"Eating your Calories" & "Starvation Mode"

alb_photog · May 2011

My husband does not understand the concept of "eating your calories" and thinks "starvation mode" is a myth. Any sound advice or articles I can show him?

TIA!

sue26 · May 2011

click on search at the top of the message board then enter starvation mode as the subject. Theres lots of info there

CraigIW · May 2011

It depends how much he has to lose. Starvation mode only happens when you are already low in fat. The body then has to burn muscle instead. If you have plenty of fat to burn, you will not go into starvation mode. I read a really good blog post on MFP recently that explains it and will see if I can find it again.

Edit: This isn't the same link, but it is by an MFP member. It goes into quite a bit of detail about the historical studies where the term first came from, etc., http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

chevy88grl · May 2011

You're probably gonna get a TON of conflicting information when it comes to these topics (and a lot of opinions too). If i were you, I'd google it. But, keep in mind that you can find anything on the internet. There are tons of articles saying it's all a myth and tons saying it is the real deal.

Losing2Live69 · May 2011

Search on here for "starvation mode" and "exercise calories". There have been some good posts on this subject. It is often a very controversial topic. There have been some good posts on this.

jcl1981 · May 2011

Well i dont think it is a myth as i have been following a strict diet of 1200 calories for over a year, sure it helped me lose weight but i was getting lots of loose skin and hated it, then all of the sudden after losing 93 lbs my weight came to a dead halt. I was stuck at 207 and day after day, week after week despite my best efforts i could not lose! i found myself almost in tears on the third week and decided i needed to do more research and find the problem. I read here that starvation mode could have set in and the year of low calories had lowered my metabolism so i wouldnt lose unless i went under that amount resulting in weight loss but eventually a slower metabolism. I found that many people advised me of the same thing which was to eat more calories, change my exercise plan, and eat back my exercise calories. I mean it should be obvious that you should be nourishing your body not starving it! I tried the only option i had left which was to eat more. I raised my calorie intake to around 1550-1600 a day and starting eating back at least half of my exercise calories or more which were about 500 a day. this enabled me not only to eat more but i found working out was much easier and gave me greater endurance. Within 2 weeks i finally after almost a month lost weight and have lost another 4.2 lbs, which is about 2.1 lbs a week (as healthy as you can get). I was amazed that this worked because we usually dont think of eating more as a way to lose weight. Obviously the extra calories should come in a good form like extra protein, whole grains, healthy fats, veggies, and fruits. Starvation mode is real and i was in it, eating back your calories is the answer, because it works.

lilbattychic · May 2011

It depends how much he has to lose. Starvation mode only happens when you are already low in fat. The body then has to burn muscle instead. If you have plenty of fat to burn, you will not go into starvation mode. I read a really good blog post on MFP recently that explains it and will see if I can find it again.

Totally right!
I have had lots more weight to lose, I took some major cuts to my calorie intake and im losing weight just fine!

iamhealingmyself · May 2011

aren't those part of the stickies for new members? or aren't the links in one of the NEW MEMBERS READ FIRST sticky posts? :huh:

CrisUndies · May 2011

Here are the links I got from the General Weight Loss and Help Center! Hope they help

ladyhawk00 · May 2011

I'm biased, but might start here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works

I also referenced a lot of other relevant threads about those topics at the end, so that would give you some more reading to do. :bigsmile:

poustotah · May 2011

Here is an interesting article I found on starvation mode:

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

From the medical research I've done, if you drop your needed calories below a certain level, your body tries to get it's energy from your organs. I need my heart, my brain, and my lungs, so I avoid this methodolgy. My stats are 5'7" 150 lbs, which is my goal weight. To maintain this, I eat around 3000 calories a day. If I drop below that, I start to lose again. I'm pregnant now so things are a little different, but that's my general 'life.'

LemonCitron · May 2011

Bump

ladyhawk00 · May 2011

Here is an interesting article I found on starvation mode:

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

From the medical research I've done, if you drop your needed calories below a certain level, your body tries to get it's energy from your organs. I need my heart, my brain, and my lungs, so I avoid this methodolgy. My stats are 5'7" 150 lbs, which is my goal weight. To maintain this, I eat around 3000 calories a day. If I drop below that, I start to lose again. I'm pregnant now so things are a little different, but that's my general 'life.'

