What do you guys thinks of the whole TDEE and people generally under eating?

[Iamjustdenise]

There seems to be this craze with people eating MORE thinking its the answer and are losing weight. I was reading over at a site called Eat To Perform.. It just seems to be this new movement out there right now, focusing on metabolic damage etc..

More crap?

[CiKi90]

If a person is already eating at a surplus and eating crap foods, then eating more would probably not benefit them, but just changing their diet to a whole foods diet at the same calorie amount (or their TDEE) would help them a lot since their body is always starved of nutrition. I suppose it would seem like more food to them, though, since whole foods are usually less calorie dense and higher volume.

If a person is undereating for their training level or just to maintain their weight at a normal level, has been yo-yo-dieting for most of their life, or has been under-eating for a long period of time, eating more would benefit them as well. As someone who has gone through this scenario, I can safely say that I have to eat a lot more than I thought I needed from starving myself for so long. I guess it just depends on where you're coming from in life to say for sure if this will work for you. Today, though, so many people are obese but malnourished at the same time, that I feel like eating more calories of whole foods would lessen the stress on the body from all the junk they put in it.

Not sure if I'm answering your question properly, though?

[Iamjustdenise]

If a person is already eating at a surplus and eating crap foods, then eating more would probably not benefit them, but just changing their diet to a whole foods diet at the same calorie amount (or their TDEE) would help them a lot since their body is always starved of nutrition. I suppose it would seem like more food to them, though, since whole foods are usually less calorie dense and higher volume.

If a person is undereating for their training level or just to maintain their weight at a normal level, has been yo-yo-dieting for most of their life, or has been under-eating for a long period of time, eating more would benefit them as well. As someone who has gone through this scenario, I can safely say that I have to eat a lot more than I thought I needed from starving myself for so long. I guess it just depends on where you're coming from in life to say for sure if this will work for you. Today, though, so many people are obese but malnourished at the same time, that I feel like eating more calories of whole foods would lessen the stress on the body from all the junk they put in it.

Not sure if I'm answering your question properly, though?

Yes :-) thank you!! I'm just so leery of those TDEE calculators out there.

[shesprints]

This is confusing me right now, too. I've been seeing a nutritionist who has me cutting on 1200-1400 cals/day (RMR is 1420 btw) and I'm usually highly active... but I don't lose a lot of weight, like .5 lb/week. Granted I'm already lean, but some people have told me it's wrong and some, like the nutritionist, have said that even an athlete of my height/weight can only eat 1800-2000 to maintain. I'm finally switching over to a real sports nutritionist, but it is all rather odd to me.

[NoGainsHere]

I was skinny fat with little mass weighed 104. This happened over the course of 4 years losing weight from being fat. But me not knowing anything about preserving muscle I lost fat and a lot of muscle. I could never get the little bit of fat left off. So I decided to bulk from 104. Started training bulking at 1800. Gained weight, then stalled, this happened every time as I increased my calories. Would gain weight then stall. Now I currently bulking at 3000-3000+ it varies at 140. I guess this was due to my metabolism fixing itself after being screwed so many years.

I can now cut on 2300 where as too I couldn't even lose weight at 1000

[CiKi90]

Yep, same here. I had an ED and decided that I needed to do something about my 85lb frame about 8 months ago. I went through an extreeeeme re-feeding period where I don't even think I could estimate the amount that I consumed, especially over Christmas, lol. Starting in June 2010, I kept cutting and cutting my calories until it was 2 years later and I was only eating 500-700 per day. After my refeed of 3500+cals every day, I can eat 1600/day with a few 2200cal days thrown in, with no problem for maintenance. Before that, I would start to gain at like 1200 no matter what I did. It's a relief to know that my metabolism isn't totally broken, and I can relax a little on my diet now.

[NoGainsHere]

Yep, same here. I had an ED and decided that I needed to do something about my 85lb frame about 8 months ago. I went through an extreeeeme re-feeding period where I don't even think I could estimate the amount that I consumed, especially over Christmas, lol. Starting in June 2010, I kept cutting and cutting my calories until it was 2 years later and I was only eating 500-700 per day. After my refeed of 3500+cals every day, I can eat 1600/day with a few 2200cal days thrown in, with no problem for maintenance. Before that, I would start to gain at like 1200 no matter what I did. It's a relief to know that my metabolism isn't totally broken, and I can relax a little on my diet now.

Feels great! I thought I would be stuck gaining weight on simply 1800 calories. Now I'm eating 3000 and can barely gain

[NickyFM]

If a person is undereating for their training level or just to maintain their weight at a normal level, has been yo-yo-dieting for most of their life, or has been under-eating for a long period of time, eating more would benefit them as well. As someone who has gone through this scenario, I can safely say that I have to eat a lot more than I thought I needed from starving myself for so long. I guess it just depends on where you're coming from in life to say for sure if this will work for you. Today, though, so many people are obese but malnourished at the same time, that I feel like eating more calories of whole foods would lessen the stress on the body from all the junk they put in it.

Not sure if I'm answering your question properly, though?

