Energy Out > Energy In = Weight Loss?

[spriggig]

Maybe for a while but not permanently, and not just fat loss, but muscle loss too.

 

Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes and see if you still believe that its calories in/calories out.

 

Is it possible to gain fat on a starvation diet, < 500 calories a day?

 

Is it possible to eat 3500 calories/day (energy in), exercise not at all (energy out) and lose ONLY fat but not muscle tissue?

 

Yes to both.

 

It's not calories in/calories out, our bodies are not that simple.

[bananaboat11]

Energy balance will ALWAYS hold true.

 

You MUST maintain your base floor of calories at minimum (RMR) for sustenance. You'll actually slow your metabolism and promote catabolism which could hinder your efficiency (energy metabolism).

 

You should estimate your RMR multiplied by a reasonable activity factor as calculated by the American College of Sports Medicine.

 

I will look into this book, but until I find concrete evidence the book lists empirical evidence that's accepted in the scientific community, I am against this rationale.

 

There will ALWAYS be an FQ to RQ to determine body composition... rather Food Quotient to Resting Quotient or RER (Resting exchange Ratio)... through a simple, yet elegant calculation of gas exchange you're able to measure how much fat vs. carbohydrate you burn... and based on your food consumption (composition of food type) you can moderate your body's ability to adapt and assimilate it's energy metabolism to utilize or store substrate in different forms (glucose into muscle for glycolysis or into adipose tissue via a pseudo-glycolytic pathway)... which would elicit other hormonal/NT proteins other than insulin...

 

it's a VERY complex tale, but simplistically...

 

Energy In = Energy Out = Weight Stability

 

Energy In > Energy Out = Gain

 

Energy In < Energy Out = Loss

 

Do your homework before you throw **** out there.

 

EDIT: And just so you know... being sedentary stimulates OTHER pathways such as LPL in the liver to promote increased insulin resistance and limit adipocyte turnover... increasing endogenous glucose production via GNG and glycogenesis... inducing hyperglycemia.. and a hyperinsulinemic state... inducing or promoting IGT (Impaired Glucose Tolerance) in a post-mixedmeal state... affecting beta-cell function in the pancreas.. limiting IMTG (intra-muscular triacylglycerol) turnover... depending on your FQ (Food quotient) you can induce a ketogenic state by breaking down subcutaneous adipose tissue... producing ketone bodies for energy conversion in the liver.. in addition to additional glycerol for GNG in the liver... and you'll induce a catabolic state by releasing cortisol to break down proteins for alanine among other AA's for additional GNG to produce my glucose for energy... but again, depends on FQ...

Edited July 25, 2010 by bananaboat11

[bananaboat11]

This thread is subscribed. You've got me.

 

Friendly scientific debate please. Empirical evidence / research studies are a plus!

 

let the games begin.

 

Pubmed is your friend. No websites. Limit secondary sources (such as text books and/or CDC/NIH websites unless relevant primary sources are listed)

 

thanks!

[bananaboat11]

As opposed to activity / exercise stimulating AMPK which promotes a lot of beneficial effects... cool ****, actually.

[bananaboat11]

WOW. so this is why I'm single?

 

I'm a huge mega ****ing nerd.

[Chocolat]

Is it possible to gain fat on a starvation diet, < 500 calories a day?

 

Is it possible to eat 3500 calories/day (energy in), exercise not at all (energy out) and lose ONLY fat but not muscle tissue?

 

Yes to both.

 

If one eats a starvation diet, starvation will occur.

 

Please show research for your assertions.

[MrNate]

First the focus should be on fat loss, not weight loss. Because total body weight includes muscle, which you want to keep, and fat, which is bad.

[harveyjerry]

I appreciate the good end, I do not agree with them most. But this means that all means energy drinks will not cause me to lose weight. If I eat a lot. they will still make me lose. I take the name of trying to stay awake and avoid injury, do not build muscle or get super excited for work, or something similar. My only concern is the loss of weight and energy drinks. I do not want to eat like a pig and raise it as Arnold did find that energy drinks stunted my fate and kept me in the same thin.

[In_Repair]

WOW. so this is why I'm single?

 

I'm a huge mega ****ing nerd.

 

I had to comment just to let you know that I was rolling after that. You were getting down with it, laying out a detailed argument and preparing for a welcomed debate... then BOOM... you were hit out of nowhere with a disturbing self realization. Lol. Good stuff.

 

At least your "nerdiness" is focused on something beneficial to you.

[just_some_guy]

Actually, there are exceptions to the caloric input.

 

Extremely low carbohydrate input will result in weight loss, even if the total caloric input is higher than calculated energy consumption through activity.

 

This is a well-proven concept.

 

This creates an imbalance in the nutrition of the body and has other effects on health. However, eating nothing but fat and protein with strict and severe reduction of carbohydrate in the diet will result in weight loss.

[bananaboat11]

Actually, there are exceptions to the caloric input.

 

Extremely low carbohydrate input will result in weight loss, even if the total caloric input is higher than calculated energy consumption through activity.

 

This is a well-proven concept.

 

This creates an imbalance in the nutrition of the body and has other effects on health. However, eating nothing but fat and protein with strict and severe reduction of carbohydrate in the diet will result in weight loss.

 

Mathematically, based on 4kcal / g of CHO vs. 9kcal / g of fat ... it's impossible to lose the amount of weight these low-carb fad diets claim you're able to lose... and If I need to go look up the metabolic equations to prove this I will.