This isn't an article, it's a blog and the person takes several points from the Minnesota study and blatantly distorts and uses them out of context. It is NOT good info, IMO.

ladyhawk00 · May 2011

I'm biased, but might start here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works

I also referenced a lot of other relevant threads about those topics at the end, so that would give you some more reading to do. :bigsmile:

Also, as for the reasons for eating exercise cals - it has to do with how MFP is designed.

These threads explain it pretty well, I believe.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/186814-some-mfp-basics

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits

aarostoc · May 2011

I tried to kick start a week, which was my kids' spring break week in March, by doing a lot more exercise, and not eating my calories (and not eating my exercise calories). I figure I was in the 700-900 calorie deficit for about 4 days. When I got on the scale that Sunday, I had only lost 1.2 pounds and felt awful...all that hard work, and really nothing to show for it. I had been averaging 2.5 lbs a week, just doing 3 days of walking (for 30-45 minutes), and eating all of my calories, to within 100-200 calories (including the exercise calories).

My wife (a nurse), said I was probably starting the starvation mode, and I needed to kick start it by eating more. The very next week, I still maintained the same # of days walking, but ate all but 40 or so calories each day (including the exercise calories), so I was under 100 calories left over each day. That week, I took off 3.4 lbs.

Personally for me, I have to eat all my calories. On days that I don't eat enough, I feel bloated and flabby. However, if I exercise and eat my calories, I feel slender. I know it sounds reversed, but that's how it is for me. I've been doing this program since mid-January, and it's very consistent in my weight loss.

bcattoes · May 2011

You're probably gonna get a TON of conflicting information when it comes to these topics (and a lot of opinions too). If i were you, I'd google it. But, keep in mind that you can find anything on the internet. There are tons of articles saying it's all a myth and tons saying it is the real deal.

I agree. Google it but stick to reputable sites (hospitals or medical universities are good bets)

Jade_Butterfly · May 2011

Well i dont think it is a myth as i have been following a strict diet of 1200 calories for over a year, sure it helped me lose weight but i was getting lots of loose skin and hated it, then all of the sudden after losing 93 lbs my weight came to a dead halt. I was stuck at 207 and day after day, week after week despite my best efforts i could not lose! i found myself almost in tears on the third week and decided i needed to do more research and find the problem. I read here that starvation mode could have set in and the year of low calories had lowered my metabolism so i wouldnt lose unless i went under that amount resulting in weight loss but eventually a slower metabolism. I found that many people advised me of the same thing which was to eat more calories, change my exercise plan, and eat back my exercise calories. I mean it should be obvious that you should be nourishing your body not starving it! I tried the only option i had left which was to eat more. I raised my calorie intake to around 1550-1600 a day and starting eating back at least half of my exercise calories or more which were about 500 a day. this enabled me not only to eat more but i found working out was much easier and gave me greater endurance. Within 2 weeks i finally after almost a month lost weight and have lost another 4.2 lbs, which is about 2.1 lbs a week (as healthy as you can get). I was amazed that this worked because we usually dont think of eating more as a way to lose weight. Obviously the extra calories should come in a good form like extra protein, whole grains, healthy fats, veggies, and fruits. Starvation mode is real and i was in it, eating back your calories is the answer, because it works.

Thank you so much. I really appreciated reading your post!

alb_photog · May 2011

Thanks for your help. *I* know why I should eat my calories, but explaining it to DH wasn't going well.

Thanks also to the snark... I'm pretty sure your mom taught you better.

laniackerman1 · May 2011

Ok so i am a Biomedical Scientist (still studying) and the majority of what I do is biochemistry in fact i'm going to do my PhD in Biochemical Engineering.. Anyway I have a concern...

I have noticed that most diets seem to twist the biochemistry of *lipid metabolism to their advantage (or don't even bother knowing about it), and I think that they are able to succeed in this because the person who is the 'face' of the diet claims to be a 'nutritionist' (many people don't realised you can have a certificate that says you are a nutritionist, without studying biochemistry to obtain this qualification. As another side note a science degree in nutrition/dietetics does include biochemistry and is reliable).
I have also noticed that people who don't have a background in biochemistry tend to believe what they read on diet sites and even what their friends have read on diet sites or tv shows without checking the source of the research probably out of ignorance.

It's worth while noting that these diet sites, and diet books make money from having 'something new', 'new research'. And many are well meaning, as they don't understand the research but think they do. However it's usually twisted to their advantage.

My advice is: never believe what you read about diets unless you have read and understood the primary source yourself assuming the primary source if from a PEER REVIEWED journal (medical, biomedical, biochemical) or a biochemistry or medical textbook.

