[science] if... someone would eat in a deficit and store calories as fat

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

Replies

T1DCarnivoreRunner

I wonder if patients who have glycogen storage disease constantly gain weight. This is the disease that prevents glycogen from being released... the storage just builds and builds and builds. Their livers can become massive.

Since we know water weight increases with glycogen storage, would such patients not end up permanently storing significant amounts of water? In such a case, even when eating at a calorie deficit, they would likely gain weight just because of how their bodies manage energy.

kimny72

spas2k wrote: »

3bambi3 wrote: »

spas2k wrote: »

There is so much more to it than simply calories in and out. A lot of people like to preach and swear by that here, but that's because it worked for them and they might not have any homore imbalances like Leptin Resistence, Insulin Resistance, or a myriad of other issues that could be causing weight gain or keeping you from losing weight.

If someone says it is nothing more than calories in vs calories out then mark them down as someone to ignore.

Anyone who has ever lost weight has done so by consuming fewer calories than their body burns.

It's not as simple as that. For hormone healthy people it's that simple but ask anyone who has thyroid issues or insulin/leptin resistance about how they are never able to lose weight regardless of even silly 1000 calorie diets coupled with intense HIT. Some people, to no fault of their own, are not able to process glucose and thyroid hormones properly, may have a free t3/reverse t3 issue and never know it.

At that point it is absolutely not about Calories.

Hormone issues can affect how many calories your body uses, it doesn't change the fact that you won't store fat if you are in a calorie deficit. It just means your calorie needs are lower than someone with similar stats. And in controlled and monitored situations, the difference is much less than many people assume.

People who think they are eating 1000 calories and not losing weight are typically not logging accurately and are eating more calories than they think.

If you have scientific sources that show otherwise, please feel free to provide them :drinker:

pinuplove

yirara wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

You're arguing with someone with a scientific background that energy balance either doesn't exist or can be over-ridden?

What the hell kind of science is their background in???

Yeah, if it means to look at oneself then energy balance doesn't exist anymore *sigh*

But it's an interesting question I think. If such a person existed then I doubt it would survive for long, or possibly already die before birth.

It sounds like your friend heard hoof-beats and immediately thought not horses or even zebras, but unicorns.

jjpptt2

spas2k wrote: »

3bambi3 wrote: »

spas2k wrote: »

There is so much more to it than simply calories in and out. A lot of people like to preach and swear by that here, but that's because it worked for them and they might not have any homore imbalances like Leptin Resistence, Insulin Resistance, or a myriad of other issues that could be causing weight gain or keeping you from losing weight.

If someone says it is nothing more than calories in vs calories out then mark them down as someone to ignore.

Anyone who has ever lost weight has done so by consuming fewer calories than their body burns.

It's not as simple as that. For hormone healthy people it's that simple but ask anyone who has thyroid issues or insulin/leptin resistance about how they are never able to lose weight regardless of even silly 1000 calorie diets coupled with intense HIT. Some people, to no fault of their own, are not able to process glucose and thyroid hormones properly, may have a free t3/reverse t3 issue and never know it.

At that point it is absolutely not about Calories.

Is it not about calories for weight loss? Or is it not about calories for health?

spas2k

I don't disagree with you in general, but in regards to what the original poster shared that yes it is entirely possible and simply eating LESS is not how she should go about losing weight, but rather address the issues that may be underlying.

I'm looking at this from someone who is a thyroid cancer survivor, so the information I'm referring to is generally related to hypothyroidism. If you want to do some (a lot) of reading then start here:

https://www.restartmed.com/hypothyroidism/

Of course you don't have to read it all to know that the body is a complicated process and simply advocating "LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! " isn't the best approach for everyone.

kimny72

yirara wrote: »

