Strange question about caloric deficits

Options
2

Replies

  • Nov3mberMistt
    Nov3mberMistt Posts: 25 Member
    Options

    Okay, you're theory is to NET -3500 calories, correct? That's not getting proper nutrition. Having a negative calorie amount isn't getting proper nutrition. Even if you hit your micro and macro targets at a 1200 calorie range, you're NEGATING it all by over exercising. Protein, Carbs, Fat, and Fiber have a caloric value. Your body will not be getting the nutrients it needs. So, yes you would be sacrificing overall health to achieve it. Though, let's be fair...eating at 1200 calories a person would probably pass out long before they managed to burn 4700 calories. Or at least end up in the hospital. I would at least, because about halfway through that I'd be raiding any place that had food for peanut butter and crackers and gnashing at people who tried to touch me from being so hangry.

    Not entirely sure I follow. Protein, Carbs (I include fibre with carbs), and fat have caloric value. But your vitamins and minerals do not. You don't get energy from Vitamins, or from iron, manganese, zinc, potassium, calcium, etc. So if you're eating and meeting your vitamin and mineral needs, but not the energy needs, it's a completely different ballgame. You would still have the vitamins and minerals needed for maintaining bone and other tissue. You wouldn't expend those vitamins or minerals through exercising, and your body can only absorb a certain amount of each of these anyway, so even if you eat back the calories, you would only be getting the energy from them, and none of the other nutrients. The only nutrient you would be depleting is protein.

    You could be right about the hospital thing though. I think it would depend on the size and weight of the person, since larger people burn more calories easier, and generally have more fat to burn.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,583 Member
    Options
    I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.

    IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?

    Yes, but there is a maximum amount of fat the body can oxidize (use) per day, as determined mostly by how much fat you already have. Chances are only about half of that pound would come from fat.

    The rest would come from:
    Muscle
    Bone
    Organ mass

    Brittle bones, weakness, no muscle tone, and actual loss of heart muscle, liver volume, skin, etc. \

    Sound pleasant? No?

    Then stick to reasonable, 1-2 lbs/week.

    I think you missed the part that says IN THEORY as in, i'm not actually doing this, not thinking of doing it, it's completely theoretical, and in my head. Not real. Also, I think it's fairly obvious you didn't read any of the other replies, because the theory has been refined through the topic. :/

    the problem with that...

    is that someone could very well come here, looking for help with losing weight... read the first part of this thread and just do it. REGARDLESS whether it's a good idea or not.

    So while it's theoretical, you're putting out information that someone might put into use. That's why so many folks are out here trying to squash threads like this with science and good information, hoping that the general MFP user that's looking for a quick fix will just keep moving on.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options

    Okay, you're theory is to NET -3500 calories, correct? That's not getting proper nutrition. Having a negative calorie amount isn't getting proper nutrition. Even if you hit your micro and macro targets at a 1200 calorie range, you're NEGATING it all by over exercising. Protein, Carbs, Fat, and Fiber have a caloric value. Your body will not be getting the nutrients it needs. So, yes you would be sacrificing overall health to achieve it. Though, let's be fair...eating at 1200 calories a person would probably pass out long before they managed to burn 4700 calories. Or at least end up in the hospital. I would at least, because about halfway through that I'd be raiding any place that had food for peanut butter and crackers and gnashing at people who tried to touch me from being so hangry.

    Not entirely sure I follow. Protein, Carbs (I include fibre with carbs), and fat have caloric value. But your vitamins and minerals do not. You don't get energy from Vitamins, or from iron, manganese, zinc, potassium, calcium, etc. So if you're eating and meeting your vitamin and mineral needs, but not the energy needs, it's a completely different ballgame. You would still have the vitamins and minerals needed for maintaining bone and other tissue. You wouldn't expend those vitamins or minerals through exercising, and your body can only absorb a certain amount of each of these anyway, so even if you eat back the calories, you would only be getting the energy from them, and none of the other nutrients. The only nutrient you would be depleting is protein.

