Study suggests you can run larger deficit than we think?

CristinaL1983

I have read quite a few studies that support this. In certain studies where protein intake was kept high, nutrients were supplemented, and strength training is conducted, obese women on VLCD's were able to maintain LBM. Considering the fact that intake was regulated between 600-800 calories, I'm sure the deficit was quite large.

I feel like I should say that obviously, the greater the deficit, the more difficult it is to regulate protein and nutrition which is why it's recommended only under supervision of a doctor.

I haven't read this particular study but I'm going to check it out next time I'm on campus (I can probably get access to it through school).

I can't find it in my school's library resources. If you could read it and give us some more info that would be pretty rad!

When I get online using my schools server, I can usually get into any journal there are some that don't have an agreement with my university so I'm not sure.

Sarauk2sf

Oh I was talking about the one in the OP. I will go check that one out too, thanks.

oop - sorry. :happy:

tachyon_master

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.

bpotts44

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.

professorRAT

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.

^nice explanation! but mostly, bump

SideSteel

I have read quite a few studies that support this. In certain studies where protein intake was kept high, nutrients were supplemented, and strength training is conducted, obese women on VLCD's were able to maintain LBM. Considering the fact that intake was regulated between 600-800 calories, I'm sure the deficit was quite large.

I feel like I should say that obviously, the greater the deficit, the more difficult it is to regulate protein and nutrition which is why it's recommended only under supervision of a doctor.

I haven't read this particular study but I'm going to check it out next time I'm on campus (I can probably get access to it through school).

Just some random comments, and I'm not saying this to refute anyone or anything as I find the original study to be quite interesting and the topic in general interests me.


When you say "I have read quite a few studies that support this", I assume you're just talking about the notion of larger calorie deficits being conducive to greater fat loss, and that in some cases we can retain LBM while doing so? Or are you saying that you've seen studies that would support the theoretical limits that the original study suggests? I'm only clarifying because the original study (at least, to me) constructs a model to predict maximum amount of fat that can be oxidized per day based on weight.

It is probably this one

http://intl.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full

Effects of Resistance vs. Aerobic Training Combined With an 800 Calorie Liquid Diet on Lean Body Mass and Resting Metabolic Rate

[/quote]
[/quote]

And regarding both the above study and the previous comments about VLCD's and LBM retention, I would obviously assume that in both cases (the above study and the previous comments) we are talking about obese and untrained individuals who are put on a resistance program. Both of these are pretty much optimal conditions under which one would stand the greatest chance of favorable results as far as LBM maintenance.

EDIT: Sara just pointed out their bodyfat% in a previous reply, presumably for the same reason.

lambch0ps

Fourth that and I'd love to read both articles.

rm7161

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.

Best summary I ever read!

(not a single experiment actually done! ... as was said, don't read too much into it)

concordancia

So, I can run a daily deficit of a few thousand? Good, that whole eating thing was getting old!

jonnythan

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.

professorRAT

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.

jak1958

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...

fresh_start59

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. ;-)

SanteMulberry

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.

CristinaL1983

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.

nashsheri33

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!

ndj1979

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...!

karenhray7

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.

rm7161

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.

jak1958

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've