Tell me why? Only serious replies please.

12357…14

Replies

  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Yes, your body will use stored stuff if you net below 1000 calories. It will use fat as well as protein (muscle mass) and will use glucose that your brain needs to function to keep your other vital systems functioning. So you should expect to become weaker and be pretty "foggy" and unable to concentrate as easily. Maybe even have some confusion.

    When body builders go extremely low calorie before shows (which isn't below 1000, btw) they KNOW they will lose muscle mass in doing so. That is why body builders "bulk" before they cut, so that they can afford to lose some muscle.
  • shaleyn
    shaleyn Posts: 125 Member
    So wait... (sorry OP, just clarifying something for myself)... unless i do intense cardio NOW, that handful of cinnamon teddy grahams I just ate is going straight to my hips??
  • JingleMuffin
    JingleMuffin Posts: 543 Member
    3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

    Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!
    why?

    because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!
  • joleenl
    joleenl Posts: 739 Member
    The reason that eating under a 1000 calories daily is that if your body feels that it is "starving" itself, it will go after the most easily accessible form of energy, which is muscle not fat. Fat is energy dense, with the average gram containing 9 calories. Your muscle tissue is made of mostly protein and water. Protein on average contains 4 calories per gram. This is easier for a body to access.

    I think you're mistaken.....your body uses stored glycogen first, fat second and lean muscle mass third but if you could cite a reliable source (not some broscience blog) that contradicts this I'd be interested.....

    To the OP, my understanding of the downside of VLCDs is that it is difficult to consume the variety of foods needed to supply the variety of nutrients (both macro and micro) that our bodies need to function in a healthy way. In addition, with severe caloric restriction over an extended time period (can' be compared with a wrestler's or bodybuilder's cut phase) may affects your metabolism ie it adapts to the new normal

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

    Executive summary: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

    Thanks for the reply. I am not on a VLCD. I eat over my BMR. I net lower then my BMR. Would I not still be getting the nutrients even if I exercised the calories away?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    The reason that eating under a 1000 calories daily is that if your body feels that it is "starving" itself, it will go after the most easily accessible form of energy, which is muscle not fat. Fat is energy dense, with the average gram containing 9 calories. Your muscle tissue is made of mostly protein and water. Protein on average contains 4 calories per gram. This is easier for a body to access.

    I think you're mistaken.....your body uses stored glycogen first, fat second and lean muscle mass third but if you could cite a reliable source (not some broscience blog) that contradicts this I'd be interested.....

    To the OP, my understanding of the downside of VLCDs is that it is difficult to consume the variety of foods needed to supply the variety of nutrients (both macro and micro) that our bodies need to function in a healthy way. In addition, with severe caloric restriction over an extended time period (can' be compared with a wrestler's or bodybuilder's cut phase) may affects your metabolism ie it adapts to the new normal

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

    Executive summary: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

    Thanks for the reply. I am not on a VLCD. I eat over my BMR. I net lower then my BMR. Would I not still be getting the nutrients even if I exercised the calories away?

    The problem is that you're running a very large calorie deficit. The larger the calorie deficit, the more lean mass you will sacrifice, the less likely you are to stick with it, and the more tired/depleted you will feel. If you're fine with all that then go right ahead.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

    A calorie is not a calorie even when it comes to energy.

    You eat 300 calories of vegetable or 300 calories of sugar (for example, pasta, or cereal, or bread)

    300 calories of cereal get converted into sugar almost instantly. Your body can only use up so much of it, and the rest must be stored as fat. Burning fat is not as easy as burning energy that is glucose in your bloodstream. To start burning fat reserves you need at least 20 minutes of intense cardio (or a certain amount of deficit). It is not a simple process, and your body resists doing it if it does not have to.

    Your vegetable calories will be released gradually, giving you more chance to use the energy as it becomes available. (Fruit has complex and simple carbs, so you get instant energy and gradual energy after).

    It will also take longer to digest and leave your stomach, thus keeping it fuller longer and your blood sugar more stable.

    When you get a massive spike in glucose, such as from processed carbs that our bodies have not adapted to evolutionary, many people's bodies release too much insulin to compensate, and subsequently their glucose levels drop even lower than before they ate. That causes a natural urge to eat more quick energy for that fix, and want for more carbs, and this can become a cycle.

    Also, some of the fiber in fruits and veggies does not get digested. So you are actually getting less energy than the entire plant contains. Not the case with simple carbs.

    So "calorie is a calorie" is not a correct statement for practical purposes.
    Hope this helps.

    So, your body doesn't store glycogen? There is, very clearly, an alarming misunderstanding of how insulin works being promulgated......

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/fat-cell2.htm
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member


    I only have my trainer for another 5 weeks so I am trying to maximize my results by lowering my %BF in that time span. I will be only netting that low for 4/7 days a week.