 

SRSLY. EVEN if you're eating at your RMR + 500 kcals to maintain life.

 

EDIT: AND THERE IS 0 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE / SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THIS. THERE IS JUST ATKINS 'CLAIM'. And yes, my adviser has a huge rant on these. He's well known in the field of Physiology & Metabolism. We'll all be down @ the ACSM Integrated Physiology of Exercise conference in September. Come meet us!

 

And if you can show me research articles from journals such as JAP (Journal of Applied Physiology) for example... I'll blow my brains out on camera for your enjoyment.

Edited July 27, 2010 by bananaboat11

[GrayClouds]

Boat, you may find this a worth while watching this lecture:

 

Protein, Fat, or Politics by John D. Speth

 

Get it free as a I-Tunes download, in part he address the validity of low carb diets among with interesting items on big game hunting in early man.

[bananaboat11]

Boat, you may find this a worth while watching this lecture:

 

Protein, Fat, or Politics by John D. Speth

 

Get it free as a I-Tunes download, in part he address the validity of low carb diets among with interesting items on big game hunting in early man.

 

 

Low-Carb diets may be of benefit to already lean counterpart individuals, but to those with BMI's 25+ with a bodyfat % > 25% (men) and > 30% (women) the sheer danger of low-carb diets can run high risk... and prove little benefit to weight loss.

[GrayClouds]

Here is a web cast of OP's Gary Taubes University of Berkeley lecture "The Quality of Calories":

 

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/stream.php?type=real&webcastid=21216

[just_some_guy]

Mathematically, based on 4kcal / g of CHO vs. 9kcal / g of fat ... it's impossible to lose the amount of weight these low-carb fad diets claim you're able to lose... and If I need to go look up the metabolic equations to prove this I will.

 

SRSLY. EVEN if you're eating at your RMR + 500 kcals to maintain life.

 

EDIT: AND THERE IS 0 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE / SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THIS. THERE IS JUST ATKINS 'CLAIM'. And yes, my adviser has a huge rant on these. He's well known in the field of Physiology & Metabolism. We'll all be down @ the ACSM Integrated Physiology of Exercise conference in September. Come meet us!

 

And if you can show me research articles from journals such as JAP (Journal of Applied Physiology) for example... I'll blow my brains out on camera for your enjoyment.

 

 

 

I don't care to see you blow your brains out, but there are PLENTY of peer-reviewed journal articles on low-carbohydrate diets.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12761364

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12144197

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/14/1837

 

So on and so forth. I can dig these up all day long.

 

I don't think they are good for health, at least the ones that severely restrict carbohydrate input. But they do result in weight loss, albeit with other health risks and possible complications.

[Circular]

Wow, someone found a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics?? That's crazy?? How come this isn't all over the news!?!?

 

ENERGY IN > ENERGY OUT = GAIN

ENERGY IN < ENERGY OUT = LOSS

 

It's that simple, the only things that certain diets can typically change are how fast you metabolize, but in the end it's the amount of energy burned. Unless there's some magical violation of the conservation of energy law.

[xpaperxcutx]

Gosh, no need to make things complicated.... if a person knows their body well enough, they can always manipulate their system to work in their favor.

 

The whole Atkins, low carb vs high protein... it depends how well one follows it.

 

What it comes down to is specifically calories. If your body detects starvation ( " starvation diet") you can bet it will try to preserve as much fat as possible. A person can definitely survive on a 500 calories diet ( been there, done that), and all it does is cause a whole host of problems ( ie. anorexic symptoms).

 

PS. I agree with bananaboat that low carbs will work for a extremely lean low bf individual than for a high bf% individual. I would like to add that if an individual with high bf % is looking to lose fat, a low moderate carb will send the body into using fat as energy but the process is to ease into low carb slowly without prompting the body to think you're about to starve. T

[wrencn]

I have no scientific research to back this but I do know that I gained 12lbs in basic training and I was burning more than I was consuming (I'm a female) my husband gained 35 lbs. We were both very thin going in (so it was muscle mass). The funny thing is, the skinny people in my platoon all gained weight and the heavier people all lost weight. We didn't do very long runs though, more sprint work and road marches than anything. My husband lost all the muscle when he got to AIT and started running 5 plus miles everyday.

[tman666]

I have no scientific research to back this but I do know that I gained 12lbs in basic training and I was burning more than I was consuming (I'm a female) my husband gained 35 lbs. We were both very thin going in (so it was muscle mass). The funny thing is, the skinny people in my platoon all gained weight and the heavier people all lost weight. We didn't do very long runs though, more sprint work and road marches than anything. My husband lost all the muscle when he got to AIT and started running 5 plus miles everyday.

 

I guarantee that if you both gained weight, you were taking in more calories than you were expending in a day. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken. However, I have no doubts that your gains were almost entirely muscle mass with all that sprint work, marching and PT.

 

This is also a classic example of why those who seek to gain or preserve muscle mass should avoid excessive steady state cardio. That being said, extra muscle is probably not conducive to doing well in AIT... Just my

$.02.

[wrencn]

I don't know what to say. Maybe I'm a freak of nature because I have also gained muscle weight while on a 1600 calorie diet while lifting and doing cardio, or maybe the body slows the metabolism down when faced with intense exercise/diet. I'm just thankful my body responds to exercise well.