Inorder to understand how adipose tissue is metabolised you need to understand the metabolism of triacylglycerols and the hormones unvolved in this process. But note... Glucose (a monomer) the body's first choice (especially the brain which can't use fatty acids straight from the blood), the second choice is fat (including stored adipose tissue) and muscle is a last resort! Your body isn't going to start degrating you muscles for energy until there is no more fat to burn! but again don't believe me, read a reliable biochemistry textbook.

*(lipids are 'family' of hydrophobic organic molecules and include: fatty acids, triacylglycerols/ triglycerides, phospholipids, steroids, eicosanoids, lipid soluble vitamins and waxes). Triacylglycerols are stored as fat.

Sorry about the rant but I find this to be a frustrating thing...

ladyhawk00 · May 2011

Ok so i am a Biomedical Scientist (still studying) and the majority of what I do is biochemistry in fact i'm going to do my PhD in Biochemical Engineering.. Anyway I have a concern...

I have noticed that most diets seem to twist the biochemistry of *lipid metabolism to their advantage (or don't even bother knowing about it), and I think that they are able to succeed in this because the person who is the 'face' of the diet claims to be a 'nutritionist' (many people don't realised you can have a certificate that says you are a nutritionist, without studying biochemistry to obtain this qualification. As another side note a science degree in nutrition/dietetics does include biochemistry and is reliable).
I have also noticed that people who don't have a background in biochemistry tend to believe what they read on diet sites and even what their friends have read on diet sites or tv shows without checking the source of the research probably out of ignorance.

It's worth while noting that these diet sites, and diet books make money from having 'something new', 'new research'. And many are well meaning, as they don't understand the research but think they do. However it's usually twisted to their advantage.

My advice is: never believe what you read about diets unless you have read and understood the primary source yourself assuming the primary source if from a PEER REVIEWED journal (medical, biomedical, biochemical) or a biochemistry or medical textbook.

Inorder to understand how adipose tissue is metabolised you need to understand the metabolism of triacylglycerols and the hormones unvolved in this process. But note... Glucose (a monomer) the body's first choice (especially the brain which can't use fatty acids straight from the blood), the second choice is fat (including stored adipose tissue) and muscle is a last resort! Your body isn't going to start degrating you muscles for energy until there is no more fat to burn! but again don't believe me, read a reliable biochemistry textbook.

*(lipids are 'family' of hydrophobic organic molecules and include: fatty acids, triacylglycerols/ triglycerides, phospholipids, steroids, eicosanoids, lipid soluble vitamins and waxes). Triacylglycerols are stored as fat.

Sorry about the rant but I find this to be a frustrating thing...

Then please explain these scientific studies from peer reviewed journals that specifically refer to loss of lean body mass (msucle) while in a caloric deficit, and the fact that the amount of lean body mass lost is directly related to body fat percentage? And the fact that many of them discuss the point that the size of the deficit, type/amount of exercise, and composition of the diet all impact whether/how much lean body mass is lost? How does this meet with your assertion that no muscle will be lost until ALL fat is gone?

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html#abs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289832/
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/23
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001134a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796877/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2798012/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650077/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667455/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822830/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
(There are many, many more, but I think this is sufficient)

lennykat · May 2011

After reading and reading and reading these forums, blogs other than MFP and even the scientific stuff I'm going to go out on a limb and give an opinion.

After reading about "starvation mode" on this site-- especially in the success forums-- I see one constant to their sucess and that is the exercise. It also seems that the more intense the exercise the more weight loss success they have when it comes to eating their daily calorie totals set by MFP. The blogs (esp fatty fights back) references the severely obese or the very low body fat without much regard for those people in between.

The trick is to find a happy medium and its my personal (and sooo not scientific) opinion that "starvation mode" or some form of it will take effect if you're burning massive calories above and beyond a persons normal BMR and daily activity and yes that "starvation mode" may become exacerbated in individuals who incorporate strength training into their routines despite the fact that lifting doesn't burn many calories.

So essentially, starvation mode isn't going to kick in if you're not exercising (or if you're exercising just a little when you know your body can take more) and you're just watching calories.

