Study suggests you can run larger deficit than we think?
Replies
-
I have access to the full article, and it's worth noting the following pargraph in the conclusions:The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.
I think the authors are quite clear that they can't draw too many conclusions from their limited study.
Ahh thanks for that. I thought the reference to "experimental data" in the first sentence was from their own experiment, not an older one. I was hoping the body of the paper would include more data. Oh well.
Yes, thanks for the clarification! Hey, still interesting. Thanks for sharing OP.0 -
No rush - but it could be very useful for folks like me (five feet nothing) who are bumping up against their BMR to create a deficit significant enough to create any appreciable loss.
Nothing wrong with eating a little below BMR on relatively sedentary days. That's another thread though.
^ Agreed, despite the uproar it seems to create.
I'll third that and we'll see who is the first person to mention a coma.
I know lol... I'm waiting for the "kaboom"... but honestly I did the math -at .3 lbs per week- it would take me more than 9 months to reach my goal ! Thats assuming I don't wipe out the decifit with a meal and a glass of wine at maintenance calories - give me a break...1 -
Before some 16-year-old weighing 102 pounds reads this and thinks it's ok to eat at a 1,200-calorie deficit, I think the following information needs to be noted about the participants:
"Twenty subjects (17 women, three men) with a mean age of 36.7±11.5 years, weight of 95.1±13.0 kg, and a BMI of 35.2±2.9 kg/m2"
In other words,they were a mix of male and female, mostly women.
They were mostly in their mid- to late-30s.
Mean weight of 210 pounds (give or take 28 pounds)
And they had a BMI that put them in the OBESE range.
In other words, all these study participants (like me) had plenty of fat stores to supplement what their nutrition did not provide. I believe this is why some people are confused about Dan's "In Place of a Roadmap" calorie calculation. Those of us with a high percentage of body fat have a much lower BMR than someone our same gender, age, weight who is mostly muscle.
Edited to add ...
and if you are 16 years old, 102 pounds and eat at a 1,200-calorie deficit, you might go into a COMA. ;-)0 -
I have read some articles that seem to agree that the fatter you are, the more drastic your deficit can be without sacrificing LBM. But as your BF% falls, you must eat back more and more of your exercise calories to avoid catabolizing muscle mass.
As an offshoot of this discussion (sorry OP, it should probably have its own thread), it is important to note that women have the problem of the influence of estrogen, which is very protective of fat stores in the woman's body. That is why resistance training is so important to women. The little bit of increased androgenic hormones that come from her enlarged muscle mass helps to counteract the influence of estrogen.
At the further risk of derailing the thread, progesterone is also an important balance to estrogen and enhances the effectiveness of thyroid hormone, at a cellular level (just as estrogen blunts the effect of thyroid hormone). This estrogen/progesterone effect is probably the reason why so many women gain body fat while on the birth control pill. Because it shuts down ovulation, a woman is deprived of her own natural rise and fall of progesterone (which peaks at the time of ovulation each month). The pill contains synthetic progestins and there is little evidence that it behaves the same way as natural progesterone in the woman's body.0 -
I'm talking about the theoretical ability to run at a pretty hefty deficit without loss of LBM. Someone mentioned the cal/lb fat number to me I think yesterday and it was the first time I had ever heard that specific number. (I wouldn't go down to a calorie level that low because I wouldn't feel good about it without proper supervision. I have spent a lot of time developing and maintaining my muscle mass whether overweight or healthy weight and don't want to lose it.)
Most of the studies are on obese individuals (varying states of obesity depending on the study). Not one study (that I have read) has discussed specifically whether they were previously trained or not.
Most of the studies are specifically on VLCDs there are some on 1000 cal diets and some that study specific differences between various calorie levels. Most tend to conclude that regardless of deficit, if there is ffm loss, it is proportional at all calorie levels (one that studied various levels 400, 600, 800 and 1000 concluded that at or below 400 cal/day FFM loss was disproportionately high).
I actually hadn't read the study you linked, Sarah.
I want to clarify that I really only looked into this topic sooo much because of the insane number of people who will say that eating below BMR will cause you to retain fat so that your body can cannibalize muscle or other strange things. I'm not suggesting that people should try VLCD, etc... It just happens to be one of the easiest ways to find information about diets that are definitely below BMR. VLCDs are highly researched.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571
This one is 1000 cal/day unsupplemented.