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

I'd guess this person would have to have a medical condition that caused a dramatically low BMR. Or perhaps there is some kind of biologic malfunction where the body is prioritizing fat storage as opposed to basic bodily necessities. I have no idea if such a condition exists or what kind of medical specialist would be aware of it. I wouldn't think this sort of person would be capable of measurable exercise or would seem healthy regardless. I do kind of feel like we're supposing about what would happen if a unicorn did an ACV cleanse and then was abducted by aliens though :huh:

jjpptt2

kimny72 wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

I'd guess this person would have to have a medical condition that caused a dramatically low BMR. Or perhaps there is some kind of biologic malfunction where the body is prioritizing fat storage as opposed to basic bodily necessities. I have no idea if such a condition exists or what kind of medical specialist would be aware of it. I wouldn't think this sort of person would be capable of measurable exercise or would seem healthy regardless. I do kind of feel like we're supposing about what would happen if a unicorn did an ACV cleanse and then was abducted by aliens though :huh:

That was my thought as well. We see people in the forums ask about how they can turn fat into muscle... the body would have to essentially do the opposite - break down muscle for energy while storing fat. The deficit would have to be pretty small, and there would have to be some sort of genetic/biological abnormality. Even assuming magical unicorn scenarios with magical unicorn circumstances, I can't see this leading to anything but death at a pretty young age.

kimny72

spas2k wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in general, but in regards to what the original poster shared that yes it is entirely possible and simply eating LESS is not how she should go about losing weight, but rather address the issues that may be underlying.

I'm looking at this from someone who is a thyroid cancer survivor, so the information I'm referring to is generally related to hypothyroidism. If you want to do some (a lot) of reading then start here:

https://www.restartmed.com/hypothyroidism/

Of course you don't have to read it all to know that the body is a complicated process and simply advocating "LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! " isn't the best approach for everyone.

The link goes to the blog of a former Internist who now sells coaching, supplements, and books about hormone imbalances, which he does not seem to have any certs in.

Obviously, if someone has a medical condition causing a low BMR, they should get that medical condition treated. No one is saying otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that in order to lose weight, one needs to eat less calories than your body burns. It does mean that it might be incredibly difficult or even impossible for you to lose the weight until the medical condition is treated because you can't eat that little. Having said that, there are many regular posters here who have diagnosed hormone conditions and eat about the same amount of calories to lose weight as a healthy person of there size.

ninerbuff

crlynj01 wrote: »

Having too much of a calorie deficit will hurt you. To figure out your BMR
Males
BMR = 66 + (13.75 x weight in kg) + (5 x height in cm) – (6.8 x age in yrs)

Females
BMR = 655 + (9.6 x weight in kg) + (1.8 x height in cm) – (4.7 x age in Yrs)

To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.1
If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.275
If you are moderately active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.35
If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.525

Your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is the number of calories you’d burn if you stayed in bed all day. Please note that you must never eat below your BMR calories every day otherwise you can send your body into starvation mode.

Once you are in starvation mode, you body holds on to everything it can and your BMR will slow down.

Starvation mode doesn't exist. And you CAN eat below your BMR if you're extremely overweight or obese. A person with a BMR over 2000 is likely very overweight or obese. Eating under that BMR won't cause them to "starve".

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

ninerbuff

frantimmon1021 wrote: »

Could the working out a lot be muscle weight?

No, because gaining muscle on an extreme calorie deficit is basically impossible.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

ninerbuff

spas2k wrote: »

3bambi3 wrote: »

spas2k wrote: »

There is so much more to it than simply calories in and out. A lot of people like to preach and swear by that here, but that's because it worked for them and they might not have any homore imbalances like Leptin Resistence, Insulin Resistance, or a myriad of other issues that could be causing weight gain or keeping you from losing weight.

If someone says it is nothing more than calories in vs calories out then mark them down as someone to ignore.

Anyone who has ever lost weight has done so by consuming fewer calories than their body burns.

It's not as simple as that. For hormone healthy people it's that simple but ask anyone who has thyroid issues or insulin/leptin resistance about how they are never able to lose weight regardless of even silly 1000 calorie diets coupled with intense HIT. Some people, to no fault of their own, are not able to process glucose and thyroid hormones properly, may have a free t3/reverse t3 issue and never know it.

At that point it is absolutely not about Calories.

