Los Angeles"


Oh look

"Limitations of this study include the lack of experimental control group throughout the competition. We can assume that the degree of energy deficit was different among subjects as was the amount and type of exercise and calorie restriction. Therefore, we cannot make claims regarding the relative effects of the exercise per se on the weight loss and body composition changes. "

"In conclusion, our study shows that participants in this competition experienced a relative preservation of FFM. Unfortunately, FFM preservation did not prevent the slowing of metabolic rate during active weight loss, which may predispose to weight regain unless the participants maintain high levels of physical activity or significant caloric restriction."


So how does this study prove that a rapid rate of weight loss means only a small amount of LBM is lost?

I personally think 18% is a pretty high rate tbh. Especially consider the conclusion that the RMR is much lower making weight gain more likely. This is pretty much everything you don't want to happen when you lose weight.

I agree with a lot of your points. There is no question there was slowed metabolism, they may gain the weight back, and the diet and level of weight training may not have been optimal. Perhaps this diet and exercise program was not ideal. But keep in mind that the petulant acting 3 year olds ITT were demanding a scientific study on weight loss and LBM. Not a great weight loss plan or diet plan. You may have found an 18% LBM loss to be "pretty high". The researchers came to a different conclusion. Perhaps they felt that since many of the people lost 1/3 their body weight and improved other areas of their health, it was a fair trade off. Take the same study but introduce some different protocols and maybe that 18% is much lower, people can stick to it, and there is little to no metabolic slowdown. That was the initial point of my OP which seems to have gotten lost in the demand for a study. The study seemed to prove some narrow points, not that its a great program to follow. Its probably as bad as some of the programs you find here on MFP, with the same lack of success.

People were asking for studies that supported your claim that in overweight and obese individuals, the body will burn through fat before burning through LBM. As far as I can tell, no one posting here has been able to produce a study that says that.

I also agree that 18% seems pretty high, especially since there is no way to determine what lean body mass that came from and the possible implications for the person's future health.

Cranquistador

jonnythan, I do admire your tenacity.

I admire studies...............

ellipses only have three dots...three. Not fifteen.


JUST SAYIN'.

Where is Jof?