This is EXACTLY what happened to me. I started out at 120 pounds at 5'5" in 2009 (TOTALLY healthy weight, just was skinny fat) and sadly i was advised to do the whole very low calorie, high intensity training scheme. I got down to 109 pounds. AKA underweight. Long story short, I yo yo dieted between 2009 - the beginning of this year, rendering me now at 131 pounds. So basically, my body was so used to starving and then having to 'hoard back' the weight, that i would often finish up heavier than when I began.

Since April however, i have been aiming to eat more and train harder, so that I am still fuelling my workout, but am actually going to be able to see the results, rather than starve myself to them. The whole craze behind it, is that we are so used to being told that we need to eat less, that we don't even realise when we are completely undereating. So it is a theory that needs to be taken with a grain of salt and a hell of a lot of research!

[Iamjustdenise]

Exactly. All this under eating at such low calories because its what we were told to do OR believed to do. It all has left me really confused as to what is the truth.

Even now very few coaches want to admit that eating at low calories is not a good idea. They still want to throw out 1500 calorie a day weight loss plans. Then what happens? You lose weight and In order to continue to lose weight as you get lighter you have to cut back more? So I have such a hard time figuring out how many calories I truly should be eating to lose a few lbs safe and effectively without rebounding when I want to figure out where maintenance is for me. Then there are trainers who tell you to NOT eat back your exercise calories which put you at an even bigger deficit.

[rockangel]

As one of those trainers who is against "eating back exercise calories" I can tell you my beliefs and methods.

Many people (and even myself at one point) believe that super low cal diets get you results. Well yes they do for a while. But, as i was explaining in another thread, they also cause muscle loss and plateaus at a faster rate. Lets just say i have been there, done that and learned that this may get you results but not in the way you want.

Lets just say Person A maintains on 2300 cals, they can cut out 500 cals of food and cut on an 1800 cal diet, which is still quite a bit of food, when food choices remain in the healthy range. This will presumably lead to 1 pound of weight loss per week. Most people are not satisfied with that rate because it is slow.
If you then add exercise, which can burn 250 - 500 cals (and that is a crap load of work by the way) then we increase the deficit to 750 - 1000 cals a day and thats a big deficit, should get us to 2 pounds a week, which makes people happier.
Should a person eat back those 250 - 500 cals.... then we go back to the 1 pound of loss per week, again making most people unhappy at the slow rate.
So i dont advocate eating cals back. Where does it make sense to eat back cals if you are in the deficit you wish to be in?? If you want to eat back cals, just adjust your daily cals a bit higher and there you go.... no need to change cals around based on if you work out or not. Its just making things harder and more confusing than it needs.

I always advocate getting in the correct deficit for your goal, and then maintaining consistency. No jumping around, not eating cals back, keep it simple. If you stop losing weight, then drop cals a bit. Its more of an art that works with science. Nothing is 100 percent precise.

I find it much easier to eat at maintanece now with out even trying. even when eating "bad".

And again, this is why i advocate staying away from online calculators and work by hand calculations and trial and error. Find what works for your body.

[rdferguson]

Layne Norton posted up a good video a while back on metabolic damage, and how to undo it.

Basically, so long as you're cutting, your metabolism will be gradually slowing down. The first goal is to eat as much as you can while still losing 0.5-1lb/wk, and in particular, consume as many complex carbs as you can (while getting your 1g/lb/day protein and 0.5g/lb/day fat), as carbohydrate intake appears to have a big role on metabolic rate (that bit I didn't learn from Layne, the rest of this is cliff's on what he's said). If your weight loss stalls, don't cut by another 500kcal/day to get back to losing 1lb/wk; only cut out about 100kcal from what you're already eating, and see how you go. Once you're finished cutting, DON'T BINGE. A lot of people finish cutting then instantly double what they've been eating and gain back 5-10lb in the first week, without having undone the metabolic damage from cutting. They then return to cutting, having not repaired their metabolic damage, and continue accumulating metabolic damage, making it even harder to lose weight. After a few cycles of this, you get people eating 800kcal/day, doing 2 hours of cardio a day plus strength training, and unable to lose weight. Instead of binging, he recommended increasing carbohydrate intake by (I think) 20g/day for...I can't remember, either 1 week or 2 weeks...and then repeat that increase for the same duration over and over. Actually, it might have been as little as +5g CHO/day, although that would assume very careful diet control. You'll bulk up very slowly, and hopefully even after several rounds of bumping up your carb/calorie intake you'll struggle to put on weight. This is a good thing. If you can get to the point after several months where you're eating 2,500+kcal/day and putting on weight at snail's pace, good. It means that when you go to cut, you'll be able to begin your cut at a much higher calorie intake. If you're consuming 2,600kcal/day and that only puts you into a 100kcal/day surplus, then consuming 2,000-2,200kcal/day will see you losing 0.5-1lb/wk.