Edit to add: Because I haven't seen a study other than the Minnesota Starvation Experiment (and I sure haven't read the full two volumes of info on that, just a few page summary) that does quantify it, I was commenting more on the question and assuming the "deficit we think" to be somewhere along the lines of 30% of TDEE. I was just trying to say that the study numbers wouldn't surprise me.0 -
i didn't really understand all that.
all i know is that if i don't eat enough, i feel kinda bad, and if i eat too much, i gain weight. i hafta eat a little more on workout days, and if i have sit-down day, i eat a little less.
it ain't rocket science, is it?
my brain can't handle anything more complicated! 0 -
No rush - but it could be very useful for folks like me (five feet nothing) who are bumping up against their BMR to create a deficit significant enough to create any appreciable loss.
Nothing wrong with eating a little below BMR on relatively sedentary days. That's another thread though.
^ Agreed, despite the uproar it seems to create.
nope can't do it..you will go into starvation mode and consume yourself...!0 -
No rush - but it could be very useful for folks like me (five feet nothing) who are bumping up against their BMR to create a deficit significant enough to create any appreciable loss.
Nothing wrong with eating a little below BMR on relatively sedentary days. That's another thread though.
^ Agreed, despite the uproar it seems to create.
nope can't do it..you will go into starvation mode and consume yourself...!
Yes, but from your pic (wipes drool from keyboard) you appear to have virtually no energy in reserve. You know, fat. Those of with energy reserves to spare won't have any problem eating below slightly below BMR consistently without losing more than .5-1lb LMB/10 pounds lost. And before you jump all over this, I'm just repeating the info from my bariatric doc. Not a nutritionist, but an MD who specializes in non-surgical weight loss based on the science of cellular metabolism. That is all.0 -
I'm talking about the theoretical ability to run at a pretty hefty deficit without loss of LBM.
From what was said, the data was derived from studies on men only, circa 1950s. So... don't read too much into this one. There are some significant gender differences in metabolism.0 -
No rush - but it could be very useful for folks like me (five feet nothing) who are bumping up against their BMR to create a deficit significant enough to create any appreciable loss.
Nothing wrong with eating a little below BMR on relatively sedentary days. That's another thread though.
^ Agreed, despite the uproar it seems to create.
nope can't do it..you will go into starvation mode and consume yourself...!
Yes, but from your pic (wipes drool from keyboard) you appear to have virtually no energy in reserve. You know, fat. Those of with energy reserves to spare won't have any problem eating below slightly below BMR consistently without losing more than .5-1lb LMB/10 pounds lost. And before you jump all over this, I'm just repeating the info from by bariatric doc. Not a nutritionist, but an MD who specializes in non-surgical weight loss based on the science of cellular metabolism. That is all.
Not jumping on it but... actually my goal weight is spot on... Bodyfat = 30% - have only lost .3 lbs in muscle with a 17 pound loss - I've0 -
Yes, but from your pic (wipes drool from keyboard) you appear to have virtually no energy in reserve.
I am pretty sure he was teasing the person he was replying to :P0 -
No rush - but it could be very useful for folks like me (five feet nothing) who are bumping up against their BMR to create a deficit significant enough to create any appreciable loss.
Nothing wrong with eating a little below BMR on relatively sedentary days. That's another thread though.
^ Agreed, despite the uproar it seems to create.
nope can't do it..you will go into starvation mode and consume yourself...!
Yes, but from your pic (wipes drool from keyboard) you appear to have virtually no energy in reserve. You know, fat. Those of with energy reserves to spare won't have any problem eating below slightly below BMR consistently without losing more than .5-1lb LMB/10 pounds lost. And before you jump all over this, I'm just repeating the info from by bariatric doc. Not a nutritionist, but an MD who specializes in non-surgical weight loss based on the science of cellular metabolism. That is all.
Not jumping on it but not accurate - bodyfat 30% aiming for 24% - have worked hard to maintain muscle - 17 lbs lost only .3 muscle.
