Tell me why? Only serious replies please.
Options
Replies
-
Thanks for all the serious replies and to the people who have shared their experiences. I appreciate your concern over the extreme dieting. I am not an advocate for it. I do not have an eating disorder. I will close monitor my stats and take in to account all of your warnings if I decide to proceed with this.
I agree with all of you that said healthy weight loss should be slow and sustainable. I also agree with all of you that said it there is no rush and take it slow. I have lost my first 35 pounds doing it this way and during that time I have learned life skills that will help me keep it off. Lifting and maintaining a healthly for life diet are part of my life goals.
I just wanted to maximize my results while I have a trainer to drive me and push me to the limits is all. I just want to know if anyone had any articles or links to research done on netting low.
Are you doing strength work with the trainer? I am assuming that the cardio isn't the point of having the trainer (though I may be wrong about that).
If you are looking to maximize the trainer's help, it would seem more logical to me to eat at a moderate deficit, if not closer to maintenance, because that would maximize your ability to maintain or even build a little muscle (and yes, as to building I am talking strictly of newb gains, before anyone jumps on me)...in other words, use this as a bulk, not a cut.0 -
Thank you. Now if MFP could share some research in regard to the effects of the low netting, I'd be set!
Read this:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=415
It's not specifically about "low netting" as opposed to why dieting (all dieting in reality but the effects are more severe the steeper the deficit) creates issues for long term weight maintenance.
Thanks I'll take a look at it.0 -
This is the best explanation of "starvation mode" I've read:
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#starvationmode
The other problems with very low calorie diets are:
Adherence (it's hard to stick with).
Muscle loss
Low energy, just feeling crappy.
Poor performance in sports and/or lifting
Hair loss, brittle nails.
Food is yummy
Also, "a calorie is a calorie" in regards to weight loss. Not energy. I have WAY more energy if I include carbs in my diet.
Thanks for the article. I will read it as soon as I get a chance.
If you read it now, it would answer your question.0 -
I took a quick peek at you diary and it looks like you are on the type of diet/ training regime that body builders or bikini competitors are on when training for a competition.
The short answer to your question then, is that what you're doing is not healthy in the long run. You said that this is temporary. And that is good. However if you go on a higher deficit than you already are with that amount of exercise, the minute you stop and eat regularly / maintain a more realistic exercise schedule, know that you WILL gain weight back.
The plan you appear to be on is super effective for super quick results and could totally be used before a bikini- wearing vacation or a body building competition (if that is what you're into), but is not even used by professionals on a regular basis. It is a temporary few-months program intended to get you in the BEST form you can get to, and it will yield impressive results. However even body builders gain mass back on their off season.
As for why a deficit is dangerous... Not eating your minimum caloric intake can cause a few problems. a) you will be hungry. And if you are exercising to the extent I see you are on less than 1000 a day, you are risking passing out, simply because you are NOT getting enough energy into your body. Put it like this: you may have a fantastic car in top shape, but without gas, it's going to stall.
b) I would worry for the shape of your muscles. Your body needs fuel. The reason eating less than maintenance allows you to use fat is because when you run out of calories (the fuel for your body), your body will essentially break down the fat first to create fuel, and thus, you lose fat. So looking at this we would assume the least amount of calories the better, right? Except that your necessary amount of calories is the amount of fuel needed for your basic bodily functions - heart beat, breathing, digestion, etc.
So, let's imagine a scenario where one is eating far less than their required functioning calories, and are on a vigorous exercise routine. For simplicity's sake, we'll say that this person needs 1200 calories to function at a basic level (those necessary processes of the body to survive), and is burning (simply to have a number) an extra 1000 calories during their exercising. BUT, this person is only eating 1000 calories. That is only 1000 of the 2200 they are using throughout their day. While there is still fat on this person, the 1000 consumed calories would be burned off by the 1000 calories burned during exercise, and then to keep the body simply FUNCTIONING, another 1200 calories would have to come from breaking down fat. While this seems like a wicked fast fix, it isn't. Because at a deficit that large, the body will panic and believe it is starving. When the body decide's it's starving, every single calorie this person eats will be stored as fat for "emergency stores" in case the body continues to starve. It is our body's way of ensuring that should we be unable to provide the necessary energy, we won't die.