Speaking from personal experience, I spent about 3-4 months cutting last year at about 1,500kcal/day, which was not fun in my stomach. I made a point early this year of bulking at a slower rate than usual, and started out about 2,200kcal/day, which still wasn't very filling, and saw me gaining about 0.5lb/wk. My calorie consumption has slowly but surely increased to the point that I'm getting well-acquainted with being full, and yet my weight gain has stalled multiple times this year. So, my metabolic rate has been catching up with my calorie consumption, which I think is great, because it means I'll be able to cut with about another 500kcal/day (maybe more) in my diet than my previous cut, next time around. Had I gone straight from a 500kcal/day deficit to a 500kcal/day surplus, that's a 1,000kcal/day difference, and as experience has taught me, it would result largely in my body fat % shooting up for the first 6 weeks, whereas doing it this way, while I didn't measure body fat %, my waist size actually went down in the first 6 weeks of bulking.

[Iamjustdenise]

As one of those trainers who is against "eating back exercise calories" I can tell you my beliefs and methods.

Many people (and even myself at one point) believe that super low cal diets get you results. Well yes they do for a while. But, as i was explaining in another thread, they also cause muscle loss and plateaus at a faster rate. Lets just say i have been there, done that and learned that this may get you results but not in the way you want.

Lets just say Person A maintains on 2300 cals, they can cut out 500 cals of food and cut on an 1800 cal diet, which is still quite a bit of food, when food choices remain in the healthy range. This will presumably lead to 1 pound of weight loss per week. Most people are not satisfied with that rate because it is slow.
If you then add exercise, which can burn 250 - 500 cals (and that is a crap load of work by the way) then we increase the deficit to 750 - 1000 cals a day and thats a big deficit, should get us to 2 pounds a week, which makes people happier.
Should a person eat back those 250 - 500 cals.... then we go back to the 1 pound of loss per week, again making most people unhappy at the slow rate.
So i dont advocate eating cals back. Where does it make sense to eat back cals if you are in the deficit you wish to be in?? If you want to eat back cals, just adjust your daily cals a bit higher and there you go.... no need to change cals around based on if you work out or not. Its just making things harder and more confusing than it needs.

I always advocate getting in the correct deficit for your goal, and then maintaining consistency. No jumping around, not eating cals back, keep it simple. If you stop losing weight, then drop cals a bit. Its more of an art that works with science. Nothing is 100 percent precise.

I find it much easier to eat at maintanece now with out even trying. even when eating "bad".

And again, this is why i advocate staying away from online calculators and work by hand calculations and trial and error. Find what works for your body.

I thank you for adding in :-)

I cannot for the life of me figure out those formulas Im the sticky..I've tried but it gets confusing. I like to think I'm smawt, but alas, those formulas stump me!

So sometimes all I have are those calculators.

I appreciate all the Input! Thank you!!

[fitnessfreak88]

As one of those trainers who is against "eating back exercise calories" I can tell you my beliefs and methods.

Many people (and even myself at one point) believe that super low cal diets get you results. Well yes they do for a while. But, as i was explaining in another thread, they also cause muscle loss and plateaus at a faster rate. Lets just say i have been there, done that and learned that this may get you results but not in the way you want.

Lets just say Person A maintains on 2300 cals, they can cut out 500 cals of food and cut on an 1800 cal diet, which is still quite a bit of food, when food choices remain in the healthy range. This will presumably lead to 1 pound of weight loss per week. Most people are not satisfied with that rate because it is slow.
If you then add exercise, which can burn 250 - 500 cals (and that is a crap load of work by the way) then we increase the deficit to 750 - 1000 cals a day and thats a big deficit, should get us to 2 pounds a week, which makes people happier.
Should a person eat back those 250 - 500 cals.... then we go back to the 1 pound of loss per week, again making most people unhappy at the slow rate.
So i dont advocate eating cals back. Where does it make sense to eat back cals if you are in the deficit you wish to be in?? If you want to eat back cals, just adjust your daily cals a bit higher and there you go.... no need to change cals around based on if you work out or not. Its just making things harder and more confusing than it needs.

I always advocate getting in the correct deficit for your goal, and then maintaining consistency. No jumping around, not eating cals back, keep it simple. If you stop losing weight, then drop cals a bit. Its more of an art that works with science. Nothing is 100 percent precise.

I find it much easier to eat at maintanece now with out even trying. even when eating "bad".

And again, this is why i advocate staying away from online calculators and work by hand calculations and trial and error. Find what works for your body.

I just wanted to say that concept of reducing calories by 500 per day to lose 1 pound per week, 1000 to lose 2 pounds assumes that the body is able to lose 100% fat as it is based on the idea of a pound of fat being 3500. I don't think that this is possible for any individual. I think the proportions of body fat and muscle loss depend on many factors including body composition of the individual, training that is in place (or not!), protein intake etc. I think having a smaller calorie deficit is the most protective against muscle loss, but with then lead to slower fat loss.

Lyle McDonald wrote an article and the pros and cons of a large, moderate or small deficit for fat loss:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-or-large.html

[Miranda]

there's a big difference between how much people think they eat and how much they actually eat.

the world is full of people who say they eat really low calories but can't lose weight. more often than not, it's a question of miscalculating calorie intake. when they actually learn to track correctly, they find out they can 'eat more'.

instead of not losing on an estimated 1,200 or what have you calories, they can now diet on [somewhat] correctly tracked 1,700. they might also find out their eyeballed 1,800 calorie maintenance is in reality 2,300.