Sincere apologies if your reply wasn't meant for me 0 -
Before some 16-year-old weighing 102 pounds reads this and thinks it's ok to eat at a 1,200-calorie deficit, I think the following information needs to be noted about the participants:
"Twenty subjects (17 women, three men) with a mean age of 36.7±11.5 years, weight of 95.1±13.0 kg, and a BMI of 35.2±2.9 kg/m2"
In other words,they were a mix of male and female, mostly women.
They were mostly in their mid- to late-30s.
Mean weight of 210 pounds (give or take 28 pounds)
And they had a BMI that put them in the OBESE range.
In other words, all these study participants (like me) had plenty of fat stores to supplement what their nutrition did not provide. I believe this is why some people are confused about Dan's "In Place of a Roadmap" calorie calculation. Those of us with a high percentage of body fat have a much lower BMR than someone our same gender, age, weight who is mostly muscle.
Edited to add ...
and if you are 16 years old, 102 pounds and eat at a 1,200-calorie deficit, you might go into a COMA. ;-)
Thanks. I was waiting for a post like this one.
Boom.0 -
That study is interesting, but it just shows that the MAXIMUM LIMIT on energy transfer MIGHT be slightly more than previously thought in OBESE people. This leads people to the wrong conclusion: "I'm obese too, I should cut my calories by more". There is something very important the study also did not measure: lean body mass loss. The higher your deficit, the more likely you are to lose lean body mass. The more lean body mass you lose, the less you burn per day, which means you start having to eat less than before just to maintain your weight little by little. Also, there comes a point in calorie restriction where this can lead to "shock" and cause your body to respond and use less energy throughout the day, making your calorie burning even LOWER and possibly changing your hormonal balance. Additionally, many medical issues can complicate this, even hidden conditions you were not aware of or dealing with fine under normal calorie intake diets that can rear their heads in a severely restricted diet.
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
Remember, just like if you try to drive at the maximum speed of your ability to react, any error in your judgement, oil slick in the road, sunlight in your eye or obstacle coming into your path will cause an accident you cant control that much easier, so will restricting calories to the maximum you can tolerate make you more vulnerable to any deficit in your food nutrition, stressor, illness or injury! Plus, how do you determine what is the maximum speed you can drive your car? You pretty much have to drive till you lose control...pretty bad idea to do with your body, and you wont necessarily know the signs till later, and cant get spare parts, unlike an auto wreck.0 -
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
There was no controlled study. It was a bunch of math derived from a study conducted on active young men around 1950.I have access to the full article, and it's worth noting the following pargraph in the conclusions:
QUOTE:
The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.
I think the authors are quite clear that they can't draw too many conclusions from their limited study.0 -
No rush - but it could be very useful for folks like me (five feet nothing) who are bumping up against their BMR to create a deficit significant enough to create any appreciable loss.
Nothing wrong with eating a little below BMR on relatively sedentary days. That's another thread though.
^ Agreed, despite the uproar it seems to create.
nope can't do it..you will go into starvation mode and consume yourself...!
Yes, but from your pic (wipes drool from keyboard) you appear to have virtually no energy in reserve. You know, fat. Those of with energy reserves to spare won't have any problem eating below slightly below BMR consistently without losing more than .5-1lb LMB/10 pounds lost. And before you jump all over this, I'm just repeating the info from my bariatric doc. Not a nutritionist, but an MD who specializes in non-surgical weight loss based on the science of cellular metabolism. That is all.
i was being sarcastic about starvation mode....or was that not directed at me either..0 -
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
There was no controlled study. It was a bunch of math derived from a study conducted on active young men around 1950.
This is from The Minnesota Starvation Experiment. It was a highly controlled study. They took a bunch of guys in the army (already at a healthy weight) and starved them for 6 months while they controlled their calorie burn via extended marches and extreme training. (Yeah, in the 1950s).
There is a lot of valuable information obtained in this study especially in regard to metabolic adaptation.
A lot of the guys in this study suffered severe psychosis (from starvation) and other psychological effects, but it was controlled research. I think the original study is several large volumes of information.
A lot of the time, analysis is done on the data obtained from this research and posted in journals as a new study. There was a lot of information (generally) obtained and new analysis of the huge amounts of data contained in this can provide a lot of information that is much more difficult to gather now. (People don't look as kindly on starving people for 6 months anymore, in the 1950s, scientific research didn't have to be as human friendly.)0 -
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
There was no controlled study. It was a bunch of math derived from a study conducted on active young men around 1950.
