Why is (carefully planned) rapid weight loss bad?
Options
Replies
-
The only people who should be doing rapid fat loss protocols are those with significant amounts of knowledge and generally, that is limited to people who have been body building for years or who have formal educations. Often with OMAD, people fail to get adequate nutrients (especially protein). And in my experience, I think I have seen one person who was able to get the required protein during that protocol. So with OMAD, how much protein and fats are you getting? Are you getting .7 to 1g/lb of protein or .35 to .6g/lb of fat? What kind of calories are you getting with OMAD? And what are your goals?9
-
I thought mild protein restriction was associated with increases in longevity and generally adults don't need much protein unless they're trying to build muscle or ill/injured.The only people who should be doing rapid fat loss protocols are those with significant amounts of knowledge and generally, that is limited to people who have been body building for years or who have formal educations. Often with OMAD, people fail to get adequate nutrients (especially protein). And in my experience, I think I have seen one person who was able to get the required protein during that protocol. So with OMAD, how much protein and fats are you getting? Are you getting .7 to 1g/lb of protein or .35 to .6g/lb of fat? What kind of calories are you getting with OMAD? And what are your goals?
My goals are to drop through the BMI categories until I am a normal weight and then evaluate if I need to drop further to a BMI of 22 (where the lowest risk of mortality and morbidity lies on a population level but maybe not for me... not sure, will see how my waist-hip ratio looks once I'm a normal weight).
20 -
I thought mild protein restriction was associated with increases in longevity and generally adults don't need much protein unless they're trying to build muscle or ill/injured.The only people who should be doing rapid fat loss protocols are those with significant amounts of knowledge and generally, that is limited to people who have been body building for years or who have formal educations. Often with OMAD, people fail to get adequate nutrients (especially protein). And in my experience, I think I have seen one person who was able to get the required protein during that protocol. So with OMAD, how much protein and fats are you getting? Are you getting .7 to 1g/lb of protein or .35 to .6g/lb of fat? What kind of calories are you getting with OMAD? And what are your goals?
My goals are to drop through the BMI categories until I am a normal weight and then evaluate if I need to drop further to a BMI of 22 (where the lowest risk of mortality and morbidity lies on a population level but maybe not for me... not sure, will see how my waist-hip ratio looks once I'm a normal weight).
Protein is the most important macronutrient during weight loss. There is a plethora of evidence to support it; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549. In fact, if you want to maintain metabolism and muscle (lower body fat % quicker), than resistance training and protein is ideal. Also, protein and resistance training improves body composition, makes strong muscles/bones and can reduce the chances of osteoporosis. Protein needs in elderly are even more important. Remember, stronger bodies are less prone to injury. Improved mortality is largely driven by genetics and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (keeping both body and mind active).21 -
Surely if a person is fat and not immobile they have more muscle than they need since they are carrying their weight around all day with it? It would be like a thin person carrying a bunch of weights all day long? Why would I want to maintain muscle I won't need when I am thinner and have less of me to carry about?
Protein is the most important macronutrient during weight loss. There is a plethora of evidence to support it; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549. In fact, if you want to maintain metabolism and muscle (lower body fat % quicker), than resistance training and protein is ideal. Also, protein and resistance training improves body composition, makes strong muscles/bones and can reduce the chances of osteoporosis. Protein needs in elderly are even more important.
Improved mortality is largely driven by genetics and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (keeping both body and mind active).
Likewise, why would I want to maintain my metabolism at a higher rate? Surely higher metabolism means more oxidative damage to cells? Wouldn't the lowest comfortable metabolic rate be optimal?54 -
edit: nevermind. I apparently am lying and don't know what I'm talking about.... eat what you want, when you want, and deal with the consequences....30
-
misaloundra wrote: »You will develop a slower metabolism. In order to ''survive'' (you body freaks out by the little amount of energy it's receiving) you body will slow its metabolism. So in other words, you will burn less energy for the same activity. And when you will eat again, your body will stock energy (aka FAT) and you won't lose as efficiently.
It is extremely difficult to go back to a normal metabolism after that. Please, don't put your body through this.
No. This is what people call starvation mode and it isn't a real thing.17 -
Surely if a person is fat and not immobile they have more muscle than they need since they are carrying their weight around all day with it? It would be like a thin person carrying a bunch of weights all day long? Why would I want to maintain muscle I won't need when I am thinner and have less of me to carry about?
Protein is the most important macronutrient during weight loss. There is a plethora of evidence to support it; http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549. In fact, if you want to maintain metabolism and muscle (lower body fat % quicker), than resistance training and protein is ideal. Also, protein and resistance training improves body composition, makes strong muscles/bones and can reduce the chances of osteoporosis. Protein needs in elderly are even more important.
Improved mortality is largely driven by genetics and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (keeping both body and mind active).
Likewise, why would I want to maintain my metabolism at a higher rate? Surely higher metabolism means more oxidative damage to cells? Wouldn't the lowest comfortable metabolic rate be optimal?
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.19 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.33 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.
how much more muscle do you think you've got compared to someone who has never been obese?15 -
I don't know why OP posted as she doesn't seem to want to take on board anyones advice...
62 -
Looking for validation.26
-
"Someone"? No idea. Someone who has the same level and type of activity? I would expect more but I couldn't quantify it.TavistockToad wrote: »
how much more muscle do you think you've got compared to someone who has never been obese?8 -
Regarding muscle, it pays to think ahead. The more you save, the more you'll have as you get older, because it decreases with age unless you're active about preserving it and sarcopenia is bad news.
13 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.
