# Not eating enough to lose weight !!!



## BigAl RIP

You have got to be kidding me ! I started on my new eating lifestyle in November and have been doing quite well at losing weight . 

   I enjoy my new lower calorie intake now and have adjusted nicely . I really do like eating less . 

 And then I hit a wall ! I have remained the same weight for about  1 1/2 weeks even though I been comsuming about 1000 calories a day total . 

   Now I am being told I need to eat more ! This is what got me in trouble in the first place . Now they want me to consume about 1800 - 2200 calories a day ! I honestly do not think i can do that . I really like eating less and this just seems crazy to start eating more !!! I am not hungry between meals and do not think I am starving myself . 

   So tonight I joined a online diet group call Sparkpeople.com  to see if they can help me out . They are suppose to be pretty good at what they do . Anybody else tried them ???

  I guess time will tell, but I sure don't see how eating more is going to work . For the first time in quite a while  , I have no heartburn ,sleeping better ,  stopped snoring  and am moving better .


----------



## pirate_girl

You have to have the calories in order to burn in the old furnace to drop the extra pounds.

Or maybe your body said "hey, I like it here, I refuse to change."


----------



## BigAl RIP

pirate_girl said:


> You have to have the calories in order to burn in the old furnace to drop the extra pounds.
> 
> Or maybe your body said "hey, I like it here, I refuse to change."


 
 OK Fine ! I can be just as stuborn as my body . I'll   just   start eating tofu until it says "Its sorry " and wants my old diet back . I have gotten very use to losing 1/2 to 1 pound a day and this 0 weight loss is really pissing me off !


----------



## muleman RIP

You need to keep the roughage up as well. It is kinda like the manure pits  with gravity feed systems. You have to put enough in to keep it flowing. I dropped back to 223 today but have not really been pushing hard at losing. I was down to 218 before Christmas but too many goodies and a couple big meals bounced me up to 227 quickly. My blood work came back good so I don't worry about it. Hang in there Al.


----------



## pirate_girl

BigAl said:


> OK Fine ! I can be just as stuborn as my body . I'll   just   start eating tofu until it says "Its sorry " and wants my old diet back . I have gotten very use to losing 1/2 to 1 pound a day and this 0 weight loss is really pissing me off !


Al, your body knows where it's most comfortable.
You said yourself how much better you feel.
If you like the way you're moving and breathing and functioning daily, who's to say you need to lose more?


----------



## BigAl RIP

pirate_girl said:


> If you like the way you're moving and breathing and functioning daily, who's to say you need to lose more?


I need to keep losing to make *me *happy .For the first time this is something I really want to do and have really enjoyed doing so far . I wonder if I loaded up on veggies and roughage if that could trick my stomach and brain into burning more fuel ???


----------



## pirate_girl

BigAl said:


> I need to keep losing to make *me *happy .For the first time this is something I really want to do and have really enjoyed doing so far . I wonder if I loaded up on veggies and roughage if that could trick my stomach and brain into burning more fuel ???


Over time, yes.
If you went totally vegan, it would drop right off.
But, I don't think I'd advise it.
I feel like crap when I eat 100% vegan after a while.
The initial feeling of lightness is a rush, but you'll crash sooner or later, unless you spend a ton of money at a health food store buying all sorts of supplements and things to keep you going.

Stick to your fruits and vegs, pasta and rice and lean meats.
Stay active. It'll come off.


----------



## BigAl RIP

pirate_girl said:


> Over time, yes.
> If you went totally vegan, it would drop right off.
> But, I don't think I'd advise it.
> I feel like crap when I eat 100% vegan after a while.
> The initial feeling of lightness is a rush, but you'll crash sooner or later, unless you spend a ton of money at a health food store buying all sorts of supplements and things to keep you going.
> 
> *Stick to your fruits and vegs, pasta and rice and lean meats.*
> *Stay active. It'll come off.*


 
Thank you Obe Wand . I shall follow your enlightened advice . May the force be with you .............


----------



## pirate_girl

BigAl said:


> Thank you Obe Wand . I shall follow your enlightened advice .* May the force be with you *.............


Thank you sir.
*I need somethin'*


----------



## BigAl RIP

We started walking more and doing the execising routine too . Today I got my butt kicked helping my son install a new landscaped wall using railroad ties . I could only use one arm but I am willing to bet I may have dropped some weight .I have not worked that hard in a long time .  Maybe getting more physical and the walking will get me kicked into gear again .