Personally- I started in January at 195lbs ( a size lg shirt, 14 jeans) working out at the gym about 1 1/2 hours a day (40 min. cardio in 5 minute bursts with weight training in between some may call this a form of HIIT) and consuming roughly 1000 cals a day after exercise. On May 1st I weighed..... 195lbs, wore a size lg shirt and 14 jeans.... for 2 weeks I've been eating more according to MFPs recommendations and have lost 5lbs, wearing a medium shirt and working on a size 12 jeans, though they are still a little snug.

So this is just a little opinon from a person who does massive amounts of investigative research on EVERYTHING, and is paid to read between ALL of the lines not just some-- a journalist.

laniackerman1 · May 2011

Ok so i am a Biomedical Scientist (still studying) and the majority of what I do is biochemistry in fact i'm going to do my PhD in Biochemical Engineering.. Anyway I have a concern...

I have noticed that most diets seem to twist the biochemistry of *lipid metabolism to their advantage (or don't even bother knowing about it), and I think that they are able to succeed in this because the person who is the 'face' of the diet claims to be a 'nutritionist' (many people don't realised you can have a certificate that says you are a nutritionist, without studying biochemistry to obtain this qualification. As another side note a science degree in nutrition/dietetics does include biochemistry and is reliable).
I have also noticed that people who don't have a background in biochemistry tend to believe what they read on diet sites and even what their friends have read on diet sites or tv shows without checking the source of the research probably out of ignorance.

It's worth while noting that these diet sites, and diet books make money from having 'something new', 'new research'. And many are well meaning, as they don't understand the research but think they do. However it's usually twisted to their advantage.

My advice is: never believe what you read about diets unless you have read and understood the primary source yourself assuming the primary source if from a PEER REVIEWED journal (medical, biomedical, biochemical) or a biochemistry or medical textbook.

Inorder to understand how adipose tissue is metabolised you need to understand the metabolism of triacylglycerols and the hormones unvolved in this process. But note... Glucose (a monomer) the body's first choice (especially the brain which can't use fatty acids straight from the blood), the second choice is fat (including stored adipose tissue) and muscle is a last resort! Your body isn't going to start degrating you muscles for energy until there is no more fat to burn! but again don't believe me, read a reliable biochemistry textbook.

*(lipids are 'family' of hydrophobic organic molecules and include: fatty acids, triacylglycerols/ triglycerides, phospholipids, steroids, eicosanoids, lipid soluble vitamins and waxes). Triacylglycerols are stored as fat.

Sorry about the rant but I find this to be a frustrating thing...

Then please explain these scientific studies from peer reviewed journals that specifically refer to loss of lean body mass (msucle) while in a caloric deficit, and the fact that the amount of lean body mass lost is directly related to body fat percentage? And the fact that many of them discuss the point that the size of the deficit, type/amount of exercise, and composition of the diet all impact whether/how much lean body mass is lost? How does this meet with your assertion that no muscle will be lost until ALL fat is gone?

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html#abs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289832/
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/23
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001134a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796877/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2798012/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650077/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667455/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822830/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
(There are many, many more, but I think this is sufficient)

This is due to the fact that Skeletal muscle cell contains a considerable amount of triglycerides which can be used as energy folowing lipolysis (break down of fats)... For the record you have a point and i explained it too simply however the body prefers fat as energy rather than muscle. Which is why protein metabolism adapts during sever calorie restriction to help prevent protein loss (in healthy individuals). I am not saying that sever calorie restriction is good, but I have been getting frustrated with the myths. In most cases ~1200cal per day is a good amount for weightloss female of a certain height , and will generally not result in muscle loss especially if accompanied by weight training. (I read a while back that as little as 1000cal's would be sufficient without loosing muscle however I don't know if thats true as 1000 seems way too low) I was simply ranting over frustration about that fact weight loss is not some 'diet secret' as most of the adverts claim... it's biochemistry. I do understand however that journal articles can be easly misunderstood or taken as absolutes if the science behind it is not understood. Therefore it is maybe a better idea to read a textbook to understand triglyceride metabolism.

Maughan RJ, Gleeson M and Greenhaff PL (1997) Biochemistry of exercise and training. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

laniackerman1 · May 2011

After reading and reading and reading these forums, blogs other than MFP and even the scientific stuff I'm going to go out on a limb and give an opinion.

After reading about "starvation mode" on this site-- especially in the success forums-- I see one constant to their sucess and that is the exercise. It also seems that the more intense the exercise the more weight loss success they have when it comes to eating their daily calorie totals set by MFP. The blogs (esp fatty fights back) references the severely obese or the very low body fat without much regard for those people in between.

