Negative Net Calories?

etoiles_argentees

Okay, but there is so much more to look at.

Plasma agouti-related protein level: a possible correlation with fasted and fed states in humans and rats.
Shen CP, Wu KK, Shearman LP, Camacho R, Tota MR, Fong TM, Van der Ploeg LH.
Source
Department of Obesity and Metabolic Research, Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, NJ 07065, USA. chunpyn_shen@merck.com

Abstract
We measured plasma concentrations of agouti-related protein (AGRP) in humans and rats and determined whether these were affected by ingestion of a meal after fasting. In 17 healthy human subjects, the mean plasma concentration of AGRP was lower in the fed state than in the fasted state. Two hours after a breakfast meal, AGRP levels dropped by 39%. By contrast, a continued fast for 2 h increased the average AGRP concentration by 73%. In rats with diet-induced obesity, refeeding resulted in a 50% decrease in plasma AGRP concentrations following a fasting-refeeding protocol. Our results support the notion that plasma AGRP may serve as a biomarker for the transition from a fasted to the satiated state.

Plasma concentrations of alpha-MSH, AgRP and leptin in lean and obese men and their relationship to differing states of energy balance perturbation.

Hoggard N, Johnstone AM, Faber P, Gibney ER, Elia M, Lobley G, Rayner V, Horgan G, Hunter L, Bashir S, Stubbs RJ.
Source
Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, UK. nh@rowett.ac.uk
Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
A great deal of attention has focused on the central role of alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone (alpha-MSH) and its antagonism at the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) by agouti related protein (AgRP) in the regulation of energy balance. However, very little is known regarding the function of circulating AgRP and alpha-MSH in humans. We aimed to determine whether circulating alpha-MSH and AgRP are responsive to long-term perturbations in energy balance, in a manner consistent with their central putative functions.

DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS:
Circulating alpha-MSH, AgRP and leptin were measured in both lean (n = 11) and obese (n = 18) male volunteers, some of whom (lean n = 11, obese n = 12) were then allocated one of two weight-loss dietary strategies to achieve about 5% weight loss. This was achieved by either total starvation (for 4-6 days) for rapid weight loss or a very low calorie diet (VLCD, 2.6 MJ/day) (11-12 days) for less rapid weight loss, in both the lean and obese volunteers.

RESULTS:
At baseline, prior to any weight loss both plasma alpha-MSH (15.8 +/- 1.2 vs. 5.8 +/- 1.0 pmol/l +/- SEM; P < 0.001) and AgRP (49.4 +/- 2.4 vs. 10.1 +/- 0.9 pg/ml +/- SEM; P < 0.001) were elevated in obese subjects compared with lean. In both cases this correlated closely with fat mass (P < 0.001), percentage body fat (P < 0.001) and leptin (P < 0.05). Plasma AgRP increased significantly during a 6-day fast in lean individuals (11.1 +/- 1.6 vs. 21.6 +/- 3.1 pg/ml +/- SEM; P < 0.05) but not in the VLCD subjects or in the obese, while alpha-MSH was not affected by any changes in energy balance in either the lean or the obese volunteers.

CONCLUSION:
We show a difference in alpha-MSH and AgRP in lean and obese subjects that correlates closely with body fat at baseline. We demonstrate an increase in plasma AgRP during a 6-day fast in lean individuals that is coincident with a decrease in plasma leptin. This increase in AgRP was not due to weight loss per se as there was no change in AgRP as a result of the same weight loss in the VLCD intervention in lean individuals. The source of the increase in plasma AgRP and its physiological function in the periphery remains to be elucidated but we suggest that the dynamics of the change in plasma leptin may determine the elevation in fasting plasma AgRP in lean subjects.

cmriverside

So, leptin is affected. Yeah.


How does that have anything to do with heart damage in rats?


Sorry, OP. E_A, maybe you should post this stuff in a new thread. It really has nothing to do with his question.

etoiles_argentees

You're right, I would just rather have people think than tell them what to think.
It's just something I was on elsewhere, this isn't the place for it.

sammielealea

On my long run days I usually burn 2,000 + calories and I'm always negative net; however, I do my carb loading the day before and try to eat anywhere between 500-1,500 extra calories then . . . It all works out for me.

Baileys83

OK.... I know this is going to get moaned at however this is me and how I chose to do it. I work on the 5:2 diet.... 5 days eating well and 2 random days a week fasting at 500 calories - on those 2 days I have negative net calories. I don't feel light headed, sick, tired or any of that nonsense. I still work out just as hard as any other day and my body seems to do well on it. Not saying this is for everyone before I get a load of drama.... just answering the question on negative net calories.

chrisdavey

short answer:

one day = doesn't matter

prolonged period of time = adaptive thermogenesis i.e. bad.

frenchfacey

there are days when i get a monster workout, go for a long walk, do an abs tape and eat all my calories but dont feel like force feeding myself an extra 1200 calories to make people on fitpal comfortable, so i have days where i have negative net calories. if i didnt have a website tracking that, i wouldnt know. i would just be working out, and eating when i was hungry, healthy food. when im full. i stop eating. when i am hungry. i eat. period. for someone like me who was a binge eater, learning the difference between when im hungry and eating only then has been a good lesson.

MissPeppers

Not here to argue but I've seen several articles on IF, just something to think about.

http://www.dangerouslyhardcore.com/1299/intermittent-fasting-part-2-the-fights-over/

At these extremes, however, we can evaluate the claims of dieting strategies, especially those purporting to produce lean gains or a decrease in body fat without losing muscle. I know my training schedule was not optimal, but with that same schedule (using a Shockwave program) I maintained my muscle mass and strength for over two months. The only thing I changed for the ad hoc IF experiment was my diet.

But I’m interested in high-performance, not different ways to achieve average. I’m not happy with anti-anabolic protocols that allow catabolic reactions to run rampant. For the average person who doesn’t want to train, the anti-anabolic effect may prevent the formation of new fat cells along with preventing muscle growth. But for those of us who train heavy (even at just twice a week, I still trained heavy), each training session is severely catabolic.

My training hasn’t changed, but I re-embraced the magic of Carb Back-Loading, even though it requires more planning and time. My size is coming back—back to 215, up from 202—and my abs are back thanks to a crazy new supplement called food. I started eating again, but according to Carb Back Loading, which imparts all the benefits and none of the downside of IF (abstaining from food completely seems to destroy all but the massive thermic effect of food—excess body heat—during the re-feed[31-33]).

"You shouldn’t completely fast longer than 12 hours, ever."
Hm. NOT very "hardcore". How'd he come to post at a site that's called Dangerously Hardcore? Well... beside the point. 12 hours is NOT long. At all. Everybody should be able to fast AT LEAST 12 hours.

"When I started, I trained only one or two days a week due to time constraints."
All right, that's not much. Maybe enough to keep the muscle mass intact while eating at maintenance?

"My workouts (I could still only get one to two sessions per week) felt great."
"My training hasn’t changed"
"The only thing I changed for the ad hoc IF experiment was my diet."
There you have it. Eat less, work out only once a week some weeks and of course you WILL lose muscle mass.
If this guy felt miserable while fasting, maybe not working out as hard as he used to (regardless of what he writes; that's his own opinion), that's the reason for his muscle loss. Not IF.

In part 1, he also disses other people's experiences with IF:
"Someone offering as proof, “well, it worked for me,” kills all progress in the world of human performance and creates an environment where fact battles popularity, a fight everybody loses. "

Well - I'm one of those someones offering proof. It works perfectly for me.
That was my rant for the day :flowerforyou:

dixiewhiskey

I hate to burst the bubble on providing literature to support your point. I am a pharmacist and I spend my life evaluating literature. The literature you provided doesn't actually support your point. The first two studies were short term (48-84 hours) fasts. This is much different than the typical person on MFP who eat far below their daily needs for months at a time. They note an increase in thermogenesis in their study. Something I don't dispute. I personally practice a 16/8ish (give or take) intermittent fasting way of eating. The first study the enhanced thermogenesis only amounts to about 70 additional calories per day. The second comes out to a significant 300ish calories. Their fairly short periods of decreased intake is still not the same practice as eating below your caloric needs for long periods of time. Your last reference on the patient who fasted for nearly a year also may not apply. The study subject was over 400 lbs. Many of the people I see here worrying about eating below their BMR are not that obese. And while they found no adverse effects in their study (during which the patient was supplemented with vitamins and electrolytes) they note several case studies where the study subject died during the prolonged fast. That is hard to ignore. I do support evidence based practice, but it is important to understand that often times literature may not generalize to the population you are studying and it is also important to read and understand the full paper. This does not mean that I don't support short fasts, but that is far different than months of eating far below your energy requirement without the fat stores to support the energy demands of your body.

Well stated.