Study suggests you can run larger deficit than we think?

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

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).

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.

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.

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. ;-)