    You could be right about the hospital thing though. I think it would depend on the size and weight of the person, since larger people burn more calories easier, and generally have more fat to burn.

    Micronutrients don't get used in a vacuum. They're part of metabolism. Burning energy uses a lot of those micronutrients, and vitamin and mineral needs to up with increased activity.

    You are flat-out wrong when you say "the only nutrient you would be depleting is protein." That doesn't even make sense.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. If you did manage to actually run a 3500 calorie deficit in a day, your body will break down any tissue it can find to harvest calories. You would end up in the hospital before very long.

    What's your question, exactly? It seems unclear.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Options
    I'm not sure why you are getting annoyed with people who are trying to help you chase through the details of your idea. I mean, if you didn't want more data on the matter, why ask? And if you aren't going to completely think something through, why even bother? Even as just a thought exercise, it's worthless if you ignore the actual very real aspects of human biology that would cause it to fail.
  • gina_nz_
    gina_nz_ Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I don't believe the body necessarily loses one pound for every so many calories (3500 or whatever a particular article sites) burned. Weight loss isn't linear.
  • Nov3mberMistt
    Nov3mberMistt Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    I saw the part that said in theory. I also read the whole thread. I provided information that no one else had: that there is a maximim amount of fat that can be utilized by the body in a given day, and I was specific about where the extra mass loss would come from.

    My post still stands as posted. If you did this, a large portion of the mass loss would be muscle, bone, and organ mass instead of fat mass.

    I apologize if you don't like it, but those are the facts. I don't really care if you're thinking of doing this or not. In theory, those are the effects you would experience if you did.

    It's not that I don't like it, it's just that i'm not entirely sure that's true. I've been looking and I can't find anything that says your body can only oxidize so much fat per day. Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time. They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons. I'm more or less probing into the science behind it.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    I don't believe the body necessarily loses one pound for every so many calories (3500 or whatever a particular article sites) burned. Weight loss isn't linear.

    That's true too, more or less.

    The body will get a fairly exact number of calories from breaking down x grams of muscle, and a different number from breaking down x grams of fat, bone, etc. The 3500 is a (very rough) approximation borne mostly from experience. It's generally pretty close to true, give or take.

    The fact that weight loss isn't linear is partly to do with that, partly due to the inherent difficulty in estimating calorie burn, and partly to do with the huge variability of water storage by the body's tissues depending on what they're currently up to.
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time.

    Why do you believe that to be true?
    They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons.

    In which, essentially, the risks from the crash diet outweigh the huge risk of their current condition. It doesn't mean that there are no grave risks.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    It's not that I don't like it, it's just that i'm not entirely sure that's true. I've been looking and I can't find anything that says your body can only oxidize so much fat per day. Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time. They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons. I'm more or less probing into the science behind it.

    You're not sure it's true? What do you mean? Based on what?

    On what basis do you claim you'd have to be doing it for a ridiculous amount of time?

    Are you under the impression that, when losing weight, all the weight you lose is fat? You couldn't be further from the truth.

    You're not probing into the science behind it. Frankly, you appear to be attempting to justify having a go at it. You're flat-out rejecting the science behind it and have clearly done zero independent research into the subject.
  • Nov3mberMistt
    Nov3mberMistt Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    meh. the lack of imagination and consideration bores me. I think it would be easier to appreciate the opinions and input of others if they weren't so condescending. le sigh.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    meh. the lack of imagination and consideration bores me. I think it would be easier to appreciate the opinions and input of others if they weren't so condescending. le sigh.

    I've read the pages and haven't found anyone condescending. Discussing, disagreeing, debating...but not condescending.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    meh. the lack of imagination and consideration bores me. I think it would be easier to appreciate the opinions and input of others if they weren't so condescending. le sigh.

    What's your actual question? What do you actually want to know?

