Almost no loss of LBM on just 500KCAL a day. How is this possible,

[Doel]

At the beginning of this year a co-worker started with a bizar diet, of only 500 KCAL a day. This so called cambridge diet contains only shakes and a soup. In totaal 500 KCAL.

I called it ridiculous and warned him it would destroy his metabolism and that he would no doubt loose al lot of muscle mass. Now 3 months later he showed me the results. He lost a lot of weight, and just a litte bit of LBM.

How is this possible? It contradicts everything I have been told about large deficits. How can it be that we are worried about >1000 kcal deficits, while people with only 500 kcal loose alsmost non LBM?

[dday39]

because measurements of body fat and LBM are inaccurate
I'm sure whoever gave him that diet is also who provided the results


loose = not tight
lose = opposite of find

[Tommy W.]

As you lose fat you LBM ratio goes up even though you're losing LBM. LBM is much more than muscle

[scots40]

As you lose fat you LBM ratio goes up even though you're losing LBM. LBM is much more than muscle

This. LBM is not the same as lean muscle mass

[Chicago1287]

I think muscle loss is extremely exaggerated on this forum. The reason being that people think they have more muscle than what they actually have. I'm going to copy and paste what I've said before:

What do you all think about the study of the soldiers that showed no muscle loss after literally starving themselves for a few months? I believe they started out at around 14% bodyfat and got to low single digits before muscle loss happened. On top of that, their caloric intake + activity practically brought their deficit down to practically 0 calories a day.

Here's the full text: http://jap.physiology.org/content/88/5/1820.full

[csb5731]

I think muscle loss is extremely exaggerated on this forum. The reason being that people think they have more muscle than what they actually have. I'm going to copy and paste what I've said before:

What do you all think about the study of the soldiers that showed no muscle loss after literally starving themselves for a few months? I believe they started out at around 14% bodyfat and got to low single digits before muscle loss happened. On top of that, their caloric intake + activity practically brought their deficit down to practically 0 calories a day.

Here's the full text: http://jap.physiology.org/content/88/5/1820.full

One: Special forces soldiers aren't body builders, and certainly aren't bodybuilders near their genetic limits.
Two: Two, these elite special forces guys almost certainly have better "athletic genes" than your typical guy. I have to imagine that will help a bit.
Three: This is a short term study. These guys weren't cutting for months while their lifts dropped. I'd argue it's not just the fact that they got really lean before muscle tissue started getting lost (and it muscle catabolism was forced to provide for energy needs), but also a function of time at decreased intensity. I can lose muscle in a couple month by working out half-assed or not, even if I am not remotely dieting.
Four: These guys have some serious adrenaline keeping them active/exercising, because they are ordered to. Most IRL crash-dieters turn into couch potatoes because they don't have Sergeant Slaughter telling them they better get there ass in gear or they are screwed.

I agree that the probability of significant muscle loss is much, much lower than what a lot of posters seem worried about, but we aren't exactly comparing apples to apples when that study is applied to normal people or bodybuilders.

And simple reality is I haven't ever seen anybody IRL crash diet from fat f*ck to ripped muscular bastard, because they always quit early and get fat again.

The OP is remarkably lacking in detail, too. How was lbm measured? Was this guy jacked or untrained? How lean did he get?

[esheg]

I lost a lot of strenght cutting for the past 9 weeks. However, I doubt any muscle was lost. I have my diet in check and I certainly don't feel any smaller.

[csb5731]

Sup.

I don't consider the internet "IRL", not because I don't believe your awesome transformation, it's just the sample size is enormous and there will always be some extreme outliers. Hell, I know people on the internet who have won the Powerball, but I wouldn't plan my retirement on lottery tickets just because of that.

But I do know plenty of fatties who go on 500-800K/day diets and are never successful. Like most of the crash diet logs in in the logs subforum, <30 days.

I am not against dieting REALLY hard, it works IF you can stick to it and function like you need to function in the real world, but most non-obscenely obese people quite simply can't function properly on VLC for any length of time. I know I can't.

[JaredPunch]

Muscle loss is overrated
It's pretty common on bodybuilders, even juicing bodybuilders, who are near their genetic limit trying to be as ripped as possible
So it was a common concern in "muscle magazines" somehow it was extrapolated to normal gym goers and suddenly every weekend lifter was afraid of losing muscles if they didn't eat protein every 3 hours and didn't lift everyday or did cardio.

