Topic.
|
-
07-07-2008, 03:01 PM #1
-
07-07-2008, 03:06 PM #2
It doesn't. Lot's of people will try and tell you about 'starvation mode' where you body drastically drops it's metabolic rate to stop weight loss. While this does occur to some extent, it's not as large as people make out.
Very low calorie diets, in the region of 800-1200 calories a day, are used extremely effectively in the clinical world to rapidly drop weight from severely obese patients.
The bad thing about very low calorie is you will lose a larger proportion of muscle mass than is desirable. So for a person who is just overweight, having a slight calorie deficit is more beneficial to preserve lean mass and drop fat. Also a slow weight loss is more sustainable in the long term.
-
07-07-2008, 03:37 PM #3
like the above poster mentioned.. it does cause weight loss.. but includes lean body mass loss and fat.
so if you like the anorexic or skinny fat look then go for it, just remember that if you stop the severe calorie restriction then you'll probably gain all the weight back and then some.. but as fat.. the muscle won't come back as quickly if at all).. so in the end you'll be fatter than before at the same weight (or heavier).
-
07-07-2008, 03:49 PM #4
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 40
- Posts: 1,297
- Rep Power: 343
-
-
07-07-2008, 03:53 PM #5
-
07-07-2008, 06:53 PM #6
-
07-07-2008, 06:57 PM #7
-
07-07-2008, 07:28 PM #8
It does cause weight loss, but it also causes muscle loss. I know this because i've experienced it without even releasing. I wanted to lose weight so bad last year, I went from 170 to 158 and looked WORSE than I looked at 170 because I was eating way way way too little and running anyhwere from 4-13 miles 3x a week while training for a half marathon.
-
-
07-07-2008, 08:23 PM #9
-
07-07-2008, 09:41 PM #10
-
07-07-2008, 09:52 PM #11
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Location: Eureka, California, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 76
- Rep Power: 203
I put myself on a 1000 calorie a day diet and lost 90 lbs in 6 months. Yes I lost some muscle, but I by no means look anywhere near anorexic, the majority of weight lost was fat. and I now eat a 2500 calorie diet (on a cut) and the weight is dropping about 2 lbs a week. when I did eat more than needed, my weight did not drastically balloon up like you suggest, I put on weight by the amount I ate and I lose by how much I don't eat. My muscle that I did lose is coming back just nicely.
Think before you post broscience.
-
07-07-2008, 10:59 PM #12
-
-
07-07-2008, 11:15 PM #13
- Join Date: Sep 2007
- Location: Eureka, California, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 76
- Rep Power: 203
-
07-07-2008, 11:31 PM #14
- Join Date: May 2008
- Location: Virginia, United States
- Age: 50
- Posts: 624
- Rep Power: 215
Yeah, what people said on muscle loss. The issue being of course that it is hard as hell to add muscle mass, much harder then it is to lose it in my opinion, and although the canned advice is "cut first, worry about bulking later" given the amount of time it takes me to add new muscle mass I'd rather lose weight slowly and not risk catabolism then just drop 50 pounds in two months and then worry about bulking.
The thing is everyone has different bodies, and you have to cut long enough to figure out what works for you. I can run a 1200 calories deficit and not drop any muscle as long as I take in enough protein, I've found. Any more than that and I start feeling weak in the gym. The key for me is to journal and have a good database of information so that you can conduct informed analysis on what your body can support. Just because some other guy can only run a 500 calorie deficit before dropping into starvation mode doesn't mean that is what will happen to you, you got to figure it out based on your own physiology."Show me a thoroughly satisfied man and I will show you a failure." - Thomas Edison
4/6/2008: 237 lbs, 25-27% BF
6/20/2008: 218 lbs, 17%-ish BF
6/28/2008: 214 lbs, 16%-ish BF
7/11/2008: 212 lbs, 15%-ish BF
7/17/2008: 210 lbs, 14-15%-ish BF
9/8/2008: 202 lbs, 11-12% BF
01/10/2009: 210 lbs, 14% BF
11/17/2009: 232 lbs, 18% BF
No mas bulking
-
07-07-2008, 11:38 PM #15
-
07-08-2008, 01:57 AM #16
-
-
07-08-2008, 02:31 AM #17
-
07-08-2008, 08:15 AM #18
-
07-08-2008, 09:02 AM #19
-
07-08-2008, 09:37 AM #20
-
-
07-08-2008, 09:49 AM #21
-
07-08-2008, 01:40 PM #22
-
07-08-2008, 01:44 PM #23
- Join Date: May 2008
- Location: Union, Maine, United States
- Age: 57
- Posts: 7,601
- Rep Power: 10499
Logical - I provided a LOT of protein and not a lot of carbs. My body went looking for fat sources & found a huge, unlimited supply - me! Temper that with all the circuit style work I was doing (a LOT of bodyweight, low dumbbell & resistance bands) and it came off. I think my After picture (and my most recent "Spiderman" one) shows I didn't come out of it "skinny fat" or depleted.
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure"
-
07-08-2008, 01:52 PM #24
-
-
07-08-2008, 03:54 PM #25
-
07-08-2008, 04:06 PM #26
-
07-08-2008, 04:35 PM #27
-
07-08-2008, 06:09 PM #28
- Join Date: May 2008
- Location: Union, Maine, United States
- Age: 57
- Posts: 7,601
- Rep Power: 10499
-
-
07-08-2008, 09:02 PM #29
- Join Date: Jul 2006
- Location: Lake Havasu City, AZ
- Age: 47
- Posts: 2,980
- Rep Power: 289
That's not a de-facto standard requirement of low carb dieting.
Increasing fat intake is a way for some people to make their restricted diet more tolerable because fat is filling and makes food taste better, but if the greatest calorie deficit is required, lowered fat intake along with lowered carb intake and plenty of protein is the way to go. This is what's known as protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) where between increased protein intake, lifting and minimal cardio work, muscle mass is spared while fat is stripped away at lightning speed.
-
07-08-2008, 09:25 PM #30
Bookmarks