  I honestly hate "THE BIGGEST LOSER" show now  . I can't believe how much weight they lose in a week . Thats crazy !!!I can only wish .........


----------



## fogtender

BigAl said:


> We started walking more and doing the execising routine too . Today I got my butt kicked helping my son install a new landscaped wall using railroad ties . I could only use one arm but I am willing to bet I may have dropped some weight .I have not worked that hard in a long time . Maybe getting more physical and the walking will get me kicked into gear again .
> 
> 
> I honestly hate "THE BIGGEST LOSER" show now . I can't believe how much weight they lose in a week . Thats crazy !!!I can only wish .........


 

All diets have a quick loss point, then you stop for awhile after you have lost the easy water weight, then the rest comes off a bit slower, but you are on the right path!


----------



## jpr62902

If your body's used to 2500 or more calories\day and you cut back to 1000\day, it eventually slows your metabolism down to conserve energy. No more weight loss. Also, if you're not getting enough protein, it will start to burn muscle to replace what it needs. Not the kind of weight loss you want.

Whenever I need to lose 20+ pounds (it seemes to happen every 2 or 3 years ), I'll go on a pretty disciplined diet based on the Weight Watchers' point system. But every weekend to 10 days, I'll allow myself a super high calorie meal (for some reason it's usually LaRosa's stuffed pizza). I might feel like a bear in need of hibernation that night, but my body seems to respond as if it's got a fresh reserve of calories to burn for exercise, work, etc. The weight continues to fall off once I return to my "diet."

I agree with Fogtender, too.  The first 20 -30 lbs. drops off quickly because your body is shedding a lot of water it was unnecessarily storing (probably in response to too much Sodium and not enough activity).


----------



## VeraBlue

Your body thinks you are starving and is conserving.  Increase your activity.   For now, it's probably the only way to break through.


----------



## Keltin

The problem is, when you drastically reduce caloric intake, your body responds by reducing your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). This is the amount of calories your body will burn during a day for general maintenance. If your RMR is 1,200 before a diet, and you begin taking in only 1,000 calories, you will lose weight at first as you have a 200 calorie deficit. 

However, your body will soon respond to this starvation technique and will reduce your RMR to below your current caloric intake. The only way to keep losing weight with the starvation method would be to drop your caloric intake even further…..which is a very bad idea.

Instead, you need to eat more (sounds crazy) to convince your body that it is not starving and it will increase your RMR. To counteract the increase in calories, you’ll need to increase your exercise and activity so that you are burning more calories on a daily basis.

Here are some good studies on the matter. 

http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html


----------



## SShepherd

jpr62902 said:


> If your body's used to 2500 or more caloriesday and you cut back to 1000day, it eventually slows your metabolism down to conserve energy. No more weight loss. Also, if you're not getting enough protein, it will start to burn muscle to replace what it needs. Not the kind of weight loss you want.
> 
> Whenever I need to lose 20+ pounds (it seemes to happen every 2 or 3 years ), I'll go on a pretty disciplined diet based on the Weight Watchers' point system. But every weekend to 10 days, I'll allow myself a super high calorie meal (for some reason it's usually LaRosa's stuffed pizza). I might feel like a bear in need of hibernation that night, but my body seems to respond as if it's got a fresh reserve of calories to burn for exercise, work, etc. The weight continues to fall off once I return to my "diet."
> 
> I agree with Fogtender, too. The first 20 -30 lbs. drops off quickly because your body is shedding a lot of water it was unnecessarily storing (probably in response to too much Sodium and not enough activity).


 

you're pretty much spot on

protien, and green leafy veg.-- stay away from the bread and pasta


----------



## Ironman

SShepherd said:


> stay away from the bread and pasta


agree.
might wanna cut back on the booze also.


----------



## pirate_girl

SShepherd said:


> you're pretty much spot on
> 
> protien, and green leafy veg.-- stay away from the *bread and pasta*


2 carbs together in any meal isn't a good thing for someone who wants to drop the poundage.


----------



## Keltin

SShepherd said:


> you're pretty much spot on
> 
> protien, and green leafy veg.-- stay away from the bread and pasta


 
You can over eat on protein and leafy veggies. When calories in exceed calories burned, you gain weight. Period. Saying protein in is the answer is bogus. Cats are designed to metabolize protein primarily and have little tolerance to carbs (treat it as fiber) yet they get fat. Basic rule, Calories In > Calories out = weight gain. Reverse that for weight loss. Protein has 4 cals per gram and fat has 9 grams. This simply means you can eat more than 2x protein as compared to fat for the same caloric intake.




jpr62902 said:


> If your body's used to 2500 or more caloriesday and you cut back to 1000day, it eventually slows your metabolism down to conserve energy. No more weight loss. *Also, if you're not getting enough protein, it will start to burn muscle to replace what it needs. Not the kind of weight loss you want*.