This is from The Minnesota Starvation Experiment. It was a highly controlled study. They took a bunch of guys in the army (already at a healthy weight) and starved them for 6 months while they controlled their calorie burn via extended marches and extreme training. (Yeah, in the 1950s).
There is a lot of invaluable information obtained in this study especially in regard to metabolic adaptation.
A lot of the guys in this study suffered severe psychosis (from starvation) and other psychological effects, but it was controlled research. I think the original study is several large volumes of information.
A lot of the time, analysis is done on the data obtained from this research and posted in journals as a new study. There was a lot of information (generally) obtained and new analysis of the huge amounts of data contained in this can provide a lot of information that is much more difficult to gather now. (People don't look as kindly on starving people for 6 months anymore, in the 1950s, scientific research didn't have to be as human friendly.)
I am talking about the study in the OP, though... which is just taking the data from another study and running the numbers and coming up with what amounts to an educated guess. (to be fair, the study's author isn't claiming a whole lot either)
I didn't know about the study that provided the data, however. Thanks for the information (sounds like something that would show up on an episode of Dark Matters, 
) 0 -
CAn you guys use simple english please? The intellectually handicap like me have difficulty understanding your complicated language
Cliffs:
Dude is all like "Yo I got a theory brah. You can only lose DIS MUCH (*gesture with hands*) fat per day son. Check it. (*bunch of math*). Word.
I just startled my cube mate by nearly crying with laughter when I read this.0 -
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
There was no controlled study. It was a bunch of math derived from a study conducted on active young men around 1950.
This is from The Minnesota Starvation Experiment. It was a highly controlled study. They took a bunch of guys in the army (already at a healthy weight) and starved them for 6 months while they controlled their calorie burn via extended marches and extreme training. (Yeah, in the 1950s).
There is a lot of invaluable information obtained in this study especially in regard to metabolic adaptation.
A lot of the guys in this study suffered severe psychosis (from starvation) and other psychological effects, but it was controlled research. I think the original study is several large volumes of information.
A lot of the time, analysis is done on the data obtained from this research and posted in journals as a new study. There was a lot of information (generally) obtained and new analysis of the huge amounts of data contained in this can provide a lot of information that is much more difficult to gather now. (People don't look as kindly on starving people for 6 months anymore, in the 1950s, scientific research didn't have to be as human friendly.)
I am talking about the study in the OP, though... which is just taking the data from another study and running the numbers and coming up with what amounts to an educated guess. (to be fair, the study's author isn't claiming a whole lot either)
I didn't know about the study that provided the data, however. Thanks for the information
I should have said conscientious objectors not guys IN the army. Oops.
If you want to read a pretty awesome summary (it's written more in the style of a story without much technical data), check this out: [url] http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full [/url]0 -
I should have said conscientious objectors not guys IN the army. Oops.
If you want to read a pretty awesome summary (it's written more in the style of a story without much technical data), check this out: [url] http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full [/url]
Ouch. Thanks
As I appended before... it sounds like something that belongs on an episode of Dark Matters!0 -
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
There was no controlled study. It was a bunch of math derived from a study conducted on active young men around 1950.I have access to the full article, and it's worth noting the following pargraph in the conclusions:
QUOTE:
The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.
I think the authors are quite clear that they can't draw too many conclusions from their limited study.
OK, several studies were being talked about here and I did not pay for access. Most studies are carefully done with screened participants on controlled diets, this one was not. It doesn't change the fact that its a pretty risky idea, any of the other points I said are not changed and its probably not to your best interest really. Plus you say the authors admit they even cant draw too many conclusions. In fact because this is a summary study (many of these are done by people trying to get a thesis done or their name in enough studies, but have no money or time to do a study themselves) in my opinion, it has even less probability of application: its a bunch of people looking at other people's data and drawing their own conclusions, they did not test their idea.
Again I cant see the study, I have not read the whole thing, but I just dont think its a good idea to encourage people to lower their calorie intakes to levels which can have proven ill effects because one study looked at data eight years ago of others and ran a different set of calculations. Don't you think if this was revolutionary and right on the mark we would have had some miraculous new diets with higher calorie restrictions advised in the past 8 years if it was right on the money?
