too much UB scandal past few days i forgot about this thread...foal has posted a lot of what i felt about the responses and pretty much did a better job of it...to the guy who said i cant read bc i don't know about the Minnesota Experiment, please see post #4 in this thread

while there were a lot of bad things that happened to the people that starved themselves, almost all of those consequences were mental and i saw no signs of the body storing fat

Once the caloric restriction ended, they ended up having a higher percentage body fat than before the caloric restriction.

Here's some more info on the Minnesota study: http://www.possibility.com/wiki/inde...SemiStarvation

Keep in mind this in reference to a diet of 1500 cals, not actual fasting.

I was the person who said you couldn't read, and I still say you can't read if you aren't going to look more at the study that Lyle is talking about.

Sure, they weight less - get a gastric bypass or lap band if you want to weight less. Those are both terrible ideas with bad physical side effects.

Also, for another study look at the recent Isreali diet study. Over two years of eating 1500 or 1800 calories the low fat (30%) group lost 7.x pounds. Huge restriction, but very little lose of weight.

Note: The Minnesota study used healthy, both physically and mentally, lean men. However similar effects have been found using obese individuals. There have been some studies showing that these effects can be lessened or even eliminated by changing the composition of the macro nutrients.

Some thoughts I've had regarding OP, based on reading various studies and just plain guessing and making things up.

Caloric restriction will cause weight loss along with slowing of metabolism. Roughly at similar rates. Depending on the amount of restriction you'll either end up at a plateau or maybe just die of malnutrition. But as long as you maintain the restriction you probably won't gain weight. And there is evidence that long term caloric restriction may contribute to longevity, although with some sacrifices involved.

The problem appears when the caloric restriction is ended. Generally, when this happens the subject will gain weight, usually in excess of the starting weight while their metabolism is still slowed down. Once everything is in balance again they'll return to the starting weight. You can google yoyo dieting for info on this. Additionally, almost every study available will show that dieting (caloric restriction) is a huge failure as far as long term success.

So if someone is looking to lose weight and body fat for a short period of time, for example bodybuilders, spring breakers, actors, caloric restriction makes perfect sense. But what OP is proposing, lose a lot real quick with a drastic cut in calories, and then just maintain isn't going to work. And if it does he'll be the exception rather than the rule.

The solution? Who knows? As far as I can tell, nutrition science is a pretty big mess and nothing has been proven to work. But most experts and writers agree, whether they're vegans or carnivores, that a big culprit is refined carbohydrates. And if you read up on the research on insulin and how it affects your body this makes a lot of sense.

Any way that's my understanding of what's going on. I'd like to see other's viewpoints on this and especially what I'm wrong about.

also iirc 30-50% of daily caloric metabolism involves digestion, so it seems common sense if you aren't eating there's a lot less metabolism going on.

yes, yes there is

First, I would like to say I joined this discussion just to be a jerk to the know it all fit jerk. Who seems only concerned about ragging on a heavy person. Where is the relevant information that you keep speaking of if you know so much about being obese and the best ways to lose weight, and starvation mode not being good for an obese persons. Submit a real response. That's the only way to make anyone on a post look stupid. I don't get you. A question was asked and your reply was so hostile. I wonder what you have against obese people. You don't sound that intelligent. A intelligent person would know that an obese body differs from a fit body. down to the heart and veins, and not much research has been done on starvation mode with obese people.

Weird bump.

This thread is very old and the entire forum was much less educated not so long ago. I think a lot of people would probably change some of the things that they said.

I was just reading this, taken from http://www.reactiv.co.nz/

How dieting makes you fatter

An easily made mistake when dieting is thinking that all weight lost is fat. In truth diets usually cause a loss in fat, water AND muscle. After dieting and back onto normal eating some people are mystified as to why they pack on flab fast.