As for what that person will be burning... they still have 1200 calories that the body NEEDS. Essentially after exercising, the body will be running then on ZERO calories. Now, by not eating enough calories, this person will not have enough energy and protein to REPAIR the damaged muscle caused by their vigorous exercise routine (that soreness after working out is caused by tearing in muscle fibers, and MUST be repaired via sleep and fuel, including lots of protein). not properly repairing muscle fibers after weight training is a good way to potentially cause muscle atrophy. Basically, by eating far below your needed calories, you may risk not only keeping the fat or gaining more, but also LOSING the muscle you are working so hard to gain.0 -
Thanks for all the serious replies and to the people who have shared their experiences. I appreciate your concern over the extreme dieting. I am not an advocate for it. I do not have an eating disorder. I will close monitor my stats and take in to account all of your warnings if I decide to proceed with this.
I agree with all of you that said healthy weight loss should be slow and sustainable. I also agree with all of you that said it there is no rush and take it slow. I have lost my first 35 pounds doing it this way and during that time I have learned life skills that will help me keep it off. Lifting and maintaining a healthly for life diet are part of my life goals.
I just wanted to maximize my results while I have a trainer to drive me and push me to the limits is all. I just want to know if anyone had any articles or links to research done on netting low.
Are you doing strength work with the trainer? I am assuming that the cardio isn't the point of having the trainer (though I may be wrong about that).
If you are looking to maximize the trainer's help, it would seem more logical to me to eat at a moderate deficit, if not closer to maintenance, because that would maximize your ability to maintain or even build a little muscle (and yes, as to building I am talking strictly of newb gains, before anyone jumps on me)...in other words, use this as a bulk, not a cut.
I have thought about that. Well I just started the cut on Monday so next Monday I will have her test my %BF and lean mass. If I have lost any lean mass maybe I will tell her I want to try that instead.
This probably is the best idea on this thread although technically still did not answer my question. LOL. Thanks for the help.0 -
Thanks for all the serious replies and to the people who have shared their experiences. I appreciate your concern over the extreme dieting. I am not an advocate for it. I do not have an eating disorder. I will close monitor my stats and take in to account all of your warnings if I decide to proceed with this.
I agree with all of you that said healthy weight loss should be slow and sustainable. I also agree with all of you that said it there is no rush and take it slow. I have lost my first 35 pounds doing it this way and during that time I have learned life skills that will help me keep it off. Lifting and maintaining a healthly for life diet are part of my life goals.
I just wanted to maximize my results while I have a trainer to drive me and push me to the limits is all. I just want to know if anyone had any articles or links to research done on netting low.
Are you doing strength work with the trainer? I am assuming that the cardio isn't the point of having the trainer (though I may be wrong about that).
If you are looking to maximize the trainer's help, it would seem more logical to me to eat at a moderate deficit, if not closer to maintenance, because that would maximize your ability to maintain or even build a little muscle (and yes, as to building I am talking strictly of newb gains, before anyone jumps on me)...in other words, use this as a bulk, not a cut.
I have thought about that. Well I just started the cut on Monday so next Monday I will have her test my %BF and lean mass. If I have lost any lean mass maybe I will tell her I want to try that instead.
This probably is the best idea on this thread although technically still did not answer my question. LOL. Thanks for the help.
LOL -- you're welcome.
If you're asking me -- will you die? Nah. I am sure that I did this for years as a competitive lightweight rower. But I am pretty sure that is why it's so easy for me to gain and hard to lose. That's just anecdotal but it's my experience.
I suspect that trainers like to put people on these super-hard-core regimes because they want to show max impact over six or twelve weeks or whatever. It's good advertising. But it's not the best use of twelve expensive weeks for everyone. Teaching great form and feel for muscle engagement, designing a longer-term program, and building some strength and habits probably is the most bang for buck for most people. But it's tough to capture that in pictures
0 -
no matter how well educated a trainer is, they are also salespeople. And Ive had plenty of trainers. My guess would be your's is limiting your intake so much so you have quick weight loss - at first, and thus credit her service. Think about it, if she put you at say a 1500/1700 cal diet, it would take a bit longer to drop the lbs-you would steadily lose a pound a week while also gaining muscle. But 1000 cals is quick-youd probably lose 5lbs in a week of muscle, fat, water. SO its really not about what is best for your body, its a way for her to keep your businessbc youd be getting "results". BTW- I have a male friend who needs to drop about 20lbs to get back his athletic 6pack lean build. He hired a local trainer who told him he was clinically obese and horrifically out of shape & needed to see him 3-4x/week. Literally used scare tactics to get his money. And all that training that was supposed to transform his body has left my friend looking the same.
The problem w 1000 cal diets, and trust me Ive done them, is they arent sustainable esp with a fitness program. I have never been a binger or someone who eats junk (minus PMS pizza day 1 day month, but when I restricted myself to 1200 I was dreaming of gross stuff like taco bell, pizza, anything terrible and id fluctuate between STARVING and stuffed when Id have to shove food in my mouth out of fear of passing out. 0 -
This is the best explanation of "starvation mode" I've read:
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#starvationmode
The other problems with very low calorie diets are:
Adherence (it's hard to stick with).