^^ has nothing to do with metabolic slowdown or anything weird. it's matter of eating more than you think.

metabolic rate does 'catch up' with increased calorie intake, but only to a degree and it depends on the context.

if you're severely emaciated/anorexic, then it's not out of the ordinary to be able to maintain on very low calories. maintenance correlates with bodyweight. if you only weigh 85lbs and had a fully functioning thyroid your maintenance would be ~1,300 calories (= 15 x 85). add in low metabolism from starving yourself, and it might drop to ~1,000 or so. when you overfeed, your weight and hence maintenance will go up with it. 'starvation mode' calories in that case have more to do with extremely low bodyweight and less with low metabolic rate.

'maintaining' on 200-300 calories under what should be your maintenance is another fun game.

1/ not tracking correctly (should you track in the first place *cough*) is a huge confound in this. it's extremely easy to be off by 100-200 calories.
2/ your daily energy output isn't static. some days it's higher, some days it's lower.

^^ if the margin between 'high' and 'low' output is 100-200 calories, and you're off by 100-200 calories, you're screwed.

but if you've no real (not imagined) metabolic issues, you are not going to significantly increase your energy output above average, other than by gaining a lot of weight or adding a buttload of aerobic exercise.

[rockangel]

Honestly, there is no way of being able to predict what percentage of fat to muscle is lost when losing weight. So I am not really sure what the above point is. The current theory is to keep protein in the diet at a high level to prevent as much muscle mass loss as possible. This does not mean there will be NO muscle mass lost, only that we will lose as minimum as possible.

Also it depends on where the person is starting from. It is well known that a person who has more fat to lose, will lose more fat than muscle in the beginning, simply because they have more fat to lose. If the person is leaner, then it is harder to lose fat and diets/training become crucial.

I have all ready read Lyle's articles, so i am aware of the info.

There are a lot of variables in dieting, and my beliefs and methods for my clients is to keep cals as high as possible for as long as possible while they still meet their goals. But that wasnt the topic of the thread.
The topic of the thread was undereating, and since most women will tend to under eat for fat loss, then allowing them to eat higher cals and still lose at the rate they want is a win. On top of that, many people can get the newb gains while dieting, so muscle loss isnt really an issue.

Per my advice in "eating back cals" it doesnt make sense biologically, and it makes things harder than it should be.

Setting the deficit depends on a lot of variables, a large deficit can be maintained for a short period of time without huge amounts of muscle loss, but i dont advocate it for people who are new to dieting/working out. Usually because they have in the past done bad dieting practices and need to be "rewired" as to how to eat. It is also harder to stick to and can cause issues with the persons life (like not providing enough energy to fit their lifestyle), plus causes plateaus quicker and is just a PITA to deal with it. So for most people, i just dont think its a good idea.

Small deficits work, but rather slowly and there is less "wiggle" room for mistakes or miscalculations.

Again, it all depends on the individual, their goals, etc... but the topic of this thread is under-eating for fat loss and how we can actually eat more and still lose fat

[Miranda]

The current theory is to keep protein in the diet at a high level to prevent as much muscle mass loss as possible. This does not mean there will be NO muscle mass lost, only that we will lose as minimum as possible.

yes . . . so what's the physiological problem with dieting on low calorie?

imo you're a bit off by claiming that 'low calorie dieting causes muscle loss' and then backpedaling with 'minimised muscle loss', as if you could somehow diet with absolutely NO (0 grams) muscle loss. any dieting at any bodyfat level will cause some degree of muscle loss.

[melvimbe]

Just throwing this out there, but wouldn't it be dependent on the utilization of muscles as well as protein consumption while dieting? I'm going on the idea that the body reacts to the stress that it's under in order to best meet future needs. So if you are getting enough protein for muscles and working the muscles, then you're body will retain/grow them to meet the need. On the other head, lower calorie consumption tells the body that less food will be provided in the near future, and therefore it's best for the body (regardless of what we may want) to slow down the metabolism and preserve as much fat as possible (and gain fat when food is available again).

Therefore it makes sense to send a relatively consistent signal (with minor adjustments up and down) of that what we will be needing these muscles and we will not be neededing any excess fat because there will be no concern about food availabilty in the future. I know that's not science and is oversimplfiying things, though I don't really think it contradicts the generally accepting nutrition advice around here. That's the mental picture I get of the concept anyway.

[rockangel]

yes . . . so what's the physiological problem with dieting on low calorie?

imo you're a bit off by claiming that 'low calorie dieting causes muscle loss' and then backpedaling with 'minimised muscle loss', as if you could somehow diet with absolutely NO (0 grams) muscle loss. any dieting at any bodyfat level will cause some degree of muscle loss.

perhaps i should put qualifiers on all my statements as i was attempting to not derail the thread into this.