 

Not at all. Only one organ in your body requires pure glucose for energy, and that is your brain. All other organs and tissue can run on other forms of energy. Fat deposits (lipids) are converted to glycerol (which your brain can't use) for energy, which is fine for most of the body, but the brain needs glucose. Only protein can be broken down to glucose. However, if your diet contains even a modicum of carbs, it will be used to fuel the brain first (with glucose).

Further, before excess energy is stored as lipids, you first refill your glycogen stores, and glycogen _can_ be converted to glucose. So in 99% of most active people, there is no reason to burn lean muscle tissue for glucose unless you are absolutely starving yourself for days on end (or athletically pushing the envelope 2k or more calories beyond your stores). 

If you DO burn protein as a fuel source, a side affect is the production of ammonia. So unless your sweat smells like cat pee, you aren't burning protein in any measurable degree.

You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either. 

In a nut shell, protein is used to build new muscle IF the muscle has been challenged and suffered trauma (workout and micro tears). Other than that, it gets converted to glycogen, and then to glycerol. If you're sedentary, you need very little protein. If you workout a bit, then you need a very modest amount of protein for muscle repair. 



> I agree with Fogtender, too. The first 20 -30 lbs. drops off quickly because your body is shedding a lot of water it was unnecessarily storing (probably in response to too much Sodium and not enough activity).


 
20 to 30 pounds in water weight? You can't be serious. 

That is utterly ridiculous. The most you can hope for is 2-3 pounds, and those are seen in the first few days of a new diet. This is why so many people believe a new diet is working….you drop 2-3 pounds immediately from water weight. From there, you have to dip into your lipid stores to see weight loss.


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> 2 carbs together in any meal isn't a good thing for someone who wants to drop the poundage.


 

That is a very misleading statement. 

You can easily have a portion of pasta and a portion of potatoes. Two carbs. Each coming in at 300 calories each.

Then you hit the heavy bag for a 20 minute workout and burn 800 calories.

The two carbs you ate were 600 calories, yet you burned 800. A deficit which means weight loss. 

Misguided fear over carbs and belief that protein is the answer is only making things worse. Carbs are not Evil. Protein is not magical. Understand how your body works and uses each food source, and stick to the basic rule of Cal Out > Cal In, and you’ll always lose or maintain your weight. Fact.


----------



## pirate_girl

Keltin said:


> That is a very misleading statement.
> 
> You can easily have a portion of pasta and a portion of potatoes. Two carbs. Each coming in at 300 calories each.
> 
> Then you hit the heavy bag for a 20 minute workout and burn 800 calories.
> 
> The two carbs you ate were 600 calories, yet you burned 800. A deficit which means weight loss.
> 
> Misguided fear over carbs and belief that protein is the answer is only making things worse. Carbs are not Evil. Protein is not magical. Understand how your body works and uses each food source, and stick to the basic rule of Cal Out > Cal In, and you’ll always lose or maintain your weight. Fact.


Experience tells me that proper food combining is the key to losing weight and keeping it off.
Fact.
Gosh, I didn't even have to get all wordy with that either.
Imagine that.


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> Experience tells me that proper food combining is the key to losing weight and keeping it off.
> Fact.
> Gosh, I didn't even have to get all wordy with that either.
> Imagine that.


 
So you combine ice cream with potatoes, and build up 1200 calories and only burn 600 that day. Guess what happens? You gain weight.

Oops, I made you think about math and not the magical feel good of "what I want".


----------



## pirate_girl

Whatevs...


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> Whatevs...


----------



## BigAl RIP

Are you guys done arguing ??? If anybody cares I started losing weight again . Just picked up the calories a bit .


----------



## jpr62902

BigAl said:


> Are you guys done arguing ??? If anybody cares I started losing weight again . Just picked up the calories a bit .


 
Told ya.


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Told ya.


 

Take a Physiology class!


----------



## pirate_girl

BigAl said:


> Are you guys done arguing ??? If anybody cares I started losing weight again . Just picked up the calories a bit .



"Obi Won" wubs you..


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> "Obi Won" wubs you..


 

Do or do not, there is no C-n-P!!!!