Edit: no of course I'm not talking about the 1950 study. I dont think anyone wants the "many experienced anemia, fatigue, apathy, extreme weakness, irritability, neurological deficits, and lower extremity edema." and these are all true dangers of extreme low calorie diets.
All the above being said it is POSSIBLE to reduce your calories more than the standard limits if you are obese, know what you are doing, are in good health, are eating correctly and enough nutrition-wise, increase your protein, weight lift and monitor your muscular strength for muscle loss. Everyone thinks they are the exception, and know what they are doing, and tend to forget key things like "I'm not obese, I'm a 120lb who doesnt look as thin as this model yet" so its just not safe and dangerous to propagate this idea.0 -
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
There was no controlled study. It was a bunch of math derived from a study conducted on active young men around 1950.I have access to the full article, and it's worth noting the following pargraph in the conclusions:
QUOTE:
The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.
I think the authors are quite clear that they can't draw too many conclusions from their limited study.
OK, several studies were being talked about here and I did not pay for access. Most studies are carefully done with screened participants on controlled diets, this one was not. It doesn't change the fact that its a pretty risky idea, any of the other points I said are not changed and its probably not to your best interest really. Plus you say the authors admit they even cant draw too many conclusions. In fact because this is a summary study (many of these are done by people trying to get a thesis done or their name in enough studies, but have no money or time to do a study themselves) in my opinion, it has even less probability of application: its a bunch of people looking at other people's data and drawing their own conclusions, they did not test their idea.
Again I cant see the study, I have not read the whole thing, but I just dont think its a good idea to encourage people to lower their calorie intakes to levels which can have proven ill effects because one study looked at data eight years ago of others and ran a different set of calculations. Don't you think if this was revolutionary and right on the mark we would have had some miraculous new diets with higher calorie restrictions advised in the past 8 years if it was right on the money?
Did you read the discussion at all?
The data comes from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, which was a controlled study on active men of normal weight. (this study can be easily looked up on the internet)
It has nothing at all to do with obesity as far as I could tell. It's about metabolism, specifically what is the limit of energy that can be drawn from fat stores without the loss of lean body mass... which is more important to body builders and others who are closer to goal weights than someone who is obese and able to sustain much higher deficits without the loss of LBM.
and FWIW, I am not encouraging anything, certainly not encouraging anyone to undereat(!) and neither was the study. I'm sure that there are many reasons to want to know what the absolute limit is that has nothing to do with dieting. (the original study was about feeding starving people in post-war Europe... and I'd reckon to guess there are still military applications to such studies)The historic 1944-45 Minnesota Experiment among volunteer conscientious objectors to war in World War II sought to measure for the first time experimentally the changes in physical and psychosocial functions from prolonged calorie deficiency. It was also geared to find the more efficient and safe manner of refeeding, with a view to managing the anticipated starving masses of post-war Europe. In this film, a simple, straightforward personal account of the experiment is read feelingly by one of the volunteers,his story buttressed by historic still photographs. It conveys well the stress of their long privation and its manifold effects on body and mind, and of the slow and discouraging recovery. In 1945 Ancel Keys sent out the preliminary evidence about refeeding, which required abundant (4,000) calories daily, with little advantage from vitamin supplements. The definitive report came out in 1950 as "The Biology of Human Starvation." University of Minnesota Press.
http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/video.asp?id=40470 -
CAn you guys use simple english please? The intellectually handicap like me have difficulty understanding your complicated language
this0 -
thisCAn you guys use simple english please? The intellectually handicap like me have difficulty understanding your complicated language
The article is more or less saying that you can run a bigger deficit than previously thought in order to lose weight without going into "starvation mode".
What you need to take into consideration is that they tested this theory using data collected in the 1950's using men who were already fit and healthy - not obese people trying to lose weight, or women. The authors admit this limitation on their research, but they can't do much about it, because a study that starved people like that would never get approved by a university research ethics panel these days (I work as a university professor, ethics panels shut down a lot of potential research projects before they can ever get started).0 -
Hypatia basically in your last post you are arguing pretty much the same things I'm saying, and things are getting confused. All I'm saying is it shouldn't be applied here as a guideline to lower calories and people are going to take it that way, just read the comments following, it was starting to happen already.
Volume you are right.
English version:
Original Posts: "Hey you guys see this?! Does anyone have the rest of the study? Does this mean its OK to lower calories this much more?"
Me: "No it doesn't really apply to weight loss here and I wouldn't recommend it, people are going to think its OK."
Hypatia: "But you didnt read the study! And I'm not recommending under eating like that either."
There, now we are all up to speed. 0 -
OTG it was a joke. There are so many people running around here with their "starvation mode" warnings, it just drives me batty. Batty, I say.0
-
Hypatia basically in your last post you are arguing pretty much the same things I'm saying, and things are getting confused. All I'm saying is it shouldn't be applied here as a guideline to lower calories and people are going to take it that way, just read the comments following, it was starting to happen already.
Volume you are right.
English version:
Original Posts: "Hey you guys see this?! Does anyone have the rest of the study? Does this mean its OK to lower calories this much more?"
Me: "No it doesn't really apply to weight loss here and I wouldn't recommend it, people are going to think its OK."
Hypatia: "But you didnt read the study! And I'm not recommending under eating like that either."
There, now we are all up to speed.
well, not really... I took issue with you assuming it had to do with obesity in your first post. But hey, move the goal post around and hope nobody notices, right?That study is interesting, but it just shows that the MAXIMUM LIMIT on energy transfer MIGHT be slightly more than previously thought in OBESE people.
Your words. And, the study never mentioned obese people.This leads people to the wrong conclusion: "I'm obese too, I should cut my calories by more". There is something very important the study also did not measure: lean body mass loss.
Except it did mention lean body mass loss! It was all about it!The higher your deficit, the more likely you are to lose lean body mass. The more lean body mass you lose, the less you burn per day, which means you start having to eat less than before just to maintain your weight little by little. Also, there comes a point in calorie restriction where this can lead to "shock" and cause your body to respond and use less energy throughout the day, making your calorie burning even LOWER and possibly changing your hormonal balance. Additionally, many medical issues can complicate this, even hidden conditions you were not aware of or dealing with fine under normal calorie intake diets that can rear their heads in a severely restricted diet.
Also remember, these were people in a controlled study, probably all screened for good health before hand and screened frequently to make certain of their condition, and probably fed a balanced diet and you aren't and don't have any of those advantages.
And this is where I noted there were no subjects of the study, they were using data from a previous study. (obviously, because you can't get a study approved where you starve the subjects)Remember, just like if you try to drive at the maximum speed of your ability to react, any error in your judgement, oil slick in the road, sunlight in your eye or obstacle coming into your path will cause an accident you cant control that much easier, so will restricting calories to the maximum you can tolerate make you more vulnerable to any deficit in your food nutrition, stressor, illness or injury! Plus, how do you determine what is the maximum speed you can drive your car? You pretty much have to drive till you lose control...pretty bad idea to do with your body, and you wont necessarily know the signs till later, and cant get spare parts, unlike an auto wreck.
It may be that you can run a higher deficit, all the study says is that the --math suggests-- that higher deficits are possible without loss of LBM, and that further research is probably indicated. But ethics likely would nix most studies of this nature, hence the use of an old study.0 -
Thought it was worth posting the abstract as this backs up what Sidesteel and others have said for a long time.
Objective: Utilization of very-low-calorie diets (VLCD) for weight loss results in loss of lean body weight (LBW) and a decrease in resting metabolic rate (RMR). The addition of aerobic exercise does not prevent this. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of intensive, high volume resistance training combined with a VLCD on these parameters.
Note - The addition of aerobic exercise does not prevent the body from decreasing in resting metabolic rate or the loss of lean body weight. That in itself should be the alarm bells we all need.0 -
thisCAn you guys use simple english please? The intellectually handicap like me have difficulty understanding your complicated language
You should have read one more post down.CAn you guys use simple english please? The intellectually handicap like me have difficulty understanding your complicated language
Cliffs:
Dude is all like "Yo I got a theory brah. You can only lose DIS MUCH (*gesture with hands*) fat per day son. Check it. (*bunch of math*). Word.0
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