Actually it still is about calories. It's just that their calorie intake would have to match their metabolic rate.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

spas2k

kimny72 wrote: »

spas2k wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in general, but in regards to what the original poster shared that yes it is entirely possible and simply eating LESS is not how she should go about losing weight, but rather address the issues that may be underlying.

I'm looking at this from someone who is a thyroid cancer survivor, so the information I'm referring to is generally related to hypothyroidism. If you want to do some (a lot) of reading then start here:

https://www.restartmed.com/hypothyroidism/

Of course you don't have to read it all to know that the body is a complicated process and simply advocating "LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! " isn't the best approach for everyone.

The link goes to the blog of a former Internist who now sells coaching, supplements, and books about hormone imbalances, which he does not seem to have any certs in.

Obviously, if someone has a medical condition causing a low BMR, they should get that medical condition treated. No one is saying otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that in order to lose weight, one needs to eat less calories than your body burns. It does mean that it might be incredibly difficult or even impossible for you to lose the weight until the medical condition is treated because you can't eat that little. Having said that, there are many regular posters here who have diagnosed hormone conditions and eat about the same amount of calories to lose weight as a healthy person of there size.

Hence the answer to the original question from the original poster is yes, there are issues that can cause the situation described is all I was trying to say but I think I went about it incorrectly.

stevencloser

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

It's not possible, so it's a pointless exercise.

I know... I'm trying to argue with someone with a scientific background, but don't know where to start.

It is possible for someone to gain weight while eating at a caloric deficit.

Water weight for like a few days, not on a sensible timescale.

You'd be surprised at how long water weight can stick around.

It can stick around, but it doesn't just keep piling on.

You've never had uncontrolled hypothyroid, have you? Or any other myriad conditions/situations that cause one water weight jump right after another.

Show me someone who gained, and gained, and gained just water weight.

Sudden jumps and drops are normal. Only jump after jump after jump and never dropping it so you're actually gaining weight over an extended period of time? Not really.

newheavensearth

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

It's not possible, so it's a pointless exercise.

I know... I'm trying to argue with someone with a scientific background, but don't know where to start.

It is possible for someone to gain weight while eating at a caloric deficit.

Water weight for like a few days, not on a sensible timescale.

You'd be surprised at how long water weight can stick around.

It can stick around, but it doesn't just keep piling on.

You've never had uncontrolled hypothyroid, have you? Or any other myriad conditions/situations that cause one water weight jump right after another.

Show me someone who gained, and gained, and gained just water weight.

Sudden jumps and drops are normal. Only jump after jump after jump and never dropping it so you're actually gaining weight over an extended period of time? Not really.

Constantly gaining water weight?

Lymphadema. Most of my mother in laws body weight comes from her legs.

marissafit06

yirara wrote: »

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

Pregnant? Tumor? It sounds like this person has a medical condition of some sort.

fatcity66

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

It's not possible, so it's a pointless exercise.

I know... I'm trying to argue with someone with a scientific background, but don't know where to start.

It is possible for someone to gain weight while eating at a caloric deficit.

Water weight for like a few days, not on a sensible timescale.

You'd be surprised at how long water weight can stick around.

It can stick around, but it doesn't just keep piling on.

You've never had uncontrolled hypothyroid, have you? Or any other myriad conditions/situations that cause one water weight jump right after another.

Show me someone who gained, and gained, and gained just water weight.

Sudden jumps and drops are normal. Only jump after jump after jump and never dropping it so you're actually gaining weight over an extended period of time? Not really.

Actually, people with failing kidneys or congestive heart failure can put on tons of water weight. Like 20-30 lbs or more in a couple weeks. Just saying. It does happen to patients in hospitals. Once they get on meds or dialysis, they lose that water weight just as quickly.

Sabine_Stroehm

crlynj01 wrote: »

Having too much of a calorie deficit will hurt you. To figure out your BMR
Males
BMR = 66 + (13.75 x weight in kg) + (5 x height in cm) – (6.8 x age in yrs)

Females
BMR = 655 + (9.6 x weight in kg) + (1.8 x height in cm) – (4.7 x age in Yrs)

To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.1
If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.275
If you are moderately active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.35
If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.525

Your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is the number of calories you’d burn if you stayed in bed all day. Please note that you must never eat below your BMR calories every day otherwise you can send your body into starvation mode.