The trick is to find a happy medium and its my personal (and sooo not scientific) opinion that "starvation mode" or some form of it will take effect if you're burning massive calories above and beyond a persons normal BMR and daily activity and yes that "starvation mode" may become exacerbated in individuals who incorporate strength training into their routines despite the fact that lifting doesn't burn many calories.

So essentially, starvation mode isn't going to kick in if you're not exercising (or if you're exercising just a little when you know your body can take more) and you're just watching calories.

Personally- I started in January at 195lbs ( a size lg shirt, 14 jeans) working out at the gym about 1 1/2 hours a day (40 min. cardio in 5 minute bursts with weight training in between some may call this a form of HIIT) and consuming roughly 1000 cals a day after exercise. On May 1st I weighed..... 195lbs, wore a size lg shirt and 14 jeans.... for 2 weeks I've been eating more according to MFPs recommendations and have lost 5lbs, wearing a medium shirt and working on a size 12 jeans, though they are still a little snug.

So this is just a little opinon from a person who does massive amounts of investigative research on EVERYTHING, and is paid to read between ALL of the lines not just some-- a journalist.

I wish there was a like button! I agree with your observations :-)

ladyhawk00 · May 2011

Ok so i am a Biomedical Scientist (still studying) and the majority of what I do is biochemistry in fact i'm going to do my PhD in Biochemical Engineering.. Anyway I have a concern...

I have noticed that most diets seem to twist the biochemistry of *lipid metabolism to their advantage (or don't even bother knowing about it), and I think that they are able to succeed in this because the person who is the 'face' of the diet claims to be a 'nutritionist' (many people don't realised you can have a certificate that says you are a nutritionist, without studying biochemistry to obtain this qualification. As another side note a science degree in nutrition/dietetics does include biochemistry and is reliable).
I have also noticed that people who don't have a background in biochemistry tend to believe what they read on diet sites and even what their friends have read on diet sites or tv shows without checking the source of the research probably out of ignorance.

It's worth while noting that these diet sites, and diet books make money from having 'something new', 'new research'. And many are well meaning, as they don't understand the research but think they do. However it's usually twisted to their advantage.

My advice is: never believe what you read about diets unless you have read and understood the primary source yourself assuming the primary source if from a PEER REVIEWED journal (medical, biomedical, biochemical) or a biochemistry or medical textbook.

Inorder to understand how adipose tissue is metabolised you need to understand the metabolism of triacylglycerols and the hormones unvolved in this process. But note... Glucose (a monomer) the body's first choice (especially the brain which can't use fatty acids straight from the blood), the second choice is fat (including stored adipose tissue) and muscle is a last resort! Your body isn't going to start degrating you muscles for energy until there is no more fat to burn! but again don't believe me, read a reliable biochemistry textbook.

*(lipids are 'family' of hydrophobic organic molecules and include: fatty acids, triacylglycerols/ triglycerides, phospholipids, steroids, eicosanoids, lipid soluble vitamins and waxes). Triacylglycerols are stored as fat.

Sorry about the rant but I find this to be a frustrating thing...

Then please explain these scientific studies from peer reviewed journals that specifically refer to loss of lean body mass (msucle) while in a caloric deficit, and the fact that the amount of lean body mass lost is directly related to body fat percentage? And the fact that many of them discuss the point that the size of the deficit, type/amount of exercise, and composition of the diet all impact whether/how much lean body mass is lost? How does this meet with your assertion that no muscle will be lost until ALL fat is gone?

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html#abs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289832/
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/23
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001134a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796877/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2798012/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650077/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667455/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822830/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
(There are many, many more, but I think this is sufficient)

This is due to the fact that Skeletal muscle cell contains a considerable amount of triglycerides which can be used as energy folowing lipolysis (break down of fats)... For the record you have a point and i explained it too simply however the body prefers fat as energy rather than muscle. Which is why protein metabolism adapts during sever calorie restriction to help prevent protein loss (in healthy individuals). I am not saying that sever calorie restriction is good, but I have been getting frustrated with the myths. In most cases ~1200cal per day is a good amount for weightloss female of a certain height , and will generally not result in muscle loss especially if accompanied by weight training. (I read a while back that as little as 1000cal's would be sufficient without loosing muscle however I don't know if thats true as 1000 seems way too low) I was simply ranting over frustration about that fact weight loss is not some 'diet secret' as most of the adverts claim... it's biochemistry. I do understand however that journal articles can be easly misunderstood or taken as absolutes if the science behind it is not understood. Therefore it is maybe a better idea to read a textbook to understand triglyceride metabolism.