    Okay this makes more sense, you told the trainer that this was your goal and so she is just trying to get you to that goal in this time frame regardless of whether it is a good plan or sustainable long term.

    I think that since you have a high body fat % that it is okay, but not long term of course. What will be your goal/plan after the 5 weeks?
  • joleenl
    joleenl Posts: 739 Member
    The reason that eating under a 1000 calories daily is that if your body feels that it is "starving" itself, it will go after the most easily accessible form of energy, which is muscle not fat. Fat is energy dense, with the average gram containing 9 calories. Your muscle tissue is made of mostly protein and water. Protein on average contains 4 calories per gram. This is easier for a body to access.

    I think you're mistaken.....your body uses stored glycogen first, fat second and lean muscle mass third but if you could cite a reliable source (not some broscience blog) that contradicts this I'd be interested.....

    To the OP, my understanding of the downside of VLCDs is that it is difficult to consume the variety of foods needed to supply the variety of nutrients (both macro and micro) that our bodies need to function in a healthy way. In addition, with severe caloric restriction over an extended time period (can' be compared with a wrestler's or bodybuilder's cut phase) may affects your metabolism ie it adapts to the new normal

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

    Executive summary: "Body weight is defended in non-obese participants during modest caloric restriction, evidenced by metabolic adaptation of RMR and reduced energy expenditure through physical activity."

    Thanks for the reply. I am not on a VLCD. I eat over my BMR. I net lower then my BMR. Would I not still be getting the nutrients even if I exercised the calories away?

    The problem is that you're running a very large calorie deficit. The larger the calorie deficit, the more lean mass you will sacrifice, the less likely you are to stick with it, and the more tired/depleted you will feel. If you're fine with all that then go right ahead.

    Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.
  • joleenl
    joleenl Posts: 739 Member


    I only have my trainer for another 5 weeks so I am trying to maximize my results by lowering my %BF in that time span. I will be only netting that low for 4/7 days a week.

    Okay this makes more sense, you told the trainer that this was your goal and so she is just trying to get you to that goal in this time frame regardless of whether it is a good plan or sustainable long term.

    I think that since you have a high body fat % that it is okay, but not long term of course. What will be your goal/plan after the 5 weeks?

    My plan is to go back to either TDEE-20% or MFP calories plus eating exercise calories and MOST importantly continue lifting and cardio. Once I get to my goal weight or %BF then I will probably cut back on cardio since I aint a huge fan of it.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.

    With a calorie deficit that big? Yes.

    Your body can only generate so many calories a day from fat. The more fat mass you have, the more calories your body can generate per day from fat. That's why we tell people that people with more fat to lose can run larger deficits. That's all well and good, but the fact remains that as you increase the calories your body has to generate from its own mass, you increase the proportion of those calories that come from non-fat mass.

    Your method will, necessarily, result in more lean mass loss than the slower more reasonable approach that pretty much everyone recommends. It will also make you feel worse.
  • johnnlinda
    johnnlinda Posts: 69
    You have a very nice diary. I wish I ate that healthy. I was just wondering how you are checking your body fat? 40% is a lot when you only have 18lbs to go. If that is your current picture, I find it hard to believe you have 40% I'm just curious.
  • MsPudding
    MsPudding Posts: 562 Member
    I am actually serious people. I like food too. I eat more then 1000 calories everyday. I NET LESS then 1000. I aint doing it for life. I am doing it as temporary cut. Like cycling between cuts and bulks.


    The quick answer to this is: is your bodybuilding trainer also a registered dietitian? Or a doctor? If the answer either question is "no", then she doesn't have the relevant knowledge to assure you that netting 1000 calories day after day is medically safe.

    So my answer is, go ask a doctor or a dietitian whether what your trainer is telling you to do is either a) safe or b) advisable for you.
  • brosehemian
    brosehemian Posts: 34 Member
    To all the people who say that eating under 1200, whatever number of calories is dangerous... what makes 1200 calories the 'magic' number that works for all body types? Couldn't it be dangerous for a huge man to eat less than 1600 or whatever? I'm not disputing that you need to eat enough calories to sustain your body, but I'm so tired of seeing the "at least 1200 calories for everyone!" argument tossed around.

    Can you get .82 grams of protein per Lb of body mass, 0.35 - 0.4 grams of dietary fat, and all of your vitamins and minerals through your food eating less than 1200 calories? Please....go shovel your **** elsewhere.

    I never said you could or couldn't. I never recommended that anyone eat too little. I'm just saying that everyone who was getting down on her for NETTING 1000 and telling her she needed to eat at least 1200 should maybe consider that those numbers are really unhelpful when being applied so generally. She needs to look at what works for her, keeps her healthy, and makes her feel full of energy and life.

    I REALLY don't appreciate your profanity or your negativity and I further ask that if you don't have anything constructive to add to a discussion, you not comment. Have a great day.
  • Showcase_Brodown
    Showcase_Brodown Posts: 919 Member
    3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

    Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!
    why?

    because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!

