Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Calories In and Calories Burnt
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Calories In and Calories Burnt

post #1 of 17
7/11/09 at 10:49pm
Thread Starter 
I once read somewhere that people shouldn't eat less than 1200 when they're trying to cut weight. Say someone burns 600 calories in the morning with some activity then they eat around 1200 for the rest of the day, would this be only considered "600" calories?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 17
7/11/09 at 11:11pm
Ignore what you read.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 17
7/11/09 at 11:11pm
^how does it actually work. this constantly confuses me in regards to the true caloric deficit.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 17
7/11/09 at 11:22pm
The body needs 1000 calories for normal functions alone.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 17
7/11/09 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekunk07 View Post
^how does it actually work. this constantly confuses me in regards to the true caloric deficit.

I don't think even a thesis on the topic would break the tip of the iceberg.

Very condensed version: caloric daily deficits are just ways to condense all the science into an easy caloric and exercise prescription to achieve a desired result (e.g. eat 1800kcal/day and run 3 miles to lose weight). They're really meaningless in regards to what actually happens within cells, etc.

Like I've said before, people think of exercising in a vacuum and it's as if the moment they walk into their gym they're doing something radically different from the time they rushed after a taxi. Exercise is just a way of acutely stressing the body to achieve a desired result.

Likewise, people also think of diet in a vacuum and always take their fish oil once per day, have a 50/25/25 macro split, drink 6 litres of water, etc. It's largely just a way of simplifying things -- that's all.

(CKDs and some other diets rearrange the timeframes and such)
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 17
7/12/09 at 12:14am
Thread Starter 
why, is it true that eating too little actually fucks up weight loss efforts?
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 17
7/12/09 at 12:34am
semistarvation...not a good idea.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 17
7/12/09 at 12:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyCooN View Post
why, is it true that eating too little actually fucks up weight loss efforts?

It is true. The fat cells in your body are still there when you starve. The reason you lose the weight is because the fat droplets inside those cells are used to depletion for energy. However once you start eating again, the first thing your body does is to replenish those fat cells, and you gain the weight back. That's why people get liposuction to rid off those fat cells completely.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 17
7/12/09 at 12:47am
In the short version for the average person, eating too little, over a period of time, will cause your body to go on the defensive, and start to store fat (stored energy) to prepare itself. Catabolism and loss of muscle mass will be experienced leading to an impaired metabolic rate. and also once the cycle stops, one may find himself bingeing, especially on the wrong foods.

Depending on one's metabolic rate and level+type of activity, I don't think it would be wise to follow an arbitrarily set or randomly picked calorie count. In a clinical setting, severe calorie restrictions have been used, but the patient is constantly monitored and usually, either already severely obese or has health issues/ problems moving around such that exercise cannot be prescribed in the appropriate dosage. But more appropriately, practitioners look beyond just calories and sometimes just changing the type of food or the ratio of the macronutrient groups can, even without reducing total calories, lead to the desired result i.e. weightloss or better body composition.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 17
7/12/09 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prada_Ferragamo View Post
It is true. The fat cells in your body are still there when you starve. The reason you lose the weight is because the fat droplets inside those cells are used to depletion for energy. However once you start eating again, the first thing your body does is to replenish those fat cells, and you gain the weight back. That's why people get liposuction to rid off those fat cells completely.


What the...? You just described the way fat cells work, not why they actually store fat (or more specifically, what mechanisms trigger storage). And the bolded part is incredibly misleading -- the body begins to replenish everything (hormones, muscle tissue, collagen, bone, etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by upnorth View Post
In the short version for the average person, eating too little, over a period of time, will cause your body to go on the defensive, and start to store fat (stored energy) to prepare itself. Catabolism and loss of muscle mass will be experienced leading to an impaired metabolic rate. and also once the cycle stops, one may find himself bingeing, especially on the wrong foods.

It doesn't happen that fast; most people use empirical self-study but draw the wrong conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TyCooN View Post
why, is it true that eating too little actually fucks up weight loss efforts?

What's 'too little', though? There isn't some kind of cut-off or line drawn. There's a lot going on and undereating will mostly reduce hormone levels and increase bodily 'efficiency'. These hormones and other systems don't plummet when a line is crossed and likewise will scale with intake. It's complex because a lot of hormones oppose each other and each hormones has its own stimulators and inhibitors (e.g. carbohydrates stimulate leptin, but inhibit GH, etc.)

To answer pointedly: yes, it's very true. But not in the method of degree most people think it will affect them. All hypocaloric diets will reduce effectiveness of weight loss over time and this is not solely affected by something as miniscule as the amount of calories consumed in one day. It's not dissimilar to the reason that I can't do some bench press and eat a ton of food one day and come back huge the next.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 17
7/12/09 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Ignore what you read.

such as this post?

i've been reading a lot of lyle mcdonald's books (if you're too poor to buy, there's a lot of torrents out there, but i feel like the man deserves some money for writing all the information down and citing where it all comes from)

i think a ketogenic diet with minimum supplements would help best if you aimed for fat loss. semistarvation messes up weight loss efforts because weight loss is not only fat loss. if you don't eat proper amounts of protein you lose muscle mass and a lot of water weight in addition to some fat loss.

and as long as your diet is controlled your body won't "replenish its fat cells" and you won't "regain your weight back."

i've started using his psmf diet as a way to restart cf and zone/paleo and the diet basically feeds you 800 calories per day.

i have to say i think his diets are the first that i've read that suggests structured refeeds (kinda like free meals) as a way to control your diet.

if you want, pm and i'll send the books i have.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 17
7/12/09 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
To answer pointedly: yes, it's very true. But not in the method of degree most people think it will affect them. All hypocaloric diets will reduce effectiveness of weight loss over time and this is not solely affected by something as miniscule as the amount of calories consumed in one day. It's not dissimilar to the reason that I can't do some bench press and eat a ton of food one day and come back huge the next.

I've heard of EC stacking and yohimbe/caffeine stacking to decrease the decreasing of metabolic rate. I'm wondering if you tried either and what your opinions were
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 17
7/12/09 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
I've heard of EC stacking and yohimbe/caffeine stacking to decrease the decreasing of metabolic rate. I'm wondering if you tried either and what your opinions were

They're stimulants. They don't counteract diet-induced metabolic decreases, they just mask it by increasing metabolic rate through different forms of stimulation.

Like all stimulants, they work. As does cocacine. As does meth. As does adderall. N.b. I'm not saying these are all one in the same in terms of health, I'm just saying they're stimulants and all increase metabolism.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 17
7/12/09 at 11:14pm
EC stacking works through a combination of increased metabolic rate, appetite suppression, and increased energy for longer/more intense workouts.... even then, you can develop a tolerance for it so eventually you will plateau just like thru decreased caloric intake.

Speaking of adderall, that shit can be pretty intense for some people. A friend of mine was prescribed it for ADD. He dropped off the face of the planet for a month. When I saw him again he had lost about 15 lbs. He literally forgot to eat for days at a time, he was so absorbed with school work and renovating his apartment.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 17
7/13/09 at 3:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmann View Post

Speaking of adderall, that shit can be pretty intense for some people. A friend of mine was prescribed it for ADD. He dropped off the face of the planet for a month. When I saw him again he had lost about 15 lbs. He literally forgot to eat for days at a time, he was so absorbed with school work and renovating his apartment.

Yea adderall can be sketchy. A friend of mine took it for ADD as well and dropped 60 lbs his first year of college, down to 115lb. All he cared about became video games and before college he never even played them.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › Calories In and Calories Burnt