Significant low cal diets, in which you are undereating your BMR for long periods of time (more than a few weeks) cause more muscle loss than simply keeping cals/protein high and attempting to minimize muscle loss. Ive read differing percentages but not sure how accurate they are. I do however have personal experience of pissing off a ton of muscle and less fat by following the whole "eat once a day for 600 cal rule". And i see it a ton on people who claim to eat 1000 cals a day and all that. Not only is this a stupid way to diet, it eats more muscle than fat (which is how we get skinny fat), and doesnt give us the "toned" look we are told to expect to see, which is my point. A 600 or whatever cal diet a day, doesnt give us the real results that we are told by society, media, etc... and i believe that to be the gist of this thread.

And in reality, we here on this board are a small percentage of people who want to preserve muscle. Most diets could give to shytes to preserving muscle. Most people just want to lose weight and dont care, so when they dont get the results they think they should, what happens???

[Miranda]

Significant low cal diets, in which you are undereating your BMR for long periods of time (more than a few weeks) cause more muscle loss than simply keeping cals/protein high and attempting to minimize muscle loss. Ive read differing percentages but not sure how accurate they are.

do you have any references for this? and also how much protein those people consume and do they resistance train whilst eating below BMR?

say you weigh 140lbs @ 25%. say you keep protein very high . . . 1.7 x LBM which would be 180 grams protein and 720 calories. add in EFAs, trace carbs + fats and the like, and you'd end up somewhere at ~900-1,100 calories.

i see it a ton on people who claim to eat 1000 cals a day and all that. Not only is this a stupid way to diet, it eats more muscle than fat

low calorie dieting doesn't equal stupid dieting. stupid dieting equals stupid dieting. what mechanism in the above example would cause you to lose 'more muscle than fat'?

you're a smart person, so instead of using these meaningless 'the toned look we expect to see' crowd pleasers, i'd rather see you post actual references to support your claims.

i understand you personally do not like low calorie dieting. apparently it's enough reason to tell everyone else they shouldn't diet on low calories. that's fine and you're entitled to your own opinion. you are not entitled to your own facts, though.

[rockangel]

do you have any references for this? and also how much protein those people consume and do they resistance train whilst eating below BMR?

say you weigh 140lbs @ 25%. say you keep protein very high . . . 1.7 x LBM which would be 180 grams protein and 720 calories. add in EFAs, trace carbs + fats and the like, and you'd end up somewhere at ~900-1,100 calories.



low calorie dieting doesn't equal stupid dieting. stupid dieting equals stupid dieting. what mechanism in the above example would cause you to lose 'more muscle than fat'?

you're a smart person, so instead of using these meaningless 'the toned look we expect to see' crowd pleasers, i'd rather see you post actual references to support your claims.

i understand you personally do not like low calorie dieting. apparently it's enough reason to tell everyone else they shouldn't diet on low calories. that's fine and you're entitled to your own opinion. you are not entitled to your own facts, though.

Its not that i just "dont like low cal diets" personally, its that for the most part, the majority of people do not have the experience and/or lifestyle to carry them off.

What I am trying to say, apparently inaccurately... is this
"As well, for people with a large amount of weight to lose, seeing a quick initial drop can provide some nice positive reinforcement to continue with the diet. Again, someone with 50-100 pounds to lose will likely be disappointed to drop only a pound or two in the first week. A large deficit diet may generate a scale drop (and some of this is water weight) of 7-10 pounds in the first week.

This can help with long-term adherence. Even a 2-4 week period with a large deficit to get some quick initial weight/fat loss before moving into a more moderate deficit approach can be beneficial here.

And, assuming the diet is set up appropriately (adequate protein) with the right kind of training (heavy weight training as discussed in Weight Training for Fat Loss, muscle loss actually turns out to be minimal or zero. I know this runs counter to the commonly held belief but it’s 100% true (as people following my The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook properly have demonstrated).

Certainly early research suggested that bigger deficits and very low caloric intakes led to more muscle loss but invariably they had inadequate protein and didn’t have weight training as part of the program. When someone is on 300 cal/day and half of that is carbs, well, that’s only 40 grams of protein. Of course muscle is lost, but not because calories are low per se; rather it’s because the diet is set up stupidly.

Which brings us to one of the cons: because of the massive deficit involved, most of it almost has to come from diet. Most can’t spend the hours per day to expend the types of calories inherent to large deficit dieting so it comes down mostly to diet.

And since so few calories are being consumed, this allows for very little food flexibility. My large deficit diets always end up being high-protein, low-carb and relatively low fat because that’s the only way to achieve the necessary deficits while providing sufficient protein. There simply isn’t room for much else.

From a long-term adherence standpoint, that can be a problem. Of course, my diets also always include free meals, refeeds and diet breaks to account for that but some can go crazy with such a limited number of foods available. Then again, large deficit diets are rarely meant to be used in the long-term in the first place and often the short-period of extreme restriction seems to ‘reset’ some food issues for people. They can lose their taste for a lot of the stuff that they used to over-eat previously and that can help in the long-term.

Which brings us to the issue of adherence. Again, contrary to popular belief, as I discussed in Is Rapid Fat Loss Right For You? there is actually some data suggesting better long-term weight loss with faster initial weight/fat loss.