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> You can over eat on protein and leafy veggies. When calories in exceed calories burned, you gain weight. Period. Saying protein in is the answer is bogus. Cats are designed to metabolize protein primarily and have little tolerance to carbs (treat it as fiber) yet they get fat. Basic rule, Calories In > Calories out = weight gain. Reverse that for weight loss. Protein has 4 cals per gram and fat has 9 grams. This simply means you can eat more than 2x protein as compared to fat for the same caloric intake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Only one organ in your body requires pure glucose for energy, and that is your brain. All other organs and tissue can run on other forms of energy. Fat deposits (lipids) are converted to glycerol (which your brain can't use) for energy, which is fine for most of the body, but the brain needs glucose. Only protein can be broken down to glucose. However, if your diet contains even a modicum of carbs, it will be used to fuel the brain first (with glucose).
> 
> Further, before excess energy is stored as lipids, you first refill your glycogen stores, and glycogen _can_ be converted to glucose. So in 99% of most active people, there is no reason to burn lean muscle tissue for glucose unless you are absolutely starving yourself for days on end (or athletically pushing the envelope 2k or more calories beyond your stores).
> 
> If you DO burn protein as a fuel source, a side affect is the production of ammonia. So unless your sweat smells like cat pee, you aren't burning protein in any measurable degree.
> 
> You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either.
> 
> In a nut shell, protein is used to build new muscle IF the muscle has been challenged and suffered trauma (workout and micro tears). Other than that, it gets converted to glycogen, and then to glycerol. If you're sedentary, you need very little protein. If you workout a bit, then you need a very modest amount of protein for muscle repair.
> 
> 
> 
> 20 to 30 pounds in water weight? You can't be serious.
> 
> That is utterly ridiculous. The most you can hope for is 2-3 pounds, and those are seen in the first few days of a new diet. This is why so many people believe a new diet is working….you drop 2-3 pounds immediately from water weight. From there, you have to dip into your lipid stores to see weight loss.


 
Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration.  It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats.  If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.

And I'm dead serious about the water weight thing.  I didn't say it's ALL water weight.  But the dramatic initial weight loss is because it's supplemented by large amounts of excess fluid loss.  Heck, I can lose 5 lbs. in 24 hrs.  Just gimme 2 pots of coffee and about 40 mins. on the treadmill.


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration. It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats. If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.
> 
> And I'm dead serious about the water weight thing. I didn't say it's ALL water weight. But the dramatic initial weight loss is because it's supplemented by large amounts of excess fluid loss. Heck, I can lose 5 lbs. in 24 hrs. Just gimme 2 pots of coffee and about 40 mins. on the treadmill.


 
Seriously.......take a Physiologly class!


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> Seriously.......take a Physiologly class!


 
I did take several courses and I passed with flying colors.  Lemme know when you start yours.  I'll help you with your homework.


----------



## pirate_girl

jpr62902 said:


> I did take several courses and I passed with flying colors.  Lemme know when you start yours.  I'll help you with your homework.


Physiology II and PY 290 here!

Not to brag or anything...


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration. It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats. If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.
> 
> And I'm dead serious about the water weight thing. I didn't say it's ALL water weight. But the dramatic initial weight loss is because it's supplemented by large amounts of excess fluid loss. Heck, I can lose 5 lbs. in 24 hrs. Just gimme 2 pots of coffee and about 40 mins. on the treadmill.


 
Not quite. No one, and I mean NO ONE, that actually took a Physiology class would be less-than-eductated enough to say low calorie diet leads to protein catabolism, nor your initial post that weight loss would be 20-30 pounds of water. 

That is the way of a shyster. Please do not back-peddle on hindsight. 

Look man, you posted it, and you were wrong. 

Facts are facts. Deal with your embarrassment like a man already.


----------



## BigAl RIP

Ok guys ! My thread ! Either keep it on topic and be civil or I will close this thread . 
Allen


----------



## Keltin

BigAl said:


> Ok guys ! My thread ! Either keep it on topic and be civil or I will close this thread .
> Allen


 
You encountered a REAL problem with human metabolism that has been well studied.

http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html 

Sorry for the rest of this stupidness that strays beyond fact.


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> Not quite. No one, and I mean NO ONE, that actually took a Physiology class would be less-than-eductated enough to say low calorie diet leads to protein catabolism, nor your initial post that weight loss would be 20-30 pounds of water.
> 
> That is the way of a shyster. Please do not back-peddle on hindsight.
> 
> Look man, you posted it, and you were wrong.
> 
> Facts are facts. Deal with your embarrassment like a man already.


