General question regarding EM2WL
madslacker
Posts: 39
I joined this group and I thought that the overall idea made sense. The body has a mechanism to combat potential starvation by generally "slowing down" to make more efficient use of energy (stored fat, calories, etc.). This would eventually hinder continued weight loss (or at least make it more difficult).
My thinking was that I could lose, in general, the same amount of weight with less of a deficit by eating more (my non-starving metabolism at modestly reduced calories being pretty much equal to a slowed/starved metabolism at a more aggressive calorie reduction).
So I was watching an interview with Lisa Lampanelli of all people (the female comedian on all of the roasts) and she was describing her rather shocking weight loss.
She got a surgery done (gastric band) greatly reducing the amount she was capable of eating in a sitting (same idea as the gastric bypass). In about 6 months she dropped 80lbs (and continues to lose steadily at about a pound a week).
Do the weight loss stories of those who've undergone these procedures contradict the general principle behind EM2WL?
My thinking was that I could lose, in general, the same amount of weight with less of a deficit by eating more (my non-starving metabolism at modestly reduced calories being pretty much equal to a slowed/starved metabolism at a more aggressive calorie reduction).
So I was watching an interview with Lisa Lampanelli of all people (the female comedian on all of the roasts) and she was describing her rather shocking weight loss.
She got a surgery done (gastric band) greatly reducing the amount she was capable of eating in a sitting (same idea as the gastric bypass). In about 6 months she dropped 80lbs (and continues to lose steadily at about a pound a week).
Do the weight loss stories of those who've undergone these procedures contradict the general principle behind EM2WL?
0
Replies
-
What did they lose? Only fat?
And the body can only suppress max 20-25%, if eating low enough (800 cal), you will keep losing weight.
For morbidly obese it's expected, but when full burning daily burn is 4000, eventually lowering to 3200, the fact they are eating 2000 still causes more than 2 lbs weekly anyway.
They also usually only do that very short period if smart, and move back up before body actually slows way down.
The problem comes in taking a slightly worse than reasonable deficit, body slowing down, and burning up muscle mass so it slows down even more, and not adjusting the calories to compensate.
Of course by then, the eating level could be so low - would you adhere to the diet?
And exercise done then has very much less benefit, as body just doesn't have a reason to improve the body that will require even more energy to maintain.
And will she still be successful 2-3 years down the road? Will the lack of muscle mass make it even harder to maintain goal weight, or easier to pack on pounds?
The general principle is you CAN eat more than bare minimum, but less than you burn, to lose fat and transform body, and learn to deal with food correctly.
Of course you can eat bare minimum, and if you really adhere to it, you will lose fat and more and not transform the body nearly as much, and you'll have to learn to eat a whole lot less than possible to maintain weight.0 -
Of course you can eat bare minimum, and if you really adhere to it, you will lose fat and more and not transform the body nearly as much, and you'll have to learn to eat a whole lot less than possible to maintain weight.
That is all completely dependent on the weight that comes off, right?
If you eat the bare minimum, but take the necessary precautions to avoid loss of lean muscle mass (adequate protein,rest,resistance training, etc.) you aren't really any worse off than if you had gone the way of EM2WL - you just got there faster because of the larger deficit.
I suppose that also depends on just how fat you are. A man with 10% bodyfat will probably have different results than a man at 30% bodyfat eating the bare minimum (the point of bodyfat to begin with being a surplus for the lean times).0 -
Actually, bare minimum is not my term for safe lower limit, I mean bare minimum for getting just daily nutrients in, not concerned with getting enough calories in.
For average woman that would be about 1200 (which it's figured avg woman has TDEE of 2000, so 40% deficit), for man it's about 1500 on 2500, so same 40%. That isn't a comment on safe diet level, but bare safe level with average eating to get micro-nutrients in.
You eat low enough, and your body will lose muscle somewhere - least used is first gone.
Obvious if you do strength training you will keep some. But even there, you'll soon lose the energy to actually do a good workout, no matter that it may "feel" hard to do. Of course it feels hard to do - you aren't eating enough and are tired compared to eating enough.
But if because of being tired you can no longer do the same weight on the bar - then the body doesn't need that much muscle, and it will be gone. Happens to people in extended detraining states all the time, and that's eating at maintenance, not even a diet. Body just doesn't keep what it doesn't need and use that requires more energy.
So no - you will not transform the body nearly as much as eating at a reasonable deficit.
Oh yeah - there is no such thing as lean muscle mass. Your muscle isn't a cut of beef where you can ask for a lean cut or fat cut.
Perhaps you are confused with the term Lean Body Mass - which is everything but fat, which includes muscle, and water too.
Your muscle is whatever your body happens to make it. Endurance cardio is the only thing to encourage a tad more fat in the muscle for easy access.
And actually, the amount of bodyfat doesn't matter that much either, the amount of deficit does.
The body of the 10% person is trying to get back to that level, the body of the 30% person is too, if they are both eating at bare minimum.
Too big a deficit for either will have negative effects. And that's not the same sized deficit, but really a % of their daily needs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A
0