This shows that while over weight individual have more muscle mass they have poor muscle quality. And its inevitable that you will lose muscle along side fat with aggressive/rapid weight loss.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28507015
16 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »I don't know why OP posted as she doesn't seem to want to take on board anyones advice...
Just because I am *not* convinced doesn't mean I *can't* be convinced.31 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.
Some rate of lean body mass (all things not fat mass) is normal. But without maintaining appropriate levels of protein, it will increase that rate of loss. Protein and resistance training can actually improve lean body mass, even during weight loss, pending there is an active stimulus and not cutting calories too aggressively.
Being overweight doesn't mean you are carrying a bunch of muscle anyways, especially considering you have done muscle crash diets (which means you probably lost some in the past); there is even a good probably you are lower than an equivalent person who hasn't crashed dieted in the past. Having said that, glucose and fats are primary fuel sources. And no your body won't just deplete muscle. But if you aren't creating more cells than you are losing (protein turnover), than you will end up losing muscle.
So if you want to be able to keep up with children as they grow (like I do), lift heavy bags of muscle and other gardening supplies, while reducing the chances of injury during those activities, than it's ideal to make an approach to counteract that.11 -
"Someone"? No idea. Someone who has the same level and type of activity? I would expect more but I couldn't quantify it.TavistockToad wrote: »
how much more muscle do you think you've got compared to someone who has never been obese?
Considering your diet history, I would think you would be lower than someone who hasn't crashed dieted. I am at the higher end of a BMI (almost overweight) at 16% body fat (male); at 10% body fat, I will be more towards the high end of a healthy weight. I have never crashed dieted and have been athletic my whole life.
Also, think long term. The more you do now to improve your body and get in good habits, the less issues you should have as you continue to age. I know a lot more people who have issues from being frail and weak, than I do from being fit and strong.16 -
Losing muscle means you will have a weaker body, more prone to injury and things like osteoporosis, a slower metabolism, lower caloric needs (which also can leader to faster regain since you lowered your TDEE) and a host of other thing.
Also, carrying more muscle doesn't mean you are going to be bodybuilder jacked. Those people grew substantial amounts of muscle over time. And no, more muscle doesn't damage cells. There is a reason why muscle is associated with a healthy body.
I'm not talking about getting to really low muscle levels though, just a normal amount for ones body type and size assuming a normal level of activity, carrying things/children, doing work around the home and garden, transporting oneself places etc. Your body isn't going to sacrifice muscle it uses until it absolutely has to.
Unfortunately, it will. It goes back to what you were told earlier about how your body can only burn so much fat per day. If your deficit is too aggressive, your body will then start to burn other tissues it 'thinks' don't need priority. Like muscle. P.S., your heart is a muscle.
Strength training can help you reduce the amount of muscle lost, and it will definitely help you look better as the weight drops off, but inevitably some muscle will drop.
And a personal anecdote: I've had two bladder surgeries in the last 5 months. After the first one, I was in the recovery room and they were giving me my first calories after about 16 hours fasting (which had been preceded by 12 hours on clear fluids and an enema...) I was lying on the cot and the nurse asked me to "Try to sit up," so it would be easier to crank up the bed behind me and I wouldn't choke on the apple juice. I did with minimal effort. And I remember thinking to myself, "From his tone of voice, I thought this was going to be harder, or it would hurt or something." The nurse looked at me and said, "Wow. You've got some good trunk muscles there!"
For the record, like many women, my belly is about the last place the fat runs from. I don't have visible abs or lats. I've still got a muffin top. But evidently, crunches and dead-bugs and planks, PLUS running a sensible deficit let me hold onto and strengthen what I have under that flab.14 -
"Someone"? No idea. Someone who has the same level and type of activity? I would expect more but I couldn't quantify it.TavistockToad wrote: »
how much more muscle do you think you've got compared to someone who has never been obese?
Considering your diet history, I would think you would be lower than someone who hasn't crashed dieted. I am at the higher end of a BMI (almost overweight) at 16% body fat (male); at 10% body fat, I will be more towards the high end of a healthy weight. I have never crashed dieted and have been athletic my whole life.
I never considered myself to have crash dieted. I did do atkins as a teenager but I got lots of protein on that.
I know I have very little upper body strength (carrying my kids about honestly kills me) and when I am thinner I probably will want to work on that because I'd like it to be less painful (although my neck not my arms kill the most at the moment because my son loves to sit on the handlebars of the buggy -while the other kid sits in it -and I have to stabilise him on there since the buggy is light and will just fall over if I don't apply constant and exact pressure - adjusting for his every movement. I swear an hour of walking around like that is murder on my neck/shoulders - but yeah lol, I think that's more because I'm not getting enough exercise than a protein deficiency.)9 -
OMAD is fine, although I'd have the same concerns psulemon did -- for me it wouldn't be possible to get in what I consider adequate vegetables or protein in just one meal. Others may prefer huger meals than I do and not have that issue, but I'd track those things to make sure. A single meal that is 2000 cal (or 1600) because it's lower nutrient foods mostly obviously is not the best for health longterm.
That is unrelated to the thread topic of rapid weight loss and fasting for two days, eating 1600 the rest, it seems to me. I'd say rapid weight loss can be okay under a doctor's supervision if you are extremely obese, but if one has a history of yo-yoing it seems counterproductive. If you like OMAD, why not experiment with that at a reasonable calorie amount (1600?) or some other kind of IF if you find it hard to get in adequate nutrients doing that (I'd agree Cron is a good way to track) and forget about trying to speed it along. Find something sustainable.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions