Question about post diet..

[duke83]

I have been on a diet since the last week of september. I am on about a 1,000-1,100 calorie a day diet, in adition to lots of cardio. I have lost 25 pounds but still have 10 pounds left on my goal but I hit i rut.

So my question is, if I were to say 'great, I am done with my diet,' and return to the amount perscribed to 'maintain' my weight for sombody my height, about 2,200 calories a day, will I gain weight or will my body just say 'great I am getting what I need.'?

My intention is to get the cals up then drop them again to loose the rest of my weight. So I didn't know if I need to add it back, do i need to expect to gain a certain amount of weight back or what? How long should I go on the 'increased' diet before I can drop it and start seeing good results again?

 

[maleficent]

i'd start bumping up your calories now, as 1000-1100 calories a day is quite low, especially with exercise.

yes, you will gain weight with bumping up your calories to a more realistic level, but it will level off at some point and youo will start to l ose again...

 

[paydirt]

Congrats on the weight loss! You've lost 25 pounds in 12 weeks, that's 2 pounds a week! Very nice. I'm jealous.

How long has your "rut" been and how many calories do you burn in exercise (and how often per week) and what is your current weight? I think Maleficient is onto the right track: add calories and also change your calorie deficit so that your weekly goal is to lose 1 pounds per week.

I did some projections on my own calorie deficit and found that my BMR is going to drop by 500 calories (from now to then due to the weight loss), so if I want to maintain by 2 pounds per week weight loss during the FINAL 10, then I would have to do 800 calorie workouts. AHHH! No freakin' way! (800 cals would probably be 6 miles per day of running) So what I'm going to do is set a calorie top for my workouts and also up the calories I'm eating so my weekly loss will slow to 1 pound per week.

 

[burneeed1]

I would counter your added calories with more cardio... it seemed like with me the more weight I lost the more energy I had, the more I wanted to run / be physical... but I would get back into a little more calories but counter it with more cardio.

 

[transitionscoac]

You can actually continue to lose weight and still eat the recommended calories that your body needs. If you are eating the right types of carbs, fats and proteins, you will rid your body of the metabolically inactive body fat and preserve the metabolically active muscle. This is important to remember. As you change your body composition, you will need more calories (the right type of calories) to maintain your muscle. For example, I went from 14% body fat to 7% body fat and my calorie intake has increased since then. 10 lbs of muscle will burn 500 more calories than 10 lbs of fat per day. If you are married to the scale....Get a Divorce!

 

[Steve]

If you are eating the right types of carbs, fats and proteins, you will rid your body of the metabolically inactive body fat and preserve the metabolically active muscle.

Are you suggesting that someone doesn't have to be in a caloric deficit in order to lose weight. If they eat the right combination of foods, that'll do the trick deficit or not?

This is important to remember. As you change your body composition, you will need more calories (the right type of calories) to maintain your muscle.

So as you lose weight, you will need more calories?

For example, I went from 14% body fat to 7% body fat and my calorie intake has increased since then.

n=1 for the win.....

or not.

10 lbs of muscle will burn 500 more calories than 10 lbs of fat per day. If you are married to the scale....Get a Divorce!

Proof please?

 

[transitionscoac]

I assume that you are saying that to lose weight, you need to reduce calories? Okay, i won't deny that you will lose weight that way. Will you be losing fat or muscle though?

If you drastically reduce your calorie intake your body will take on a starvation response. Your metabolism will slow 10-15%. This is the opposite of what you want to happen. Your body will then go into "fat storage" mode. This goes back to our ancestors days when there was a famine, we would hang onto body fat to preserve ourselves. If you reduce your calories, your body will hang onto body fat and you will lose muscle.

I actually studied under Dr. Shari Lieberman who is a Phd in Clinical Nutrition and a Phd in Exercise Physiology. I was certified by her and help people with these issues on a daily basis. We have seen numerous results based on real science and research. If you know about the body, you know that body fat is metabolically inactive(burns few calories) muscle is metabolically active (burns more calories).

If you need more proof, i can cite plenty of references.

Tim

 

[Steve]

I assume that you are saying that to lose weight, you need to reduce calories? Okay, i won't deny that you will lose weight that way. Will you be losing fat or muscle though?

Depends on what you're doing to preserve muscle.

But the fact remains.... and this is what I questioned you on..... in order to lose fat, you MUST be in a caloric deficit.

Or have surgery, lol.

So I still am waiting for clarification from you. Do you refute this fact?

If you drastically reduce your calorie intake your body will take on a starvation response.

Oh boy.

First, nobody mentioned a drastic reduction in caloric intake.

Second, ANY time that you diet, the physiological adaptations that many associate with the term *starvation response* are going to kick in. It's a natural process.

It does not happen with the 'flick of a switch.'

And it happens differently for different people.

Do you really understand what the "starvation response" is?

This is the opposite of what you want to happen.

You do realize that in order to lose weight, the metabolism has no choice but to downregulate, no?

Your body will then go into "fat storage" mode.

Please explain said mode?

Do you understand thermodynamics?

If you are in a caloric deficit, you aren't going to store ANYTHING. It's an impossibility. You can't create something out of nothing.

This goes back to our ancestors days when there was a famine, we would hang onto body fat to preserve ourselves. If you reduce your calories, your body will hang onto body fat and you will lose muscle.

I understand the biology and evolution of it all quite well, thanks. You can do a search on the forum.... this very topic has been discussed to death.

Let me ask you this series of logical questions and see if it triggers the old 'light bulb.'

In order to lose weight, must a caloric deficit be in place?

Does your body treat the types of caloric deficits differently? Ya know, a deficit can be established via a reduction in food intake, an increase in activity such as exercise, or a combination of the both. Does your body *know* where a deficit is coming from? Or does it simply know the net negative balance of energy flux?

Now do you see the issue?

I actually studied under Dr. Shari Lieberman who is a Phd in Clinical Nutrition and a Phd in Exercise Physiology. I was certified by her and help people with these issues on a daily basis.

Appeals to authority will get you absolutely nowheres with me or the board, that I promise you.

This has nothing to do with the misinformation you are providing.

If you'd like, have Shari stop in and back you up.... at this point it would appear as if you need it.

We have seen numerous results based on real science and research. If you know about the body, you know that body fat is metabolically inactive(burns few calories) muscle is metabolically active (burns more calories).

Oh trust me.... I know the figures. I already asked if you do. Burden of proof is on you and your claim. I'm still waiting for said proof please?

If you need more proof, i can cite plenty of references.

By all means.

 

[transitionscoac]

I didn't mean for this to be a defensive battle on who is smarter. I'm actually just here to discuss a topic that i'm interested in and offer help and suggestions to people that ask for it. Sorry if I offended you.

The point is that there is a lot of research out there on these topics. It can all be manipulated in a way that will lead you to believe whatever it is that works for you. Obviously you have had great results with whatever you have done. My only point was that not all calories are created equal! I could eat 1500 calories a day of sugar and starch and my body will have a much different response that 1500 calories a day of a balanced diet of vegetables, fruit and lean protein.

We will continue to empower others to get information that will help them achieve their health goals.

Take care,

Tim

 

[Steve]

I didn't mean for this to be a defensive battle on who is smarter. I'm actually just here to discuss a topic that i'm interested in and offer help and suggestions to people that ask for it. Sorry if I offended you.

I see, now we are going to appeal to emotion rather than stick to the topic.

Call me a big meanie and act as if I verbally assaulted you instead of sticking with the topic at hand.

I assure you that if you go back and read/comprehend what I typed above, you'll notice I wasn't out to get you.

Secondly, I've been on this forum a very long time. I moderate this forum. And I take responsibility for 'filtering' the advice that 'self-proclaimed' gurus such as yourself spew.

I'm not about censorship at all.... hear me on that.

But when I see bullshit, I most definitely will call you on it.... and if you didn't come mentally equipped to discuss/debate.... that's not my fault. Don't think an appeal to authority or an appeal to emotion is going to minimize the truth.

I'm sure your intentions are good.... really. But that's not the point. I'm an advocate for the integridy of sound information.... and that all I'm doing; advocating.

The point is that there is a lot of research out there on these topics. It can all be manipulated in a way that will lead you to believe whatever it is that works for you. Obviously you have had great results with whatever you have done.

Research is research.

I'm talking about the basics of human physiology and biology here. We don't need research for that.

Although I'd still like to see the research behind your claim about 500 calories per 10 lbs of muscle.

My only point was that not all calories are created equal!

You are digging yourself a gigantic hole, brother.

And I wouldn't be so tough on you if you didn't sign up and right from the get go start dishing out advice like it was your job. Bad advice at that.

A calorie is ALWAYS a calorie. It is impossible to be anything else.

Just as a kilgram is always a kilogram.

It's a unit of measurement.

Maybe you mean not all nutrients are created equally. But I learned that in middle school health class.

I could eat 1500 calories a day of sugar and starch and my body will have a much different response that 1500 calories a day of a balanced diet of vegetables, fruit and lean protein.

No crap.

But there's the issue. You are melding calories and nutrients together. Both play critical roles. I called you on the caloric role, which you've yet to respond in any legible manner.

 

[transitionscoac]

Sorry that I didn't make an introduction. I wasn't aware of the "etiquette" i guess. By the way, here is a link to back up the 10 lbs of muscle burns 500 calories

 

[Steve]

Sorry that I didn't make an introduction. I wasn't aware of the "etiquette" i guess.

Or you thought you knew what you were talking about so you'd come in and start preaching.

Now you've been called on multiple things, and have yet to provide one solid response.

By the way, here is a link to back up the 10 lbs of muscle burns 500 calories

That's your source?

I'm going to be blunt but truthful, you are in over your head. Like I said to you in the other thread.... I'd simply take a moment to regroup and read around the forum a bit. Who knows, you might learn something.

I honestly take no issue with you speaking up. But at the very, very least, stand by what you say.

That's not a source. That's a webpage. You can find ANYTHING on the web. I meant research.

 

[transitionscoac]

Teach me:

How much more metabolically active is mucle compared to fat?

Please back it up with more than one study as well.
Thanks.

 

[Steve]

Ohhhhh.....

So now the burden of proof is on me?

Let me rehash how this went down:

You: bro like the musklez burn a ton more energy than the fat!!1111

Me: Proof please?

You: Here's a link to some stupid website

Me: That's not proof.

You: OK, now you prove me wrong and I want a real study and not just one, but two or more of them.

Hahahahahaha, that's some comical shit right there. Thanks.

I think you should pack up and head home for the day..... you've done quite a good job with irritating me at first with your misinformation and inability to read or answer questions. And now you've done an excellent job at making me laugh

Let's think about this logically for a sec... and this may require a bit of thinking.

You are suggesting that every lb of muscle you gain increases your caloric expenditure by 50 calories, right?

So when I started this journey, I was 170ish pounds. I am now approximately 205. That's 35 lbs gain. If you saw my pics, I'm lean.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 10 lbs of that was fat. That's 25 lbs of muscle I've put on.

With your illogical numbers, I should be burning 1250 more calories per day.

Hint: I'm not.

Haha, do you see the problem here?

Now let's throw another major loop into the equation here. You presently find yourself on a weight loss forum. The members here are interested in LOSING WEIGHT.

For one to lose weight, a caloric deficit MUST be in place. I don't care if it comes from a reduction in food, and increase in acitivity, or a combination of the both. The body doesn't care either. A deficit is a deficit.

With that in mind, what do we know about hypertrophy?

We know it's a very intensive process, energetically speaking. So what makes you think that people who are dieting are going to pack on enough muscle mass, even using your far out number, to have a positive impact on their metabolic rates.... WHILE DIETING? They don't have the energetic capacity to maintain what they have currently. How the frig are they going to be packing on all this muscle you speak of?

And the burden of proof is most definitely not on me. Your numbers don't even make sense as I showed above. But actual research puts the number at 5.89kcal/lb/day

**source being -- Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7. Links
Dissecting the energy needs of the body.McClave SA, Snider HL.
Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA. samcclave@louisville.edu


I have a couple more that I am not going to spend the time to dig out for you.... as you've proven not to stand by your words or even answer very direct questions.

Game over.

Please play again.

 

[paydirt]

Sources aside. Would everyone agree that losing 2 pounds per week for the final 10 pounds is a bit extreme?

How MUCH more metabolically active muscle is compared to fat is besides the main point upon which Steve disagrees. The point is you can't just "eat however much you want, provided that it is healthy or in some prescribed ratio of carbs to protein to fat." Granted, it would be hard to eat enough apples to get you over 1500 calories, but it could be done.

I think we all agree that 1100 calories is too low for a vast majority of people.

 

[Steve]

Sources aside. Would everyone agree that losing 2 pounds per week for the final 10 pounds is a bit extreme?

How MUCH more metabolically active muscle is compared to fat is besides the main point upon which Steve disagrees. The point is you can't just "eat however much you want, provided that it is healthy or in some prescribed ratio of carbs to protein to fat." Granted, it would be hard to eat enough apples to get you over 1500 calories, but it could be done.

Right.

My original point was/is that calories do matter. The matter primarily actually.

 

[paydirt]

(sorry steve, was typing my response as you were typing yours)

Hmmm 6kcal/pound/day is interesting. If that is muscle only, then that would suggest that the bones/organs/etc as a Whole need much more kcal/pound/day on average than muscle...?

EDIT: AND 50 kcal/pound/day for muscle is a ridiculous number

 

[transitionscoac]

You are still missing the point that people don't need to be losing muscle when they are losing weight. They can still be losing weight optimally as body fat therefore not comprimising their metabolism.

By the way, how many calories do you take in on a daily basis? Are you disputing that there are different caloric needs based on body composition?

I'm sorry that i "pissed" you off. Not once did I get emotional about these topics.

 

[Steve]

I think I stated here in this thead about muscle, on average, accounting for less than 20% of total BMR.

This certainly varies from individual to individual based on age, muscle mass, etc..... but the point is..... muscle mass is not the be-all-end-all component to metabolism as our friend here likes to think.

 

[Steve]

You are still missing the point that people don't need to be losing muscle when they are losing weight. They can still be losing weight optimally as body fat therefore not comprimising their metabolism.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. That's hard for you to figure out, I understand at this point.

I'm not missing anything.

I'm begging you, please don't make me go back and breakdown what's been asked of you.

By the way, how many calories do you take in on a daily basis? Are you disputing that there are different caloric needs based on body composition?

No.

I'm sorry that i "pissed" you off. Not once did I get emotional about these topics.

Your ignorance irritated me. That's all.

I'm fine, thanks for the concern though.