Muscle loss
Low energy, just feeling crappy.
Poor performance in sports and/or lifting
Hair loss, brittle nails.
Food is yummy
Also, "a calorie is a calorie" in regards to weight loss. Not energy. I have WAY more energy if I include carbs in my diet.
Thanks for the article. I will read it as soon as I get a chance.
If you read it now, it would answer your question.
I just read most of the article. It doesn't acount for a very important part of the equation. Most metabolism damage is done from dieters because they lose muscle mass and fat. If you strength train and retain your muscle your metabolism won't be as damaged from the loss. IMO people who have have lost a lot of weight should try to rebuild (or bulk) afterwards to gain muscle and there for metabolism.
All in all, it was a decent article and thanks for the post. I do agree that dieting or restricting calories (even a safe rate) does slow your metabolism. The only way to repair it is to build muscle.0 -
Thanks for all the serious replies and to the people who have shared their experiences. I appreciate your concern over the extreme dieting. I am not an advocate for it. I do not have an eating disorder. I will close monitor my stats and take in to account all of your warnings if I decide to proceed with this.
I agree with all of you that said healthy weight loss should be slow and sustainable. I also agree with all of you that said it there is no rush and take it slow. I have lost my first 35 pounds doing it this way and during that time I have learned life skills that will help me keep it off. Lifting and maintaining a healthly for life diet are part of my life goals.
I just wanted to maximize my results while I have a trainer to drive me and push me to the limits is all. I just want to know if anyone had any articles or links to research done on netting low.
Are you doing strength work with the trainer? I am assuming that the cardio isn't the point of having the trainer (though I may be wrong about that).
If you are looking to maximize the trainer's help, it would seem more logical to me to eat at a moderate deficit, if not closer to maintenance, because that would maximize your ability to maintain or even build a little muscle (and yes, as to building I am talking strictly of newb gains, before anyone jumps on me)...in other words, use this as a bulk, not a cut.
I have thought about that. Well I just started the cut on Monday so next Monday I will have her test my %BF and lean mass. If I have lost any lean mass maybe I will tell her I want to try that instead.
This probably is the best idea on this thread although technically still did not answer my question. LOL. Thanks for the help.
LOL -- you're welcome.
If you're asking me -- will you die? Nah. I am sure that I did this for years as a competitive lightweight rower. But I am pretty sure that is why it's so easy for me to gain and hard to lose. That's just anecdotal but it's my experience.
I suspect that trainers like to put people on these super-hard-core regimes because they want to show max impact over six or twelve weeks or whatever. It's good advertising. But it's not the best use of twelve expensive weeks for everyone. Teaching great form and feel for muscle engagement, designing a longer-term program, and building some strength and habits probably is the most bang for buck for most people. But it's tough to capture that in pictures
See based on your experience is exactly why I asked the question. I want to know if there is research that supports your experience because I don't want to have that same experience.
Your response is so intelligent that I think you've sold me. I see my trainer Thursday night. I will talk to her about the bulk instead.
I am a little nervous though. I have to get over my scale OCD because watching the scale go up (or stay the same) instead of down..... will be tough for a gal that still wants to lose weight.0 -
Netting is a little different than only eating 1000 calories. There are some problems with those four things you listed though. The way our bodies process food is far too complex to reduce everything to "a calorie is a calorie no matter what" ways of thinking. Where your calories come from does matter. I have worked as a nutrition educator for the past nine years. How far below 1000 were looking at going?
You should be careful. At a certain point, your internal organs won't be able to function properly and can be irreversibly damaged over time if you sustain calorie levels that are too low,
The thing is, the smaller you get, the longer it takes to take a pound off. This is normal. I know if it frustrating if you see the scale stall out for a little bit. Fitness isn't always reflected on the scale though. It is possible to get smaller and gain weight. Body composition determines health more than a number.0 -
< 1000 calories 5'7" will lower your ability to lift weights, retain lean mass and maintain intense aerobic activity. More mass loss will be muscle vs. fat compared to a slower loss.
Weaker workouts = less conditioning. Fewer calories burned. Less benefit from exercise.
You will last two weeks, perhaps longer (fitness competitors often crash diet and overexercise before their shows),
and then the physical decline will be too significant to ignore.
Ideally for an athletically minded person it would be better to eat at a minor deficit and destroy it at the gym.
You've asked us not to give you sound advice on moderate weight loss. So there's really no win - win here.0 -
Netting is a little different than only eating 1000 calories. There are some problems with those four things you listed though. The way our bodies process food is far too complex to reduce everything to "a calorie is a calorie no matter what" ways of thinking. Where your calories come from does matter. I have worked as a nutrition educator for the past nine years. How far below 1000 were looking at going?
You should be careful. At a certain point, your internal organs won't be able to function properly and can be irreversibly damaged over time if you sustain calorie levels that are too low,
The thing is, the smaller you get, the longer it takes to take a pound off. This is normal. I know if it frustrating if you see the scale stall out for a little bit. Fitness isn't always reflected on the scale though. It is possible to get smaller and gain weight. Body composition determines health more than a number.
I am not in for the calorie debate. I think we are all on this site to track calories because excess calories is what makes or rather made us fat.
I do agree with the body composition comment which is why my ticker no longer reflects my goals. I want to be at a health %BF. Right now I am considered obese at 40%. (Which is weird being I don't see obese in the mirror and neither do most people who look at me.) Anyways that is the number I am aiming to change. I do understand the closer I get to my goal the harder weight loss is.0 -
wow, you guys are really being tough on her for asking a question. I haven't seen a response from her yet that indicates she isn't open to an honest discussion. I think a lot of you are making some unfair assumptions about the OP.
OP - I pretty much agree with your 4 bullets from your first post with a little qualification. There really isn't anything magical about 1200 calories. If I eat 1100 calories am I going to die?! For me personally, 1200 would be very unhealthy. The only thing about 1200 calories that has some thread of validity is from a nutritional standpoint, it gives you enough calories that you can get a decent nutritional value from the diet. Technically, you can go below 1200 calories TEMPORARILY as long as you are really paying attention to nutritional needs. If you stick with it for a week or more, your body will adapt and the weight loss will start to slow (not stop).
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
Wow, a sensical and well thought out post in a topic dominated by "know it all" trolls.0 -
< 1000 calories 5'7" will lower your ability to lift weights, retain lean mass and maintain intense aerobic activity. More mass loss will be weights vs. fat compared to a slower loss.
Weaker workouts = less conditioning. Fewer calories burned. Less benefit from exercise.
You will last two weeks, perhaps longer (fitness competitors often crash diet and overexercise before their shows),
and then the physical decline will be too significant to ignore.
Ideally for an athletically minded person it would be better to eat at a minor deficit and destroy it at the gym.
You've asked us not to give you sound advice on moderate weight loss. So there's really no win - win here.
HUH? I think you've missed something somewhere.0 -
wow, you guys are really being tough on her for asking a question. I haven't seen a response from her yet that indicates she isn't open to an honest discussion. I think a lot of you are making some unfair assumptions about the OP.
OP - I pretty much agree with your 4 bullets from your first post with a little qualification. There really isn't anything magical about 1200 calories. If I eat 1100 calories am I going to die?! For me personally, 1200 would be very unhealthy. The only thing about 1200 calories that has some thread of validity is from a nutritional standpoint, it gives you enough calories that you can get a decent nutritional value from the diet. Technically, you can go below 1200 calories TEMPORARILY as long as you are really paying attention to nutritional needs. If you stick with it for a week or more, your body will adapt and the weight loss will start to slow (not stop).
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
Wow, a sensical and well thought out post in a topic dominated by "know it all" trolls.
I know, right?0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.0 -
I think what it really boils down to is "CAN you" vs "SHOULD you". Low calorie, temporary diets are meant for people that might have 5 lbs to lose before a competition or event. Your bodybuilder trainer would be a perfect candidate to cut those last few pounds a couple of weeks before a competition. You, on the other hand, are 40% BF. You have a lot of weight to lose. A low calorie, temporary diet isn't really intended for your demographic. You would be much better served by a steady, controlled weight loss that is sustainable over time and changes your habits.
Can you do it - yes, just be careful. Should you do it - probably not.
^ This is really good advice.
Sustainability is the key since it's going to take you a lot longer than just a few weeks to get where you want to be.0 -
I knew eating a VLCD ruins your metabolism but does eating a regular calorie diet but netting low ruining your metabolism? This is more or less my question.
Aren't the SAME thing?? Low Calorie is Low Calorie no matter how you got there (because you ate low or because you worried off a lot of calories)
I would think it's like:
person A only puts $10 in the bank
Person B deposits $40 then withdraws $30.
They both have TEN dollars in the bank to use.
Person B, who netted low instead of simply depositing low, still only has $10 to pay his bills.
The $30 was actually used to fuel the body and give it nutrients though. The person who only deposited $10 did not have that to use.
Hense my original question.0 -
You are on the road to malnutrition!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 961 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions