Low protein diet to reduce hanging skin?

If you think about it, when you go from morbidly obese to ideal weight, there has to be a considerable amount of skin loss.
your face, body, arms all shrink as you're in a deficit and the body not only feeds on the fat and muscle but the skin itself cause where the heck did all the skin shrink or go to if not into our blood stream for enerrgy, Just like the principle that fat you first put on is the last to go and hard to lose, the same principle seems to be at work here in regards to skin.

Someone had mentioned earlier about the maintaining muscle mass in face of perhaps not enough protein.
Could you be selective in what is not built back up (since it's not a matter of breaking it down for protein to use, but rather just not building it back up).
Organs are used daily, and only going to have an issue in cases of starving, muscle will be lost before organs, body isn't stupid about what keeps it alive.

Use it. We know that, just use it.

Don't have time to look up the studies, but several have shown that decent deficit with adequate, not even extra protein, and lifting, will keep the muscle mass (LBM goes down of course still). The all about CICO thread was not a great amount of protein by OP.

Since the skin is broken down daily as muscle is, actually as a structure I recall more frequently, that need to build it back up isn't there, in the face of limited protein.
And it does take protein too, despite comment it's not, just not the same density as muscle.

So in theory I'd be interested in some studies of it.

goldthistime wrote: »

kpk54 wrote: »

I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet that the article is by Dr. Jason Fung. He tends to not be well thought of by many from what I read in the forums. He's very keen on fasting. I have no opinion really. I do find Rosedale's and Longo's research interesting.

This post got wooed. Is this woo for Dr Fung (which I would agree with) or for finding Longo's work interesting? If it's for Valter Longo, I'd be happy to digress into the IGF/longevity thing. It's been on my mind a lot lately.

I am perplexed by the Longo's advice to crossover at age 65 to higher protein levels. Firstly, I think it takes away from the strength of his argument that low protein in your 40s and 50s leads to a longer life, and secondly, even if I were to believe it without question, surely I don't switch over on my 65th birthday. Not to mention that I wonder how much strength and vigour (as well as ease in maintaining a lower weight), I'm willing to sacrifice for 5 or 10 lingering years of life?

As the poster who originated the post with the "woo" clicks, I'm guessing they came about merely due to the mention of Fung.

As indicated previously, I'm neutral. I'm neither pro nor con regarding fasting (Fung's current emphasis) though I have listened to many of Fung's videos and visited his site. Personally, I've not fasted except when required prior to a routine medical procedure. Likewise, I have regularly listened to videos and visited the sites of Lyle McDonald and Layne Norton though I am not personally engaged in body building or recomping. Just yesterday, a video notification regarding protein from Layne Norton popped up on my screen and I listened to it. Heck, I've listened to stuff by Rich Roll, a vegan, though am not vegan or vegetarian. In regards to Londo, I will be 65 next year but have no plans to auto-increase my protein intake at that age, just as I currently don't follow his suggestions of low protein. Now or years previous. I don't recall his specific reasons. his research is just something I came across that made me say "Hmmmm....".

I simply find health related research fascinating. The clicks on "woo" were due to the mention of Fung, IMO. Fung is a nephrologist which might explain his foundation in low protein since current mainstream medical advice is to limit protein if one has Chronic Kidney Disease. I'm planted fairly firmly in moderation of all things for the masses though intrigued by the disparities of research in all realms of health and wellness.

I was thinking. The reason you have hanging skin is because you stretched it out from gaining fat mass, then you sucked all of the fat out on your weight loss journey. Why not replace that sucking of fat by adding muscle mass to fill it back in. That would require adding protein, not lowering protein. And strength training helps too.

goldthistime wrote: »

vanmep wrote: »

I really know nothing about this. But I wonder, if you can’t direct which fat you want to burn, how would you be able to direct your body to burn up your excess skin rather than muscle or organs?

IF there were ever evidence to support lower protein consumption to reduce hanging skin, I would have to assume that people would be instructed to maintain a high enough level to protect their organs.

Let's get specific. SAD is said to be 15% protein. Bodybuilders and dieters are generally encouraged to have much more, at least 20 or 30%. But there are definitely proponents of 10% protein. Valter Longo is one of those proponents (but in his case he argues for low protein for longevity vs the skin thing). I tried looking for criticisms of Longo and didn't find much. Surely he would meet a lot of opposition if 10% wasn't enough to protect your organs.

Percentages are not that helpful when talking both about people at a deficit and not.

If Longo (who I also find interesting) is talking about at maintenance, my maintenance when somewhat (not super) active is 2000, so 10% would be 50 g of protein, or roughly .9 g per kg -- above the RDA. I think that amount is not ideal to preserve muscle as one ages or build muscle, but at maintenance is obviously fine and I do believe there may even be longevity benefits (my mind is not made up on that but I'd consider it).

At a deficit, though -- let's say aiming for 1.5 lb/week, the same person might be eating 1250. 10% of 1250 is only 31 g of protein, which is super low. Specifically, it's (for me) about .54 g per kg, which is well under the RDA.

And that's without considering a few other things, one of which is that at a deficit you probably need more than the RDA just to make sure you are hitting all amino acids adequately on a more limited diet (ESPECIALLY something like 1250, and especially if mostly plant-based). Another is that the risk to muscle is much higher when at a deficit, which is another reason more than RDA is recommended during weight loss (and especially if also exercising a good bit). I'd add to that that if one is older and/or female, it's easier to lose and harder to maintain muscle.

I do think it's possible that less protein at maintenance is reasonable (which is different than the skin benefits question, of course), and also that it makes sense to increase as one gets older and the risk of muscle loss is higher (but I'd wonder if maybe the desirability of more protein kicks in sooner for women, for whom the risk of muscle loss in increased).

It's extremely important to me to do everything I can to be as strong as possible as an aged person, so that's why I tend to err on the side of more protein anyway (not extreme, but around a min of .65 g/lb of a healthy weight if losing, a bit less if at maintenance -- for me I think 70-80 g is fine at maintenance (I'd aim higher if losing, personally), and at 2000 calories that would be 15%.