Why does this happen? Calories are burned by muscle. When you lose muscle your calorie needs become reduced. Metabolism is slowed. This means the amount of calories you used to have to eat to keep weight constant is now less. If you eat above this new, lower calorie threshold you gain fat.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

Jim crash diets for a month and drops 8.5kg. He’s stoked. Of this weight loss 5kg is fat, 2.5kg is muscle, and 1kg is water. When at rest every kg of your muscle burns around 100 calories per day (it burns even more when you exercise). Because Jim lost 2.5kg of muscle his metabolism has dropped and his calorie requirements are now 250 calories less per day than when he started. He used to eat 2800 calories per day, now anything over 2550 calories per day will cause him to gain fat.

Happy with being 8.5kg’s lighter and ignoring the muscle loss Jim goes back to eating the amount he used to before his diet. With his slower metabolism and eating 250 calories per day more than he needs means he’ll gain fat at the rate of 1kg per month. Checking in with Jim 12 months later he’s gained a whopping 12kg of fat!

Jim would have been better off not dieting at all. Feeling desperate he decides the best option is to hit the diet again. Using the same old approach he experiences similar muscle loss and ends up damaging his metabolism even more. He’s lowered his calorie threshold by a further 250 calories. Now that’s plunged to 2300 calories per day - a huge 500 calories under where he was before the first diet.

Imagine the scenario after another 3 or 4 more of these crash diets? This cumulative metabolism erosion is how dieting can make you fatter.

Fail.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9...by200142a.html

There's a big difference between being fat and unhealthy to thin and unhealthy to thin and healthy. I don't think anyone is going to say that eating 1k calories below your BMR (initially... maybe?) is going to do anything other than grind down your metabolism and at best turn you into thin and unhealthy. You're going to look like Jared off the Subway commercials and its lolz barf.

What he is doing is just mild anorexia, couple in some issues with vitamin deficiency and strain on your internal organs and you have a significantly more dangerous situation than just eating like a normal person and doing something active.

I always feel bad when replying to Thremp because I'm pretty certain I'll just get some kind of "STFU noob" response like the twelve year old kids that play halo 3 all day seem to enjoy but...

Lets say all I eat is processed garbage all day long and thus need, say 3200 calories/ day in maintainence.

What exactly is the problem with switching to eating well (tons of veggies, lean protein etc) and eating 2200 cals/day of good, healthy stuff instead?

The oft-maligned figure of 3500 cals/ pound of fat is still *somewhat* accurate and so long as you are doing strength training and eating lots of protein, where is the major issue?

1k deficit is still only 2 lbs a week.

Or, are you saying that we should eat, say, 500 cals less than normal per day and then just ramp up the exercise for the rest?

Real data and scientific analysis would be great to see. And yes, I've tried google, but everythign I have found says that having a 1k cals deficit isn't an issue, and indeed many things seem to recommend it.

Sharpie,

That is fine.

Say you were eating 3200... And then moved to 900 per day like OP describes. That is what is bogus. If you're very obese you can do virtually anything, much like a sedentary person hitting the gym. But if you do enough supersets of Smith Machine squats and leg extensions with bad form... You're setting yourself up for injury. Same with becoming basically anorexic.

PS: I think you misread the deficit for the total amount of calories being consumed. Depending on how obese you are is what controls your deficit. Like someone at 12% bodyfat can't sustain 7k deficit weekly from their previous maintenance. Their body is gonna downregulate their metabolism and do other freakish stuff.

Great. Thank you - that was very helpful.

I guess it's more of a proportion thing than a hard number. As you mentioned, I can't see someone who needs 1800/day surviving on 800 for very long, but 3200 to 2200 seems a lot more manageable.

I am doing this amount now and (after 5 days, so tiny sample size) have yet to be hungry. Spacing the meals out seems to help a lot with this.

Thanks again.

There's a lot more to hunger than you think.

Eg. It's well known adding protein and fibre to every meal will make you less hungry.
What isn't so well known is that adding a small piece of fruit (not too much or the excess fructose will decrease insulin sensitivity) to every meal also replenishes liver glycogen, which seems to be the primary indicator of the brain's hunger.