But this is predicated on the diet being set up in certain specific ways: the diet must change long-term food patterns (meaning it should revolve around whole foods, not protein shakes), it must include exercise, it must work on behavioral aspects of eating. Not all large deficit diets are set up that way and the ones that aren’t are destined to fail. Diets based around living on shakes or what have you may generate amazing fat loss but they do nothing to help in the long-term, nothing has been changed about long-term eating habits to help the person know what to eat when the diet ends.

Of course, with a deficit that massive, it’s nearly impossible to completely offset the deficit without some pretty major screw ups in terms of food choices. Make no mistake, it can happen, people end up choosing high-protein foods that contain too many tagalong fats and carbs and this offsets the deficit. But even with that, the deficit ends up being pretty damn big and fat loss is pretty quick.

On that note, the severe restriction can be too much for people although, interestingly, many report that hunger actually isn’t a huge issue. Between the hunger blunting effect of massive amounts of protein and other issues, hunger often goes away. Odd but true and this certainly isn’t universal.

As well, long-term adherence can be an issue and returning to maintenance caloric intakes is a problem for some. This is actually a big part of why large deficit diets are best set up around whole foods. When the diet is based around protein shakes, the dieter has no idea how to ‘eat normally’ when the diet is over.

When the core of the diet is based around whole foods (e.g. lean protein, veggies, essential fats), the dieter simply adds other foods back to that core when the diet ends (or they choose to move to a more moderate deficit). Even there, some people simply can’t make large deficit diets work, they end up yo-yoing back and forth and should consider something else.

Of course, metabolically, large deficit dieting can have the biggest impact on metabolic parameters. But that’s the price to pay for faster rates of fat loss. As I’m fond of saying, life she is full of these little compromises. If you want to have a minimal impact on metabolic rate and such, use a smaller deficit; the price is simply slower fat loss and a longer diet.

Of course, properly scheduled refeeds and full diet breaks help to offset much of this so large deficit diets can still be made workable if you do it right. Again, they still aren’t for everyone.

Finally, large deficit diets have the greatest impact on training and ability to train. It actually turns out that too much activity with a large caloric deficit can cause more problems than it solves and, generally, training has to be massively curtailed during the diet. For people who simply love training, or must train a lot for whatever reason, large deficit diets are unworkable. They must do something else.

Then again, for some athletes, a 2 week block on a large deficit (with training severely cut back) can be used to let them get back to training and may have less of an impact on training than having to diet moderately for 10 straight week. This simply depends on the specifics."

Basically if you are eating say 600 cals a day, there is not enough room to put accurate protein in there to minimize muscle loss, and again, most people dont care to or know how to set up the diet so that they CAN eat that low and not end up screwing it up.... we have people on this site who, as they state above, still dont even get the calculating stickies thread.... so how do we figure that everyone out there is going to know what we do on this site??? or even want muscles...

My point and the point of the thread is that society doesnt tell us to "eat smart, train smart".

Our society revolves around the notion that to be thin is to be beautiful and that you should starve yourself to be thin and have the body you "want". Im not giving "crowd pleasing" terms, but this is my reality of what i deal with every day. Women who ask me how to get skinny, are they going to bulk up their legs if they do too much spin, will they lose more weight if they exercise on an empty stomach.... This is crap i hear day in and day out... from the skinny fat chick who told me its not "worth it to get fat just to get yucky muscles" (her exact words) to the obese client who claims not to lose weight eating only once a day, as if im judging her.

While a very low cal diet might work for a fitness competitor or someone from this site... its not going to be right or help 99.9 percent of people....

[birdiefu]

While a very low cal diet might work for a fitness competitor or someone from this site... its not going to be right or help 99.9 percent of people....

This. I agree that very low cal dieting can work and work well with very little lbm loss, it cannot be recommended to the general population. Unless I am sure that someone knows the why/how of what it going on, can track meticulously, will *not* tweak or "fix" the diet and training (important!) plan, and knows how to end the diet properly, I would never say to try it. However, with that said, vlc diets when done correctly are the bees knees if you want to shed fat ASAP.

Personally, I cut a large amount of fat pretty quickly my last cut (lost 30+ pounds in 12 weeks, including water tho), and as far as I can tell lost very little if any lbm. I also managed to increase my meet total pretty well only after 2 months of "normal" training, while also at a lower weight class and taking my previous injury into consideration.

Interestingly enough, probably the *worst* part of the vlc diet I was on was getting back to maintenance without turning into a binge monster. Being very, *very* strict with the post-diet phase is, I believe, almost more important that the diet itself. Cause whats the point if you put it all + more back on afterwards?

I have dieted various ways - very small deficit, moderate deficit, large deficit, and humongous (>50%) deficit. They all have their pluses and minuses, but I think starting simple is the best for beginners. Where they don't have to worry so much about how training and diet interact, refeeds, macro amounts to prevent lbm loss, eliminating cardio, etc.