    And, most importantly, on what basis are you flat-out rejecting the things that we are telling you?
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    meh. the lack of imagination and consideration bores me. I think it would be easier to appreciate the opinions and input of others if they weren't so condescending. le sigh.
    Oh, sweetpea. I had not yet begun to condescend.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    It's not that I don't like it, it's just that i'm not entirely sure that's true. I've been looking and I can't find anything that says your body can only oxidize so much fat per day. Also, for your body to start pulling anything from your organ tissues, you would have to be doing this for a ridiculous amount of time. They have similar diets/regimes for morbidly obese people, called "crash diets" and they generally put them on a crash diet for medical reasons. I'm more or less probing into the science behind it.

    Here's an article which also cites the research study: http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

    With respect to 'a ridiculous amount of time' -- that depends on your current fat levels.

    With respect to the crash dieting, these people are usually medically supervised so that they can raise calories if they start getting quite sick, they are usually fat enough to support a massive caloric deficit, and they are also usually fat enough that the risks of remaining fat outweigh (lol) the risks of a crash diet.
  • GertrudeHorse
    GertrudeHorse Posts: 646 Member
    Options
    curious how one would burn 4700 calories in one day??????

    This doesn't seem to have been answered. Personally I would need to run about two marathons to burn that many calories. In any event it would involve about 8 hours of high-intensity cardio.

    So, yes, what the OP asks is theoretically possible. But it is also theoretically impossible because no human could actually do 8 hours of sustained and intense cardio every day while only eating 1200 calories. Well they might be able to do it for a day or two. Maybe three...? But within a short time your heart will simply stop working and you will die. Good luck with that.
  • GertrudeHorse
    GertrudeHorse Posts: 646 Member
    Options
    It would be an interesting experiment, I think, but not one I'm interesting in running on myself.

    It would be a deadly experiment. Deadly is the word you were looking for, not interesting.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I've more than likely over simplified this, and I'm sure it's probably not ideal, safe, healthy, etc. But humour me.

    IN THEORY, could you lose 1 lb per day by burning 4700 calories, and still eating the 1200 calories? Everything I've read says it's unhealthy to eat below 1200 calories for women, so what if you're still eating the 1200 calories, but burning way more? Not that there's enough time in the day to burn that many calories, (le sigh) but I can dream, can't I?

    I lost 8 pounds over 14 days doing a long distance backpacking trip in which my intake was 2500 calories and my TDEE or total calorie burn for each day was around 5000. At the end of it I had more endurance and energy than I've ever had in my life to date.

    Yeah its possible, but if I tried to sustain that I'm pretty sure my muscle (especially upper body) would start to atrophy as the pounds flew off.

    So in answer to hypothetical its totally possible, I've done it. But no its not really a healthy way to go about it nor is it sustainable. For weight loss you want to build healthy maintainable habits so when you lose the weight it will stay off, not do some crazy scheme where when you hit your goal you stop and have learned nothing of good habits for all your effort.

    I put that 8 pounds right back on by the way.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I don't believe the body necessarily loses one pound for every so many calories (3500 or whatever a particular article sites) burned. Weight loss isn't linear.

    Fat loss is linear with calories expended. This fact is simply masked when you measure yourself with your scale do to things like water retention.

    3500 calories is 1 pound of fat. That is just the amount of energy contained within 1 pound of fat by definition.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    It would be an interesting experiment, I think, but not one I'm interesting in running on myself.

    It would be a deadly experiment. Deadly is the word you were looking for, not interesting.

    Honestly although I know you are coming from a good place and want to keep people away from what would amount to an eating disorder I do think you are exaggerating. I've known people who have gone on 4 month backpacking trips where every single day then netted negative calories (IE there TDEE vastly, VASTLY exceeded their intake like intake 3000 calories TDEE 6000 calories). It didn't kill them.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    curious how one would burn 4700 calories in one day??????

    30 mile backpack with a 40 pound pack over rough terrain and 5000 foot elevation gain and loss would about do it.

Categories