Study suggests you can run larger deficit than we think?

SanteMulberry

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=4047

What's interesting is that the Army is still doing some "starvation" of the troops. They call it ranger training. They limit what they are allowed to eat (even to the point where they can only have several sticks of gum per day, in addition to the provided meals). They exercise them constantly--it would be interesting to know if they lose LBM---I expect they probably would. Just anecdotally, it is said that those who have more body fat when they start the training are more likely to stay healthy. A number of them get sick and are permitted to drop out to get well before returning to training. It seems an exercise in misery but *shrug* it's the Army.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Nope Hypatia, I was confused about which study (several mentioned) and now you are confusing my responses and taking out of context. I am just saying you shouldnt take results like these and apply them to obese people or running a larger deficit in real life here to lose weight. As the topic and posters tend to indicate:
TOPIC: Study suggests you can run larger deficit than we think? I have had people ask me and have people around me who want to lose more faster and jump all over statements like this and mis-applied studies so I was cautioning. Thats all.

zahid222

CAn you guys use simple english please? The intellectually handicap like me have difficulty understanding your complicated language

this

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).

zahid222

Well, Thank you so much for your simple laymans' explaination, it is greatly appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had defficulty understanding the post. We are for here for a single reason of trying to live a better life. All are not from the same education backgroud but if we can help each other in our endevour it will all be worth while. Thaks again!

zahid222

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.

zahid222

THANKS DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!

oxyJ3N

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.

Wow, this made me laugh so hard.

savithny

I'm more interested in the effects on metabolic rate, myself. Studies I've been reading seem to mostly find that RMR drops more with larger deficiits and with longer time-in-deficit, but is it a proportional thing? when you see reports of people burning 500 calories a day less than someone of the same size/weight who is not eating at deficit, you can see that drops in metabolic rate can erase a good portion of the deficit that you've worked to set up....

cwolfman13

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. ;-)

I was hoping someone was going to point that out.

npapadonis

Does anyone know if the article "A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia" where it states (290+/-25) kJ/kgd, does this mean 290 kJ/(kg of body weight) or 290 kJ/(kg of body fat)? I asked because if its kJ/(body fat), then this limits a 185 lbs males with 27 lbs body fat to 837 kcal/day metabolized from fat adipose tissue, limiting weight loss to about 2 lbs/week. If it's kJ/(body weight), then a 185 lbs man can transfer 5723 kcal/day from fat adipose to energy and lose about 13 lbs / week.

Also, the article mentions moderate activity, what happens in the case of high activity?

I tried fasting without any food, only water, exercise of about 6 miles walking per day, for three weeks once and lost about 4.3 lbs/wk (accounting for loss of 11 lbs material in colon). My own fasting data suggests 1. I used energy from breaking down muscle tissue over 837 kcal/day (fat store max, kg/body fat) 2. I used energy over 837 kcal/day which was 2344 kcal/day from my fat store, suggesting that this article calculates using kJ/(body weight).

PAV8888

Maximum is not always optimum. You may want to keep that in mind while trying to optimize your weight management. In fact speed is seldom a good or relevant goal.

In the op of the thread you bumped the poster clearly states per quantity of adipose tissue not body weight.

when you think about it, it makes sense given that two same weight people, one with 50lbs of fat and one with 10lbs of mostly essential fat will not use up the same proportions of energy stores in a deficit, whether maximal or minimal while still effective

tomcustombuilder

In the past I’ve used the 33 cal per pound of body fat as a guide for a maximum deficit and it seemed to work really well. I think the take away point from all this so is that the more fat you have on your body the bigger the deficit can be and as you lean out the deficit needs to be smaller however don’t forget as you get lighter your maintenance will also be a bit lower so you have to figure that in also.

Even though theoretically you can run that deficit you have to ask yourself if you’re really willing to do that or not. A few days a week possibly but to do it day after day consistently may be difficult so you’ve got to take all that in consideration however another good take away is that you can run a bigger deficit than you think usually without losing muscle as long as your protein is correct and you’re doing some training