[Miranda]

What I am trying to say, apparently inaccurately

i'd rather you posted references to support your claims that eating 1000 causes you to lose more muscle than fat . . . than copy and paste lyle's article.

if you actually took time to read what you copied, nowhere does he say low calorie dieting causes muscle loss if done adequately.

you've already repeated your points re not knowing how to set up a diet, society, pressure to be thin and other irrelevancies so you don't need to repeat them once more. those are psychological factors, not physiological.

i didn't ask you to blab about dieting psychology, or your clients. i asked about muscle loss. what mechanism causes muscle loss on low calories if the person resistance trains and has set up protein adequately, like the example i posted?

the fact that you *can* diet on low calories doesn't mean you *have to* diet on low calories. nor does it mean it's okay to state a personal opinion as an inaccurate fact to deter people from making their own informed choices.

[rockangel]

i'd rather you posted references to support your claims that eating 1000 causes you to lose more muscle than fat . . . than copy and paste lyle's article.

if you actually took time to read what you copied, nowhere does he say low calorie dieting causes muscle loss if done adequately.

you've already repeated your points re not knowing how to set up a diet, society, pressure to be thin and other irrelevancies so you don't need to repeat them once more. those are psychological factors, not physiological.

i didn't ask you to blab about dieting psychology, or your clients. i asked about muscle loss. what mechanism causes muscle loss on low calories if the person resistance trains and has set up protein adequately, like the example i posted?

the fact that you *can* diet on low calories doesn't mean you *have to* diet on low calories. nor does it mean it's okay to state a personal opinion as an inaccurate fact to deter people from making their own informed choices.

You keep wanting to assume things....

I am going by what the majority of people do, which is dieting stupidly on low cals.

You keep assuming that i am talking about someone who KNOWS how to diet correctly, which most people dont or we wouldnt be talking about undereating....

Again, most people arent concerned with muscle loss prevention.. they just want to be skinny, so they go cut cals and dont care about where they come from or why.. both because they dont know to, and because they dont care about muscle.

I am not talking about people on low cal diets that are set up by knowledgeable people who are concerned about muscle loss.

but if you need studies to prove that low cal diets cause muscle loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017
These data indicate that severe energy restriction to extremely low body energy reserves decreases significantly the concentrations of 3 anabolic pathways despite high protein intake. Monitoring of insulin and IGF-1 concentration is suggested to prevent losses in muscle mass in energy-restricted conditions. Other nutritional strategies might be needed to prevent possible catabolic effect during preparation of bodybuilders to competition.

http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
another that shows that cardio and low cals loses LBW faster than those who weight train...cardio on low cals is the norm for women...
And anther
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/57....full.pdf+html
showing that moderate restriction led to less loss of lbm wether it was aerobic or circit weight training...

[Miranda]

if you need studies to prove that low cal diets cause muscle loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017
These data indicate that severe energy restriction to extremely low body energy reserves decreases significantly the concentrations of 3 anabolic pathways despite high protein intake. Monitoring of insulin and IGF-1 concentration is suggested to prevent losses in muscle mass in energy-restricted conditions. Other nutritional strategies might be needed to prevent possible catabolic effect during preparation of bodybuilders to competition.


http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
another that shows that cardio and low cals loses LBW faster than those who weight train...cardio on low cals is the norm for women...

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/57....full.pdf+html
showing that moderate restriction led to less loss of lbm wether it was aerobic or circit weight training...

did you actually read the links you posted or did you merely skim them?

in one study, protein is set at 40% @ 800 calories. that's 80 grams. in another one, protein is 20% at 782 calories 'with minimum set at 45 grams'. no resistance training either. no sht you lose muscle on that.

the bodybuilders study sez hormones crash on low cals. where does it say they lost muscle?

i asked you to provide evidence that low calorie dieting causes muscle loss when the person resistance trains and protein is set adequately. not something else.

really, i'm starting to doubt your lack of reading comprehension. low calorie dieting doesn't cause muscle loss when done properly. you know it, too, but keep going past it with your assumptions that people are retards and don't know how to properly set up a diet.

perhaps if you enlightened folks and told them how to properly set up a diet instead of blabbing endlessly about who knows what, they might be able to weigh in the pros and cons of low calorie dieting for themselves

[rockangel]

Actually i was showing you studies that porve my point exactly, that when the low cal diet isnt done right it does result in muscle loss.

According to you, i should be giving people low cal diets and then lecturing them for hours on the finer points so they can "choose". Most people dont want to friggen listen to the science, if they did, then we wouldnt have 66% pf our population obese or overweight. Most people wont committ to learning the hard stuff, so why waste hours of time/effort overloading people with info??

What i do is start them out small and easy, those that show interest in the harder stuff, then i go into it. I dont confuse beginners just so YOU can make a point...

My methods are based off the fact that you can eat more and still lose weight/fat.. that you dont have to starve. My methods center more around changing lifestyle and learning to be be healthy without making things harder than they need to be. I dont train competitors, i dont work with athletes who are looking to get super lean, i work with regular people who dont always know a lot about nutrition, who have tried lots of diets before, who usually have little to no weight training experience, who may be undermuscled to begin with... it makes no sense to start them out with a vlc diet when they dont have the experience or often the lifestyle to carry it.