    Yes, nutrition is important as well and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but the original point had to do with the energy content. In that context, calories are equal. It was even qualified with "in regards to energy, not nutrition."
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.

    With a calorie deficit that big? Yes.

    Your body can only generate so many calories a day from fat. The more fat mass you have, the more calories your body can generate per day from fat. That's why we tell people that people with more fat to lose can run larger deficits. That's all well and good, but the fact remains that as you increase the calories your body has to generate from its own mass, you increase the proportion of those calories that come from non-fat mass.

    Your method will, necessarily, result in more lean mass loss than the slower more reasonable approach that pretty much everyone recommends. It will also make you feel worse.

    I think this neatly summarises the position.

    You theoretically won't lose as great a % of fat free mass to fat mass as a leaner person attempting to use the same deficit but you will lose more than if your deficit had been more conservative. How much more is difficult to gauge.

    It's essentially a trade off and whether the benefits outweigh the burdens for you personally.
  • pluckabee
    pluckabee Posts: 346 Member
    3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

    Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!
    why?

    because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!

    Yes, nutrition is important as well and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but the original point had to do with the energy content. In that context, calories are equal. It was even qualified with "in regards to energy, not nutrition."

    In that context, calories are completely irrelevant. Of course a calorie is a calorie outside the body, it is a fixed measurement. What use is that if when ingested, it is not the same?
  • JossFit
    JossFit Posts: 588 Member
    I think you should toss out the NET calorie count and just work off of totals.

    If you were to tell people that you work out x times per week and eat roughly 1800 calories per day, nobody would bat an eye. I don't think that, given your stats, that is a low number at all.
  • joleenl
    joleenl Posts: 739 Member
    You have a very nice diary. I wish I ate that healthy. I was just wondering how you are checking your body fat? 40% is a lot when you only have 18lbs to go. If that is your current picture, I find it hard to believe you have 40% I'm just curious.

    Thank you. My body fat was measured by my personal trainer using digital calipers. Appparently I have 107 pounds of lean body mass. My trainer monitors these as I can't afford to lose any more lean body mass. As for my ticker, I just picked a goal weight when entering it. My actual goal is to be at around 25% BF. I am not sure what weight I'll be at so I can't update my ticker.
  • caly_man
    caly_man Posts: 281 Member
    I was just wondering how you are checking your body fat? 40% is a lot when you only have 18lbs to go.

    was going to say this, but someone else saw the math too

    and OP, as far as only have 5 weeks with your trainer, that's great. what you'll learn in those 5 weeks you can continue on your own without having to net so little cals. you shouldn't rush your body into giving up the fat

    and btw, congrats on losing 35 lbs, that's a nice accomplishment
  • AlsDonkBoxSquat
    AlsDonkBoxSquat Posts: 6,128 Member
    I switched to the TDEE methods several months ago. If you use the spreadsheet, you can track lean body mass. When you lose weight you will lose both lean body mass & fat mass no matter what. What you WANT to do is lose more Fat mass than LEAN mass. I can attest to the fact that the TDEE method works. I have lost some lean body mass, but much more fat mass. Your lean body mass is what drives your BMR, if you lose lean body mass (i.e. the muscle) then you BMR slows down. That is physiology NOT bro-science!!! Everyone's body works according to that physiologic rule! Lose muscle mass & your BMR will slow, no way around it. If you have been following all your measurements over the course of months/years, download the Excel spreadsheet from the "In place of a roadmap" thread & plug in your numbers going back in time; that way you can see the changes in your lean body mass, which have already occurred. I wouldn't endorse eating a net 1000 calories ever (I'm a physician), but if you're going to try, at least follow your numbers, so you can see your changes in lean body mass. If you start dropping precipitously, then "get out"! I don't think it will take long to see that 1000 calories isn't healthy!

    Yes I have done the TDEE method and it does work. My trainer recommended a cut. I just thought if I ate more BMR but netted lower. I would still get my nutrients from food. My body could still use the calories I eat for brain fuction and etc then use fat for the burn but maybe I am missing something.

    I'm curious if you still have a high BF% and TDEE is working for you why your trainer would recommend a cut. A cut cycle pretty much indicates that later on there will be a build cycle . . . this has a totally different purpose than your general weight loss goal. If you're being successful with TDEE, and you're happy with the steady pace results you're getting, why fix what ain't broken? One of the issues with rapid weightloss is not just decreased lean mass (which means that you may be making your weight loss goals, but you'll spend more time than necessary chasing the bf% goals), but also to do with appearance and stretched skin. The slower you lose the weight the more your skin will rebound with your body. You may always be a little lose around the edges, but not so much as with unusually rapid weight loss. It's no certainty, but it give you a better chance.

Categories