I'm confused. Can you really eat too little?

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • kyta32
    kyta32 Posts: 670 Member
    Options
    kyta32 wrote: »
    kyta32 wrote: »
    pscarolina wrote: »
    I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.

    It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.


    replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?

    I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".

    I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.

    It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.
    kyta32 wrote: »
    I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.

    It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.

    If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.

    The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.

    Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.

    Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?

    The body only turns muscle into energy (glucose) if the body is getting less than 10 g of carb/day. This is called a starvation response. It is most commonly seen in very low carb diets, starvation, and vigorous exercise. If you have more that 10g carb a day intake, and any fat stores, your body will use carbs and fat as energy instead. If you don't, and muscle is converted to glucose for the basic needs of the brain, that protein is taken from all muscles in the body, not just skeletal muscles. If this is because of intense exercise, protein synthesis will increase and the body will rebuild the muscles that were broken down (and sometimes build a little more) so long as there is sufficient amino acid intake over the following 48 hours.

    You would only see a net loss of muscle in the case of nutritional deficiency, or lowered stress on muscles. Loss of muscle from dieting comes from inadequate protein intake (not enough precursors to build muscle and maintain lean mass), and lowered protein synthesis (maintaining activity level with lower weight stimulates muscles and protein synthesis less - use it or lose it).

    The body does oxidize some amino acids, but at extremely minimal levels. Muscle is more likely to be broken down to be reused in protein sythesis (i.e. damaged muscle is broken down, and then turned back into muscle/tissues).

    I'm well aware of the process.

    And the fact that this literally has nothing to do with what I said.

    "It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond."

    You wrote about losing aggressively. As people lose lean mass due to weight loss from lowered stress due to lowered weight on non-aggressive weight loss approaches, I assume you are talking about very high deficits when you are saying "aggressive". As getting adequate protein and carbohydrate in a very low calorie diet can prevent muscle wasting, I can only assume that by "aggressive" you are talking about taking dangerous measures (less than 10 g carb a day, inadequate protein intake), and causually assuming that the deficits can be made up for later. This risks cardiac events and death.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    kyta32 wrote: »
    kyta32 wrote: »
    kyta32 wrote: »
    pscarolina wrote: »
    I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.

    It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.


    replenishing muscle lost isn't as easy as you make it sound! it takes a lot of work to build significant muscle & requires eating above maintenance, which kinda defeats the purpose of losing the weight to begin with...or am I missing some piece of the puzzle?

    I'm aware of the process of muscle building. I never said it was "easy".

    I'm saying the fear mongering often associated with weight loss regarding muscle loss is often overblown and treated as a permanent condition.

    It's plausible that somebody would take a more aggressive cut, sacrifice muscle, and then turn around and do a lean bulk as their next goal. Not everyone is terrified of losing muscle and seeing a temporary drop in strength.
    kyta32 wrote: »
    I love the implication that muscle lost during weight loss can't be, you know, replenished.

    It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond.

    If a calorie (and protein) deficit actually causes someone to break down muscle for calories, the muscle comes from everywhere, not just skeletal muscles. This includes muscles that you need, like your heart. Maintaining lean mass is a wise decision for anyone in a calorie deficit. Some muscles cannot be replenished.

    The body absolutely does not turn to vital muscle tissue, such as the heart, unless a person is dealing with severe malnutrition or undernutrition to the point that fat and replenishable muscle stores are wasted, or damn near . The body doesn't just indiscriminately take muscle from one's heart just because of a protein deficiency.

    Please cite your source that the body does not take from the heart as well as the skeletal muscles. I've seen no references stating the body discriminates when breaking down muscle to create glucose. The damage to the heart in this situation (consumption of less than 10 g carbohydrate/day) is one of the reasons that starvation causes death.

    Wait, are you serious? You do realize that I am not talking about starvation, right? The vital tissues, including cardiac, will be catabolized in actual starvation, but that none of my posts are even remotely referencing starvation?

    The body only turns muscle into energy (glucose) if the body is getting less than 10 g of carb/day. This is called a starvation response. It is most commonly seen in very low carb diets, starvation, and vigorous exercise. If you have more that 10g carb a day intake, and any fat stores, your body will use carbs and fat as energy instead. If you don't, and muscle is converted to glucose for the basic needs of the brain, that protein is taken from all muscles in the body, not just skeletal muscles. If this is because of intense exercise, protein synthesis will increase and the body will rebuild the muscles that were broken down (and sometimes build a little more) so long as there is sufficient amino acid intake over the following 48 hours.

    You would only see a net loss of muscle in the case of nutritional deficiency, or lowered stress on muscles. Loss of muscle from dieting comes from inadequate protein intake (not enough precursors to build muscle and maintain lean mass), and lowered protein synthesis (maintaining activity level with lower weight stimulates muscles and protein synthesis less - use it or lose it).

    The body does oxidize some amino acids, but at extremely minimal levels. Muscle is more likely to be broken down to be reused in protein sythesis (i.e. damaged muscle is broken down, and then turned back into muscle/tissues).

    I'm well aware of the process.

    And the fact that this literally has nothing to do with what I said.

    "It's quite possible that somebody could take the approach of losing more aggressively, and once at whatever weight/BMI/bodyfat percentage goal they have, moving into a muscle building phase to reclaim what was lost, and potentially beyond."

    You wrote about losing aggressively. As people lose lean mass due to weight loss from lowered stress due to lowered weight on non-aggressive weight loss approaches, I assume you are talking about very high deficits when you are saying "aggressive". As getting adequate protein and carbohydrate in a very low calorie diet can prevent muscle wasting, I can only assume that by "aggressive" you are talking about taking dangerous measures (less than 10 g carb a day, inadequate protein intake), and causually assuming that the deficits can be made up for later. This risks cardiac events and death.

    And, at what point do you imagine the risk for "cardiac events and death" occur? As I never advocated aggressively cutting to the point in starvation when the body would begin to consume vital organs and muscle tissue in order to survive.