fat loss confusion - Page 4 - JP Fitness Forums

Meagain · 10-02-2006, 12:53 AM

Workoutgirl - I'm interested to hear your progress now that you are trying to drop. It's just that I WAS eating more before the diet and one would think I'd lose at least a pound the first week? That's what puzzles me no matter what. I've never experienced that before.
My thinking for myself that my lack of exercise was screwing me up more than anything.

I'm looking forward to hearing if you lose weight on higher calories.

workoutgirl · 10-02-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meagain

Workoutgirl - I'm interested to hear your progress now that you are trying to drop. It's just that I WAS eating more before the diet and one would think I'd lose at least a pound the first week? That's what puzzles me no matter what. I've never experienced that before.
My thinking for myself that my lack of exercise was screwing me up more than anything.

I'm looking forward to hearing if you lose weight on higher calories.

Im done overfeeding and I didnt lose weight. I gained. The point is, I jump started my metabolism, and so now that i am cutting, I should start losing again, and be able to go lower than what I was when I started overfeeding. Does this make sense?. Lets say I started at 130lbs, then I overfed and got to 137lbs. Now that Im cutting, I shouldnt plateau at 130lbs, perhaps I will be able to get to 125lbs.......this is just an example, but this is the point of overfeeding.
In addition, we shouldnt "diet" longer than 12 weeks without breaking in between for 2 weeks at maintanence.

Ill update you on my weight loss progress. So far lost about 2lbs in 2 weeks.

Newbie · 10-02-2006, 08:55 AM

Personally, I lost 16lbs in 6 weeks. I took 3 days off the 'diet' every 11 days. On the 'diet', I didn't over eat. But, I ate more often during the day. I ate 4 smaller meals, rather than 3 bigger meals. This seemed to keep my metabolism going. I never ate to fullness, but I didn't go hungry either. If I was hungry, I ate. I just always tried to leave a little room for more, but not eat more. Worked great. Fat melted off.

So, for me, it wasn't over eating to loose. It was eating more often that helped me loose.

OldGuy · 10-02-2006, 09:00 AM

Craig Ballantyne has a good post in his TT blog about this.

http://www.turbulencetraining.blogspot.com/

workoutgirl · 10-02-2006, 10:45 AM

Right, by cutting I am still eating, 5-6 meals per day, just smaller meals, therefore a lower caloric content. For me, average fat loss calories are around 1400. I cycle, alternating between low, med and high days. Low days are around 1200, Med 1500, High 2000. This averages about 1450. If I follow this, I will lose weight definitely.

When I was "overfeeding" to reset my metabolism, I was eating over 2000 calories every day.

ljk · 10-02-2006, 06:13 PM

So if you could lose weight on 800 cals and do the weight training to counteract muscle loss, why wouldnt you recommend it? Is it because people would get too hungry and end up giving up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwyn

I'm not sure I follow you - 800 calorie liquid diets will ALWAYS result in fat loss (they use this approach in obese patients to prep for surgery).
I don't think that's a contradiction to conventional thinking at all. Eating zero calories will also cause massive fat loss. And the 800 calorie diet DID NOT result in the retention of muscle - that was a weight training program that caused that.

The only "contradiction" per se is that the fitness industry has said that going that low in calories will cause a loss of lean tissue, glycogen and water along with the fat loss, and therefore lower metabolism.
And it does.

However, the addition of a basic (and in my opinion very poorly designed) weight training program seems to prevent the muscle loss. And if you prevent muscle loss - you can maintain metabolism.

The take home message from my post has been missed. It is NOT the total calories in that example that I want you to be concerned with, it is the metabolism boosting/sparing effects of resistance exercise (for years we have been told that aerobics is the best way to burn fat - it's just not true).

Incidentally I would never recommend going that low in calories.

workoutgirl · 10-03-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljk

So if you could lose weight on 800 cals and do the weight training to counteract muscle loss, why wouldnt you recommend it? Is it because people would get too hungry and end up giving up?