Maughan RJ, Gleeson M and Greenhaff PL (1997) Biochemistry of exercise and training. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oh I agree, the factors involved in this are often misconstrued, misapplied and overgeneralized and it can be horribly frustrating. I don't know if you read the thread I posted, but that's precisely what I talked about in it (re: fat vs muscle breakdown and the various factors involved).

laniackerman1 · May 2011

Ok so i am a Biomedical Scientist (still studying) and the majority of what I do is biochemistry in fact i'm going to do my PhD in Biochemical Engineering.. Anyway I have a concern...

I have noticed that most diets seem to twist the biochemistry of *lipid metabolism to their advantage (or don't even bother knowing about it), and I think that they are able to succeed in this because the person who is the 'face' of the diet claims to be a 'nutritionist' (many people don't realised you can have a certificate that says you are a nutritionist, without studying biochemistry to obtain this qualification. As another side note a science degree in nutrition/dietetics does include biochemistry and is reliable).
I have also noticed that people who don't have a background in biochemistry tend to believe what they read on diet sites and even what their friends have read on diet sites or tv shows without checking the source of the research probably out of ignorance.

It's worth while noting that these diet sites, and diet books make money from having 'something new', 'new research'. And many are well meaning, as they don't understand the research but think they do. However it's usually twisted to their advantage.

My advice is: never believe what you read about diets unless you have read and understood the primary source yourself assuming the primary source if from a PEER REVIEWED journal (medical, biomedical, biochemical) or a biochemistry or medical textbook.

Inorder to understand how adipose tissue is metabolised you need to understand the metabolism of triacylglycerols and the hormones unvolved in this process. But note... Glucose (a monomer) the body's first choice (especially the brain which can't use fatty acids straight from the blood), the second choice is fat (including stored adipose tissue) and muscle is a last resort! Your body isn't going to start degrating you muscles for energy until there is no more fat to burn! but again don't believe me, read a reliable biochemistry textbook.

*(lipids are 'family' of hydrophobic organic molecules and include: fatty acids, triacylglycerols/ triglycerides, phospholipids, steroids, eicosanoids, lipid soluble vitamins and waxes). Triacylglycerols are stored as fat.

Sorry about the rant but I find this to be a frustrating thing...

Then please explain these scientific studies from peer reviewed journals that specifically refer to loss of lean body mass (msucle) while in a caloric deficit, and the fact that the amount of lean body mass lost is directly related to body fat percentage? And the fact that many of them discuss the point that the size of the deficit, type/amount of exercise, and composition of the diet all impact whether/how much lean body mass is lost? How does this meet with your assertion that no muscle will be lost until ALL fat is gone?

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html#abs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2289832/
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/23
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001134a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796877/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2798012/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650077/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667455/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822830/?report=abstract&tool=pmcentrez
(There are many, many more, but I think this is sufficient)

This is due to the fact that Skeletal muscle cell contains a considerable amount of triglycerides which can be used as energy folowing lipolysis (break down of fats)... For the record you have a point and i explained it too simply however the body prefers fat as energy rather than muscle. Which is why protein metabolism adapts during sever calorie restriction to help prevent protein loss (in healthy individuals). I am not saying that sever calorie restriction is good, but I have been getting frustrated with the myths. In most cases ~1200cal per day is a good amount for weightloss female of a certain height , and will generally not result in muscle loss especially if accompanied by weight training. (I read a while back that as little as 1000cal's would be sufficient without loosing muscle however I don't know if thats true as 1000 seems way too low) I was simply ranting over frustration about that fact weight loss is not some 'diet secret' as most of the adverts claim... it's biochemistry. I do understand however that journal articles can be easly misunderstood or taken as absolutes if the science behind it is not understood. Therefore it is maybe a better idea to read a textbook to understand triglyceride metabolism.

Maughan RJ, Gleeson M and Greenhaff PL (1997) Biochemistry of exercise and training. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oh I agree, the factors involved in this are often misconstrued, misapplied and overgeneralized and it can be horribly frustrating. I don't know if you read the thread I posted, but that's precisely what I talked about in it (re: fat vs muscle breakdown and the various factors involved).

Na I haven't but will take a look. But so true.

"Eating your Calories" & "Starvation Mode"

Replies

Categories