Losing a relevant of LBM would lead to a massive loss of strength and not just lifting strenght but even everyday life strenght. A person used to being much stronger would definitely feel the effect as in aching muscles, more effort to lift or push stuff and so on.

So if OP friend had enough fat to lose, not so much extra muscles and a not so dangerously low protein intake I can see how his body could smartly burn most of his bodyfat rather than muscles (since both everyday activities plus lifting would lead to the maintenance of it) Three months is not that long, people who are not even overweight can survive longer than that without eating (but they would lose muscle)

The proof is in the pudding and if OP could sustain a 500 calorie diet without feeling hungry, fatigued, sore it means his body was indeed thriving on a diet of bodyfat

[Tommy W.]

The muscle loss is predominantly from lack of heavy training rather than actual calorie deficiency. If you can keep hammering your weight workouts in a huge defecit you would stay reasonably ok but unfortunately that is difficult

[costahobo]

I would call bull**** that he actually stuck to 500 calories a day. Limiting yourself to just 500 calories is HARD to do. Your hormones control this a lot. While some of us like to think that we have ironclad willpower, we'll eventually give into hunger. And then binge like crazy.

[stingray72]

I would call bull**** that he actually stuck to 500 calories a day. Limiting yourself to just 500 calories is HARD to do. Your hormones control this a lot. While some of us like to think that we have ironclad willpower, we'll eventually give into hunger. And then binge like crazy.

I agree with this.

[Tommy W.]

Haha my buddy John lived on joints and 1 Jamba juice a day while he remodeled his house and lost 30 lbs and looked fantastic.

[Chicago1287]

One: Special forces soldiers aren't body builders, and certainly aren't bodybuilders near their genetic limits.
Two: Two, these elite special forces guys almost certainly have better "athletic genes" than your typical guy. I have to imagine that will help a bit.
Three: This is a short term study. These guys weren't cutting for months while their lifts dropped. I'd argue it's not just the fact that they got really lean before muscle tissue started getting lost (and it muscle catabolism was forced to provide for energy needs), but also a function of time at decreased intensity. I can lose muscle in a couple month by working out half-assed or not, even if I am not remotely dieting.
Four: These guys have some serious adrenaline keeping them active/exercising, because they are ordered to. Most IRL crash-dieters turn into couch potatoes because they don't have Sergeant Slaughter telling them they better get there ass in gear or they are screwed.

I agree that the probability of significant muscle loss is much, much lower than what a lot of posters seem worried about, but we aren't exactly comparing apples to apples when that study is applied to normal people or bodybuilders.

And simple reality is I haven't ever seen anybody IRL crash diet from fat f*ck to ripped muscular bastard, because they always quit early and get fat again.

The OP is remarkably lacking in detail, too. How was lbm measured? Was this guy jacked or untrained? How lean did he get?

I agree with your points 100%. Im on my phone so i cant look at the study but i could have sworn they cut for 20 weeks or something like that. However, my main point is as long as people keep lifting and not half ass it as you're saying, they shouldn't have muscle loss like everybody claims on here. The soldiers got those results because they had to. If us average people have the willpower and actually TRY to lift hard and stick to a caloric deficit, it can be done too whether we have freak genetics or not.

My main issue with this whole muscle loss thing is as soon as you tell someone on here that you're eating less than what's recommended, you get attacked by "metabolic damage", "muscle loss" or "starvation mode" responses. Do you know how many people on here gave me **** for eating 1700 calories a day. Responses like "a male your age should be eating no less than 2000 calories a day". The -300 automatically causes muscle loss? Come on...

[Divall213]

Doubt he was on 500

But the moral is muscle loss is overrated..

Think of it, what is the 'general remedy' to keeping muscle loss away.

Up your protein content, sometimes subtantially and what does this entail? Well, a very noticeable increase for all supp companies that sell any relevant product.

The magazins get cuts/ profits off promoting stuff so they promote high protein, esp on a deficit to increase sales further.

This isn't even taking into account how people over reccomend protein when in a huge surplus (bulking). Huge being 500+

I could go on

[scots40]

Haha my buddy John lived on joints and 1 Jamba juice a day while he remodeled his house and lost 30 lbs and looked fantastic.

Might give this a try