Once you are in starvation mode, you body holds on to everything it can and your BMR will slow down.

Always polite to cite your copy/pastes.

AnvilHead

fatcity66 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Azdak wrote: »

It's not possible, so it's a pointless exercise.

I know... I'm trying to argue with someone with a scientific background, but don't know where to start.

It is possible for someone to gain weight while eating at a caloric deficit.

Water weight for like a few days, not on a sensible timescale.

You'd be surprised at how long water weight can stick around.

It can stick around, but it doesn't just keep piling on.

You've never had uncontrolled hypothyroid, have you? Or any other myriad conditions/situations that cause one water weight jump right after another.

Show me someone who gained, and gained, and gained just water weight.

Sudden jumps and drops are normal. Only jump after jump after jump and never dropping it so you're actually gaining weight over an extended period of time? Not really.

Actually, people with failing kidneys or congestive heart failure can put on tons of water weight. Like 20-30 lbs or more in a couple weeks. Just saying. It does happen to patients in hospitals. Once they get on meds or dialysis, they lose that water weight just as quickly.

Neither of which would seem to be relevant to an "active woman who works out a lot" as posited in the OP. If she had kidney failure or CHF going on, I doubt she'd be active and working out a lot.

Silentpadna

toxikon wrote: »

If a human is consuming fewer calories than they need to maintain, their body will consume body fat (and a little bit of protein) until there is no body fat left. When there is no body fat left to consume, it will move onto muscles and organs. When your body starts eating your organs for sustenance, you'll eventually die.

How could someone gain weight while definitely eating at a deficit? Water weight, extra poo/pee in the body, muscle gain, big tumors/growths.

I haven't read the whole thread yet (shame on me), but this is mostly true. Because of inefficiencies, and the accessibility to fat stores, muscle is almost always consumed also in a deficit, albeit at a slower rate. When lifting heavy, there can be some slowdown in that rate also.

kimny72

spas2k wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

spas2k wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in general, but in regards to what the original poster shared that yes it is entirely possible and simply eating LESS is not how she should go about losing weight, but rather address the issues that may be underlying.

I'm looking at this from someone who is a thyroid cancer survivor, so the information I'm referring to is generally related to hypothyroidism. If you want to do some (a lot) of reading then start here:

https://www.restartmed.com/hypothyroidism/

Of course you don't have to read it all to know that the body is a complicated process and simply advocating "LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! " isn't the best approach for everyone.

The link goes to the blog of a former Internist who now sells coaching, supplements, and books about hormone imbalances, which he does not seem to have any certs in.

Obviously, if someone has a medical condition causing a low BMR, they should get that medical condition treated. No one is saying otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that in order to lose weight, one needs to eat less calories than your body burns. It does mean that it might be incredibly difficult or even impossible for you to lose the weight until the medical condition is treated because you can't eat that little. Having said that, there are many regular posters here who have diagnosed hormone conditions and eat about the same amount of calories to lose weight as a healthy person of there size.

Hence the answer to the original question from the original poster is yes, there are issues that can cause the situation described is all I was trying to say but I think I went about it incorrectly.

I do hear what you're getting at, and in a general way it is possible for someone with an undiagnosed hormonal condition to be eating what they think is the right amount of calories, but not losing weight. Their medical condition could be reducing their BMR by a couple of hundred calories. This is my I'm-not-a-doctor understanding.

But the mythical OP who is a tall active woman eating 1200 cals and gaining fat is dealing with easily 1,000 calories of difference between what she should be using and what's happening. That's not hormone imbalance, that's Guiness World Book of Records territory. :drinker:

yirara

pinuplove wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

You're arguing with someone with a scientific background that energy balance either doesn't exist or can be over-ridden?

What the hell kind of science is their background in???

Yeah, if it means to look at oneself then energy balance doesn't exist anymore *sigh*

But it's an interesting question I think. If such a person existed then I doubt it would survive for long, or possibly already die before birth.

It sounds like your friend heard hoof-beats and immediately thought not horses or even zebras, but unicorns.

I know... but it's an interesting question I think. You have those conditions where people don't store fat at all, and they constantly eat to stay alive. It is extremely rare though. I wonder if something opposite would also occur, with probably the same result: they would starve.

jjpptt2

yirara wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

You're arguing with someone with a scientific background that energy balance either doesn't exist or can be over-ridden?

What the hell kind of science is their background in???

Yeah, if it means to look at oneself then energy balance doesn't exist anymore *sigh*

But it's an interesting question I think. If such a person existed then I doubt it would survive for long, or possibly already die before birth.

It sounds like your friend heard hoof-beats and immediately thought not horses or even zebras, but unicorns.

I know... but it's an interesting question I think. You have those conditions where people don't store fat at all, and they constantly eat to stay alive. It is extremely rare though. I wonder if something opposite would also occur, with probably the same result: they would starve.

I wonder if they would even survive to birth. Maybe that's why it doesn't exist.

yirara

jjpptt2 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

I'd guess this person would have to have a medical condition that caused a dramatically low BMR. Or perhaps there is some kind of biologic malfunction where the body is prioritizing fat storage as opposed to basic bodily necessities. I have no idea if such a condition exists or what kind of medical specialist would be aware of it. I wouldn't think this sort of person would be capable of measurable exercise or would seem healthy regardless. I do kind of feel like we're supposing about what would happen if a unicorn did an ACV cleanse and then was abducted by aliens though :huh:

That was my thought as well. We see people in the forums ask about how they can turn fat into muscle... the body would have to essentially do the opposite - break down muscle for energy while storing fat. The deficit would have to be pretty small, and there would have to be some sort of genetic/biological abnormality. Even assuming magical unicorn scenarios with magical unicorn circumstances, I can't see this leading to anything but death at a pretty young age.

Now we're getting somewhere. True, the body would need to metabolize muscle for energy I'd think. Good one. But yes, it would come down to the same again: not really a big chance of survival.

yirara

jjpptt2 wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

You're arguing with someone with a scientific background that energy balance either doesn't exist or can be over-ridden?

What the hell kind of science is their background in???

Yeah, if it means to look at oneself then energy balance doesn't exist anymore *sigh*

But it's an interesting question I think. If such a person existed then I doubt it would survive for long, or possibly already die before birth.

It sounds like your friend heard hoof-beats and immediately thought not horses or even zebras, but unicorns.

I know... but it's an interesting question I think. You have those conditions where people don't store fat at all, and they constantly eat to stay alive. It is extremely rare though. I wonder if something opposite would also occur, with probably the same result: they would starve.

I wonder if they would even survive to birth. Maybe that's why it doesn't exist.

Exactly. If it's a genetic condition it doesn't start at birth. Acquired condition? That would be a pretty odd one, maybe a tumor that damages whatever controls energy storage and use.

jasondjulian

ninerbuff wrote: »

crlynj01 wrote: »

Having too much of a calorie deficit will hurt you. To figure out your BMR
Males
BMR = 66 + (13.75 x weight in kg) + (5 x height in cm) – (6.8 x age in yrs)

Females
BMR = 655 + (9.6 x weight in kg) + (1.8 x height in cm) – (4.7 x age in Yrs)

To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.1
If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.275
If you are moderately active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.35
If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.525

Your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is the number of calories you’d burn if you stayed in bed all day. Please note that you must never eat below your BMR calories every day otherwise you can send your body into starvation mode.

Once you are in starvation mode, you body holds on to everything it can and your BMR will slow down.

Starvation mode doesn't exist. And you CAN eat below your BMR if you're extremely overweight or obese. A person with a BMR over 2000 is likely very overweight or obese. Eating under that BMR won't cause them to "starve".