I would think that is what the problem is. 800 calories is very little food,and very unsustainable. Unless you were cycling 800 calories with higher calories other days, I dont see how anyone can live on such a low intake. And your body does get used to low calories too, and once you start eating more, you gain weight. Personally, I prefer to excercise alot, and eat more, and save hte low calories for a time in my life when I cant excercise that much.

hulk · 10-03-2006, 08:08 AM

ljk - I asked the same question earlier in this thread: Why not? I didn't get an answer.

This wasn't a week-long 800 calorie diet. It was 3 MONTHS! That's plenty long enough for a cutting routine.

Newbie · 10-03-2006, 08:44 AM

It's because your body, sensing a food shortage, slows down your metabolism for fear of not being able to keep enough energy to sustain your workout. Therefore, slow metabolism at rest, no weight loss and no muscle gain. On 800 calories a day with workout, your body can barely afford to repair 'muscle damage', much less build new muscle.

hulk · 10-03-2006, 08:54 AM

Take another look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Their findings did not support the ability to grow muscle on this program - only to maintain it.

The study did show that RMR decreased. But, there was weight loss and retention of lean muscle mass.

Newbie · 10-03-2006, 10:35 AM

Those are merely statistical results of an experiment. That doesn't mean it's either healthy nor recommended. There was no correlation of the resutls to recommended diet or exercise programs. There was no analysis of the results that provided a conclusion in regards to health, diet, fitness or lifestyle changes. In fact, there was no recommendation at all. These were physicians looking to see what numbers would be produced under the influence of very specific parameters. This is by no means a recommended program.

I prefer to go with a renowned expert on Health and Fitness, Craig Ballantyne:

"Don't starve yourself. Cutting calories too much is one of the worst things you can do to your body."

hulk · 10-03-2006, 11:08 AM

You're right. There was no analysis of the statistics. But there was a conclusion:

"CONCLUSION: The addition of an intensive, high volume resistance training program resulted in preservation of LBW and RMR during weight loss with a VLCD."

If, after reading that, we're going to be told not to do it, I'd like to know why. I'm sorry, but "it's the worst thing you can do to your body" isn't good enough.

This diet and exercise program worked for these 20 people, and I haven't seen any statistical data to support a recommendation not to do it.

I'm not saying that there isn't any, I just wish that Alwyn (or anyone) would share it.

OldGuy · 10-03-2006, 11:47 AM

So do it.

hulk · 10-03-2006, 12:00 PM

I was waiting for that...

I guess you don't know either?

OldGuy · 10-03-2006, 12:14 PM

As Alwyn has said several times during this thread, the muscle retention had nothing to do with the caloric intake in the study. It had to do with the resistance training that was done.

Also, your mention of the Kleiner study as a contradiction is not the case. Kleiner's study had to do with "strength trained athletes". The studies were done with beginners. Different conditions.

Newbie · 10-03-2006, 12:42 PM

For starters, VLCDs are intended to produce rapid weight loss at the start of a weight loss program in patients with a BMI greater than 30. Use of VLCDs in people with a BMI of 27 to 30 should be reserved for those who have medical complications resulting from their overweight. Otherwise, adverse consequences can occur.

If you're doing it for cutting, one of the first consequences of a reduced calorie diet during the cutting phase is vitamin and nutritional deficiencies. If you're only ingesting 800 cals a day, you're probably cutting some important food group out of your diet or not getting enough vitamins and minerals out of what you are eating.

Also, for all of you guys out there, with such a small amount of caloric intake, your body WILL start to shut down in other areas, as well. Particularly, hormones. And usually one of the first hormones to decrease in production is testosterone and prolactin. At least, they are significantly lower during a weight loss phase than a bulking or maintenance phase. This is due to disruption in the normal functioning of the pituitary gland due to anti-reproduction hormones that develop during a negative energy balance. Of course, once energy intake is normalized again, these hormones return to normal. But I, for one, don't want to go there; if you know what I mean.