[Miranda]

Actually i was showing you studies that porve my point exactly, that when the low cal diet isnt done right it does result in muscle loss.

geez i don't understand why you keep moving the goalpost back and forth.

first low calorie dieting causes muscle loss. then you can minimise muscle loss by eating more protein (but oh noes it's not NO muscle loss!). then it's 1,000 calorie diet make you lose more muscle than fat. then it's oh if you do it wrong you will lose muscle.

what's your argument exactly?

do low calorie diets cause muscle loss? or do they spare muscle loss when you add in resistance training and eat enough protein?

which one is it? if it's the latter, what's the problem? too many retarded people around incapable of thinking for themselves?

and could you please provide studies that show low calorie dieting causes muscle loss when the person engages in resistance training and consumes adequate protein? i've heard you haemorrhage about everything else except the answer that question.

if you don't want to, or aren't going to, just say so. but no more self-indulgent posts about you & your clients & your methods thx.

i should be giving people low cal diets and then lecturing them for hours on the finer points so they can "choose". Most people dont want to friggen listen to the science, if they did, then we wouldnt have 66% pf our population obese or overweight. Most people wont committ to learning the hard stuff, so why waste hours of time/effort overloading people with info??

fat loss isn't rocket science and i don't see why you feel it should be.

but feel free to keep your clients uninformed and 'write them diets' so that they feel inclined to come back. while you could teach them a few simple basics.

[rockangel]

Ughh, i get the feeling you just want to argue and argue so your point will be right.
I have said it over and over different ways and i am trying to get through to you but it just isnt working.

Low cal diets that are not set up correctly, that have women eating below their BMR for long periods of time with no other consideration than to "lose weight" lose muscle mass. How many posts of other women do we need to see this is correct???
How many times do we see people who dont understand the calculating calories thread. I am sorry but if you havent grasped that much, you certainly are not ready for a well made low cal diet.

Diets like the UD 2.0 can be used but they need to be used when the person understands the material and training, and that is some advanced stuff. Its not for the newbie, its not for those who just want to lose weight, its not for the general population.
As birdie noted, before putting anyone on that kind of diet you need to be sure they are ready for it.
Most people are not ready for it, wont be able to understand without the basic foundation of nutrition, and dont have to do it.....

So my point is IF YOU DONT NEED TO UNDEREAT TO LOSE WEIGHT AND CAN EAT HIGHER CALS AND STILL LOSE THEN IT IS A WIN AND THAT MAKES VLC DIETS UNNECCESARY AND STUPID FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE>

Will some people like VLC, yes and thats fine, but most people dont need them and dont have to so really i dont see the point. Its so much more less complicated, but you keep trying to make it some huge freaing deal. You say its not roceket science but you keep making out to be this huge complicated mess that it isnt. You keep up this myth that VLC diets are gods gift to weight loss, and while proper ones can be beneifical in some circumstances, you dont give it to newbs or people who are not ready for it.

I honestly dont know any other way to say it, you just want to argue, turn the whole thread into something completely way off what it was intended. I gave my opinon and beliefs, that women tend to undereat, its not necessary and the bs and myths out there that the general public follows does not give the body look that they want.

I have had several of my clients go on to be instructors, PT's and nutritionists themselves, so no i dont give them diets so they keep coming back, i help them realize that this can change their lives but it doesnt have to be overwhelming and hopless....
But you do you and i will continue with my practices because i see how they work..

[Miranda]

lulz now you're dragging UD2 that isn't a VLCD into it?

but you made yourself clear i suppose. although i wouldn't know how to lose fat if one doesn't 'under' eat but that's just unnecessary and shtty nitpicking on my part please continue . . .

[rockangel]

lulz now you're dragging UD2 that isn't a VLCD into it?

but you made yourself clear i suppose. although i wouldn't know how to lose fat if one doesn't 'under' eat but that's just unnecessary and shtty nitpicking on my part please continue . . .

Actually i consider a lot of what you say ****ty nitpicking, and not just in this thread... again you just want to argue....

[Miranda]

Actually i consider a lot of what you say ****ty nitpicking

yeah, and i consider you to be intellectually dishonest.

this is the 3rd (or 4th) thread regarding VLCDs where you've flatly thrown in IF YOU EAT 1,200 CALORIES YOUR MUSCLES WILL FALL OFF sort of sht.

if you were some random numbskull dingbat you could be excused for not knowing better. but you DO know better. you KNOW that calorie intake per se does not spare muscle on a diet. resistance training and protein intake do. the latter is not bound to any set number.

yet you feel entitled to throw out factually incorrect blanket statements without bothering to qualify further. and why's that? because you yourself ms rockangel do not consider VLCDs to be useful. hence the whole of the universe shall follow your lead. that means if you knowingly have to lie to people to perpetuate your personal opinion as a fact, you will lie to people. that's an extremely shtty attitude to have if you ask me.

oh, and you also make those statements apparently because in your view most people won't be able to understand the hardcore rocket science of low calorie dieting in the first place. it's way too hard for them to calculate adequate protein intake. it's way too difficult for them to choose between 1 ('low calorie') and 2 ('moderate calorie') to make up their own minds.

so why bother teach them anything? YOUR MUSCLES WILL FALL OFF ON LOW CALORIE DIETS is so much easier to understand for the retards now isn't it. who cares if it isn't true?