So if weight loss is a function of...

Discussion in 'Fitness & Nutrition' started by spoofy, Apr 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spoofy

    spoofy Chemically Enhanced

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,014
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    houston
    We've all heard..

    Calories in - Calories out(burned) = fat burned

    and we've also heard...

    If you eat too little you will not lose weight because your body will go into starvation mode protecting fat.

    How can both be true... or are they :eek:
     
  2. RICK RO$$

    RICK RO$$ Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    15,870
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    I don't bop I do the money dance
    You tarded bro?

    Those statements arent mutually exclusive
     
  3. Reign

    Reign Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    21,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Westminster, CO
    Gotta have a careful balance brosef.
     
  4. Cumstang02

    Cumstang02 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    6,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Is it in yet?
    As you reduce calories below maintainence you'll lose weight. Your macro nutritional content determines where that weight comes from. If you lose muscle your maitainence calories drops to meet the intake. Thats your "starvation mode".
     
  5. Marix

    Marix OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    28,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's a balance.

    You can lose weight by supplying your body with less calories than it requires. However, if you do this for extended periods of time, your body will become more efficient and so you have to reduce calories as you lose more and more weight.

    That's one of the reasons that sometimes people include refeeds, cheat days etc. One day of hardcore eating won't fuck your efforts.. it might actually helps.

    Of course, those who are "assisted" with things like ephedrine, DNP and steroids etc can get away with more.. they will lose much more fat while the steroids prevent muscle loss.

    Unless you are being ridiculous, don't worry about starvation mode.
     
  6. Reign

    Reign Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    21,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Westminster, CO
    This is true. I weighed in at 187 last friday, I'd kinda been stuck there that whole week. I had a cheat meal saturday where I ate about 2/3s of a large pizza, 2 cadburry cream eggs, and 3 glazed doughnuts. On monday I weighed in at 184 and have been sitting there all week. Plus... you gotta cheat once in a while. Strict dieting will drive me insane sooner or later.
     
  7. Chris3G

    Chris3G Bullshark Testosterone

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    16,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ridgewood, NJ
    The 2nd one really isn't true the way it's worded. This "starvation mode" thing is really misunderstood. First of all, there really is no starvation mode. The body simply learns to become more efficient when presented with a lack of calories. It's a gradual process. Compare it to....you lose your job and now have a much smaller income of money. you start to adjust your spending habits to make the money you do have coming in last longer...you'll become more efficient with your spending up to a point where you simply cannot cut back any further. So while you can make the money you have last longer, eventually you're going to have to get another job or else you will go broke. On a starvation diet, you will still lose weight, but weight loss isn't really the goal - fat loss is. The key is eating and training in such a way to promote the loss of fat while maintaining lbm. If you eat nothing, your body will take energy from any source it has, and you will lose large quantities of muscle mass.
     
  8. scent of a wookie

    scent of a wookie OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    13,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Western, MD
    beautiful analogy
     
  9. chakup

    chakup Guest

    OK question on the starvation mode thing- your body becomes more efficient and you end up able to resume your normal intake- would this cause you to in turn put on more weight then previous since your body adapted to the lower intake, even if temporarily?
     
  10. Chris3G

    Chris3G Bullshark Testosterone

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    16,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ridgewood, NJ
    yes, while your body gradually adapts back to functioning on the higher intake levels.

    That's a big part of the reason why you see people who go on crash diets put all the weight back on so quickly after coming off.
     
  11. Jam_Master_J

    Jam_Master_J New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Also If you ejaculate into a cup and proceed to cosume it inorder to to increase calories while in "starvation mode" you can increase lean muscle mass and burn fat while protecting it at the same time provided your carbohydrate intake is high as well as low.
     
  12. zumin3k

    zumin3k New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Why does the body burn muscle when fat is available to burn? I've always kind of wondered this.
    Like, the body burns fat to a certain point, then burns muscle, right?
    But there is still fat available, so why does it turn to muscle to burn?
    Sorry for the newbness.
     
  13. gsxtasyd

    gsxtasyd Lift Big........Eat Big........Sleep Big........GE

    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Messages:
    4,251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego-Back in Cali, Love it.
    because fat can not be turned to sugar but amino acids can....
     
  14. Marix

    Marix OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    28,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not exactly.

    Fat is a much more efficient way of storing energy.

    In dietary terms
    1g of fat has 9kcal
    1g of protein has 4kcal
    You can see that fat is a highly dense source of energy.

    But in terms of metabolic demand, fat is much cheaper. If you continue Chris' money-spending analogy, then fat costs very little to maintain but muscle costs around 50 calories per pound to maintain. Muscle tissue is metabolically very active whereas fat is pretty much just a cell filled with triglycerides. Muscle tissue requires nervous system innervation and contracting muscle is a very energy intensive process, not to mention repairing it after a workout etc.

    So if you have 50lbs more muscle, then you require around an extra 2500 calories a day to maintain it.

    That isn't particularly efficient for your body which is designed to survive on low calories. We were hunter-gatherers for thousands of years and often had to make do with very little. It isn't optimal for your body to be requiring 4000kcal a day and so that is why it will burn muscle. It is effectively trying to cut cost while still leaving money in the bank (i.e. stored as fat.)

    Also, just look at the capacity to gain fat vs muscle.. your body actually prefers to put on fat. People can have 600lbs of fat, but nobody on this earth has 600lbs of muscle - not with all the steroids, genetics and training in the entire world.

    Also, it's not always true that you lose fat up to a point. Generally as you get more lean you body doesn't want to give up the fat because it is the cash in the bank or the investments. As I said before, your body is designed to survive on little, but it always likes to keep a store as a backup. If you want lots of muscle with little fat then you are effectively trying to lead an expensive lifestyle without much money in the bank. Your food intake would be your job. Your body does not want to get rid of the fat in case you suddenly lose your job.

    I hope that makes sense :)
     
  15. Phantom Empress

    Phantom Empress mmmmmm tasty!!!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    52,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Miramar, FL
    excellent explaination.
     
  16. evolude

    evolude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    19,005
    Likes Received:
    6
    added to my sig
     
  17. zumin3k

    zumin3k New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Thank you :bowdown:
     
  18. zumin3k

    zumin3k New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    BTW, I take partial credit for your post since I asked the question. ;)
     
  19. evolude

    evolude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    19,005
    Likes Received:
    6
    you can post a full size of your AV
     
  20. Chris3G

    Chris3G Bullshark Testosterone

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    16,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ridgewood, NJ
    one correction - 50 cals/lb of muscle is WAY high. Current research puts it at more like 7, vs 3 or so for fat. You might be interested in this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660 but i can't seem to find the full text right now.
     
  21. Genghis.Tron

    Genghis.Tron New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Great White North
    We also lose muscle because the body needs protein for tons of purpose (enzymes are protein which have a function, and to function we need to build some, which requires getting amino acids from somewhere, I know you don't need the explanation Marix but some do:p).
     
  22. Marix

    Marix OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    28,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    oh right.. that is interesting, thanks for the correction :)
     
  23. bitcrusher

    bitcrusher New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    15,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Deepside
    excellent thread.
     
  24. antihero

    antihero OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    14,236
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    NYC

    these numbers seem WAY off
     
  25. bigdamray

    bigdamray New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    5,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    UP THE DOSE!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page