Also, VLCDs can also affect the immune system. With decreased calories, there is an increased susceptibility to infection due to reduced cell mediated defense systems. The body stops producing white blood cells as effectively and therefore has less defenders against invading microorganisms. Getting sick would be very detrimental to my workout routine. But, I guess I could potentially loose more weight faster.

Gallstones could be a possible consequence of VLCDs, due to increased cholesterol levels in the gallbladder and decreased ability to contract and expel bile, as a result of rapid weight loss. I concede, however, that this would probably be more common in obese people, where there is a higher incidence of gallstones to start with.

In addition, while the study "resulted in preservation of LBW", that doesn't not mean that there was no loss of muscle tissue; which there almost assuredly was. Since your heart is a muscle, prolonged starvation will weaken it and interfere with its normal rhythms. A VERY good reason to avoid VLCDs, unless medically necessary (read: obesity, diabetes, cutting is not reason enough).

Finally, what does a person do with solid food after prolonged period of deprivation on a liquid diet?

It is important to keep in mind the big picture when devising our diets and remember that the long term affects on our health are more important than whether we loose those last 3 pounds before the end of the month.

hulk · 10-03-2006, 01:17 PM

Newbie - Thanks. I appreciate that you took the time to write that post. You brought up issues that I hadn't considered. That's what I was looking for.

Old Guy - I know that's what Alwyn said. And Susan Kleiner didn't define "strength trained athlete" any more than the VLCD study provided a description of the participants' physical condition when they started the program. So that's a very difficult comparison to make.

workoutgirl · 10-03-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newbie

For starters, VLCDs are intended to produce rapid weight loss at the start of a weight loss program in patients with a BMI greater than 30. Use of VLCDs in people with a BMI of 27 to 30 should be reserved for those who have medical complications resulting from their overweight. Otherwise, adverse consequences can occur.

If you're doing it for cutting, one of the first consequences of a reduced calorie diet during the cutting phase is vitamin and nutritional deficiencies. If you're only ingesting 800 cals a day, you're probably cutting some important food group out of your diet or not getting enough vitamins and minerals out of what you are eating.

Also, for all of you guys out there, with such a small amount of caloric intake, your body WILL start to shut down in other areas, as well. Particularly, hormones. And usually one of the first hormones to decrease in production is testosterone and prolactin. At least, they are significantly lower during a weight loss phase than a bulking or maintenance phase. This is due to disruption in the normal functioning of the pituitary gland due to anti-reproduction hormones that develop during a negative energy balance. Of course, once energy intake is normalized again, these hormones return to normal. But I, for one, don't want to go there; if you know what I mean.

Also, VLCDs can also affect the immune system. With decreased calories, there is an increased susceptibility to infection due to reduced cell mediated defense systems. The body stops producing white blood cells as effectively and therefore has less defenders against invading microorganisms. Getting sick would be very detrimental to my workout routine. But, I guess I could potentially loose more weight faster.

Gallstones could be a possible consequence of VLCDs, due to increased cholesterol levels in the gallbladder and decreased ability to contract and expel bile, as a result of rapid weight loss. I concede, however, that this would probably be more common in obese people, where there is a higher incidence of gallstones to start with.

In addition, while the study "resulted in preservation of LBW", that doesn't not mean that there was no loss of muscle tissue; which there almost assuredly was. Since your heart is a muscle, prolonged starvation will weaken it and interfere with its normal rhythms. A VERY good reason to avoid VLCDs, unless medically necessary (read: obesity, diabetes, cutting is not reason enough).

Finally, what does a person do with solid food after prolonged period of deprivation on a liquid diet?

It is important to keep in mind the big picture when devising our diets and remember that the long term affects on our health are more important than whether we loose those last 3 pounds before the end of the month.

Very nice Newbie......are you a medical doctor? You sound like one. Thanks again for the feedback.
One question for you. I read somewhere that studies using VLCD on rats have shown to increase their life span. Can you explain this study, if you know about it?