Weight Loss Support - Article on fat loss, what do you think?
03-02-2007, 11:55 AM
I know that a lot of you are going to say this is crazy, since I think it is too but it was interesting and I want to see what you all think :)
Basically what this guys says that each lb of fat can sustain a certain amount of deficit each day, so the more fat you have the more of a deficit you can live on without losing muscle.
In a way it makes since to me that not everyone would start losing muscle at the same calorie level, and fat is there to provide you with calories when you need it... but then again when I put in my numbers it is seems wholly ridiculous.
For example at 180 I am 32% fat according to my scale (I know its not precise). Which means I carry 57 lbs of fat (UGH!). And if each lb of fat can sustain 31 calories a day according to his theory, then I can not lose muscle while on a 1767 deficit daily through diet and exercise. According to Wed MD if I were sedentary I need 1961 calories to maintain. And I burn 300 a day through my exercise video. So that bring me to 2261, and takes my down to 494 calories a day without losing muscle.
Now this is extreme, I am only asking for 2 lbs a week. which means I can eat 1261 a day, which is about where I am BUT I am not LOSING! Thus the reason why I went looking around the net for answers.
So you see how that seems wholly ridiculous to me. I am sure I would go into starvation mode. But he doesn't really talk about starvation mode, just not losing muscle. This is just a case of finding mis-information on the web right?
03-02-2007, 11:59 AM
It sounds like it. Or possibly the writer's misapplication of potentially good information.
If you're at 1200 calories and aren't losing, perhaps giving yourself MORE calories would help. The body does tend to try to hang on when you dip that low.
03-02-2007, 12:36 PM
Agreed that it's probably a misapplication of science. And that at only 1250 calories a day (while your body is burning 2250) is probably putting your system into starvation mode which makes it hang onto whatever energy reserves (i.e. fat) it's got. Try upping your calories a bit and settle for a more steady loss.
And "only 2 lbs. a week" is on the extreme end of weight loss, and definitely would involve losing some muscle & other tissue mass on top of fat (the body probably burns fat tissues along with non-fat tissues simultaneously).
03-02-2007, 12:54 PM
I did my average of the last 17 days and its 1335, a few higher days mixed in. I am also VERY sedentary (sit all day) so that is why I don't think 1261 would be to low for me. I only recently started my exercise video 4 days ago. I was hoping that would also break this blockade of mine. And I know its only been 4 days but its just so discouraging to think that I am going to be going at a snails pace the entire time. Hopeful thinking I suppose that maybe I could go lower without risk.
Aquawarlock: Your program looks alot like mine now that I am doing exercise. 6 days a week at 30 min a day (will up once I get the hang of the video to level 3/4 which is 45 a day) and you seriously lost all that weight so fast on 1600 a day? MAN. You are now my idol. LOL
So maybe if I add in another meal? I have been trying for 250 calorie meals 5X a day recently, (some are a little higher which I allow since that ups the cals a little) but if I did 6 a day then that would take me to 1500 calories a day. I like the mini meals because I feel so much fuller I don't consider snacking (my problem is snacks which get out of hand). I guess I could give it a try for a week and see how it goes....UGH that scares me though. Don't ask me why, I know I wont gain on that but ahhhhh! --Sumi
03-02-2007, 01:46 PM
His phrasing and grammar make me translate the article as
"pulling this theory out of my butt with no scientific data to back me up--but I wrote a book or 3 so I am obviously an expert"
He proposes absolutes that are untrue (ALL women regardless of weight are told to eat 1200 calories regardless) and dismisses the alternatives (untrue but I wont go into that just take my word for it)
Frankly any article, book, etc. written in this manner screams zero credibility and makes me ignore even the few bits of information that might have value.
03-02-2007, 02:32 PM
The whole article just bizzed me off. I already don't like whoeverthehellheis.
I have no studies to back this up, no formal training and I've never written a book .... however .... I don't think that 1200 cals is too little for a small, sedentary woman. The trick with low cals is getting enough nutrients in.
The best advice I've ever read about starvation mode is ... it's a serious medical condition usually brought on by extended illness etc. What most people are talking about is metabolic slowdown, which can be reversed.
Sumisan ... you're taller than I remember ;) Exercise my slenderizing friend ... increase your metabolic rate through exercise and be patient.
03-02-2007, 02:52 PM
This is what the author's blurb at the bottom says:
"Lyle McDonald is an all around physiology nerd with far too much time on his hands who apparently enjoys doing math for his readers."
At least he's honest.
I don't see any reason to give his ideas any credibility. Muscle burns because it is easier for the body to metabolize protein than fat. Actually both burn, and that's why it's important to exercise while losing weight--keeping muscle active stops the body from breaking it down so much.
He's just some guy with big ideas. The world is full of them.
Sumisan, I can't go much above 1300 cals a day and lose weight, and I exercise 6 times a week. Everyone's body is different. I think it's great that AquaWarlock can lose on 1600 a week. I cannot--I would be gaining at that amount.
You have only just started exercising--give it a couple of weeks with exercise being the only change--that should tell you.
03-02-2007, 03:14 PM
sumisan: I'm the same height as you and used to weigh the same. I did between 1200 and 1300 calories a day, plus an hour of cardio five times a week. I lost the weight really steadily (1-2 pounds a week, on average) and got down to 142 in about 3 1/2 months.
03-02-2007, 03:20 PM
Thanks Susan, I thought the same thing, I guess he wrote the book on the ketogenic diet? I haven't read that nor have I heard of him but it was interesting but I would be more likely to take it into consideration if the numbers weren't so drastic and more realistic. I think its the Asian name, alot of people are suprised that I am tall, I am only 1/4 Japanese and my dad is a 6'4" irish white guy LOL
Jay: I think that is what I need to keep in mind. Everyone says to do 1600 but I swear I didnt eat much to begin with, yes more than now. I gained weight from a very long move while we were living in a hotel and eating out, in about 3 months I gained 30 lbs. So much for hindsight. Before that I never had a problem maintaining with a normal diet, I was vegan before all this and I didnt lose weight, nor did I gain, nor did I keep track. LOL so I think my calories just need to be a on the low side! But I wont go under the holy 1200 still LOL
Ok exercise and wait it out. BLEH I am so impatient. I am thinking about changing my sigs to my ultimate high weight just to make me feel better haha
Have a great one everyone! --Sumi
03-02-2007, 03:25 PM
And weightlifting ???? ;)
03-02-2007, 03:25 PM
baffled: I am doing Power 90 which is cardio one day, weights the next in phase one and is 30 minutes a day 6 days a week and then they bump up to phase two which is 45 minutes I think but I havent gotten there yet. I wonder if this is enough. I read about ladies on here doing like an hour and a half a day. I dont want to burn out either since I have never stuck with exercise before. You have done so well!! Man you guys are awesome, I can't weight untill I am on that end!