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

My *current* BMR is 1949 calories/day ... I consume between 1400-1800 calories daily, and for the first 2 months of my weight loss I ate even less than that, barely 1200 (thanks to Saxenda for that). I am still alive and healthier now than I was in September before I changed things. Down 33lbs, 14% body weight gone. BP now normal, cholesterol normal, blood glucose dropped from fasting levels around 115 down to just under 100.

Totally possible to eat under your BMR for quite a while, provided you have enough "you" to lose.

lynn_glenmont

If she existed, your hypothetical woman would be locked up by the government so scientists could study the mutation that allows her to directly use energy from sunlight or from heat in the air around her, so they could put the mutation to use for some military purpose.

newheavensearth

I was reading up on Cushing Syndrome. A lot of fat storage due to excess cortisol and it causes muscle wasting. Nothing to do with eating at a deficit though, but the source of excess cortisol must be addressed.

Azdak

spas2k wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in general, but in regards to what the original poster shared that yes it is entirely possible and simply eating LESS is not how she should go about losing weight, but rather address the issues that may be underlying.

I'm looking at this from someone who is a thyroid cancer survivor, so the information I'm referring to is generally related to hypothyroidism. If you want to do some (a lot) of reading then start here:

https://www.restartmed.com/hypothyroidism/

Of course you don't have to read it all to know that the body is a complicated process and simply advocating "LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! LOWER CALORIES! " isn't the best approach for everyone.

You need a yellow brick road to go with that straw man.

Tacklewasher

yirara wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

I'd guess this person would have to have a medical condition that caused a dramatically low BMR. Or perhaps there is some kind of biologic malfunction where the body is prioritizing fat storage as opposed to basic bodily necessities. I have no idea if such a condition exists or what kind of medical specialist would be aware of it. I wouldn't think this sort of person would be capable of measurable exercise or would seem healthy regardless. I do kind of feel like we're supposing about what would happen if a unicorn did an ACV cleanse and then was abducted by aliens though :huh:

That was my thought as well. We see people in the forums ask about how they can turn fat into muscle... the body would have to essentially do the opposite - break down muscle for energy while storing fat. The deficit would have to be pretty small, and there would have to be some sort of genetic/biological abnormality. Even assuming magical unicorn scenarios with magical unicorn circumstances, I can't see this leading to anything but death at a pretty young age.

Now we're getting somewhere. True, the body would need to metabolize muscle for energy I'd think. Good one. But yes, it would come down to the same again: not really a big chance of survival.

Beyond that, would they just lose muscle mass, and hence weight, while gaining fat?

(and we all know muscle weighs more than fat)

Aaron_K123

yirara wrote: »

Question says it all. Say a fairly tall, active woman would eat 1200 kcal in a day, work out a lot and gain weight (yes, I know.. it's not possible), what would theoretically happen? I'd think she'd be permanently hungry as you cannot double-dip energy, have all the signs of undernourishment. Anything else considering metabolism is so much more than just food digestion, energy utilization and storage?

Does such disease exist, and if so, for how long could someone survive?

I have a scientific background, you stated you were looking for someone with one to talk to about this. Issue I have is that the premise is flawed so I'm not even sure how to address this. You cannot eat at a caloric deficit, be active and gain weight (I assume by gain weight you mean gain fat) so "theoretically" that wouldn't happen. If that did happen it wouldn't be in our universe so then all understanding we have of our world doesn't apply and so there is no way to make conjectures.

Bottom line is that you cannot make energy out of nothing. If you intake a certain amount of energy and then expend a larger amount of energy then you have to make up that deficit somehow and that deficit is going to come from your fat stores which will cause you to lose weight. There is no way around that. If someone thinks they ate 1200 calories and thinks they burned 2000 calories and they actually put on fat then they are just wrong about how much they burned or took in which is something you should consider, that reporting is not always accurate.

Now if you mean literally just weight and not fat then yeah you can do that easily. Eat a bunch of salt (no calories) and drink a lot of water (no calories) and you will probably put on like 7 pounds of water weight easily masking the loss of fat weight from the caloric deficit.