 
Give it a rest Keltin.


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Give it a rest Keltin.


 

Take a class Sam.


----------



## pirate_girl

For anyone who is interested..
http://www.familycorner.com/archives/fitness/12.shtml

http://www.formerfatguy.com/food-combine.asp

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446300152/mindsofthefit-20


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> For anyone who is interested..
> http://www.familycorner.com/archives/fitness/12.shtml
> 
> http://www.formerfatguy.com/food-combine.asp
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446300152/mindsofthefit-20


 

Nothing about the Krebs cycle, Glycogen or glycerol production, or the need for glucose for certain organs (which is important to understanding protein catabolism). 

Wow. 

Great stuff.


----------



## pirate_girl

It's my input about adhering to natural hygiene for the years I spent as a vegetarian.
It worked.
I talked about this for years when I first joined this forum and never had a problem with the sharing, except some good ribbing from members.
That's what we do around here.. we rib each other.. we love each other.. we don't take things all that seriously unless things get nasty and one tries to...
Well.. anyway...
Good health to all.
Eat well and be happy.
This is your friendly forum nursey~poo telling it like it is.
Tikka tikka fugazi masala...


----------



## Keltin

Hygiene?

WTF?

That has exactly what to do with the Krebs Cycle, Glucose usage, Glyogen storage, or Glycerol usage??? 

You got me there.


----------



## pirate_girl

Natural Hygiene.
Google it.


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> Natural Hygiene.
> Google it.


 

Has EXACLY what to do with human metabolism?

Oh wait? 

New SOAP will now make us lose weight?

CRAP!!! 

Thanks for the laugh Lollie.


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> Has EXACLY what to do with human metabolism?
> 
> Oh wait?
> 
> New SOAP will now make us lose weight?
> 
> CRAP!!!
> 
> Thanks for the laugh Lollie.


 
Typical Keltin.  Does a superficial perusal of another's post, draws an absurd inference, than follows with the sarcastic ad hominem (thought you might like that, K).


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Typical Keltin. Does a superficial perusal of another's post, draws an absurd inference, than follows with the sarcastic ad hominem (thought you might like that, K).


 
And you, how exactly, joined the REAL conversation and added to the scientific knowledge? You did what? Your high-fives have done nothing more than relegated you to the ranks of the curious. I’m ok with you wanting to be there. 

But please, come back and lets talk about the Krebs cycle and how food is metabolized for fuel…..in real terms. Thanks.


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> And you, how exactly, joined the REAL conversation and added to the scientific knowledge? You did what? Your high-fives have done nothing more than relegated you to the ranks of the curious. I’m ok with you wanting to be there.
> 
> But please, come back and lets talk about the Krebs cycle and how food is metabolized for fuel…..in real terms. Thanks.


 
Dude.  Let's dial it down a notch or ten.

You post that I should be embarassed.

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks but have referred to my posts and other's as ridiculous, stupid, etc. WTF?

What is your issue that you need to be "right" to the exclusion of others?

Regarding the Krebs cycle, I'm sure you have a Google article at the ready and not properly cited to show how right you think you are.

Seriously.  Are you taking issue with this:

Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration. It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats. If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.

C'mon, K.  You're not showing how smart you might be.  You're showing something much worse.


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Dude. Let's dial it down a notch or ten.
> 
> You post that I should be embarassed.
> 
> You accuse me of ad hominem attacks but have referred to my posts and other's as ridiculous, stupid, etc. WTF?
> 
> What is your issue that you need to be "right" to the exclusion of others?
> 
> Regarding the Krebs cycle, I'm sure you have a Google article at the ready and not properly cited to show how right you think you are.
> 
> Seriously. Are you taking issue with this:
> 
> Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration. It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats. If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.
> 
> C'mon, K. You're not showing how smart you might be. You're showing something much worse.


 
Hold on chief - your body is in a constant state of tissue *maintenance*. 

Big difference. 

Just a “tad” bit of protein is all you need for normal maintenance. As I said earlier. 

The body’s inclination to catabolize protein (lean muscle tissue) is very slim, and YOU are wrong to suggest it happens frequently outside of the starvation pattern. Fact. 

Hell, you don’t even see the error in your argument. You suggest that if the body has no protein to work with to repair muscle, it catabolizes lean muscle tissue to repair lean muscle tissue. WTF. No protein to repair muscle, so you tear down muscle to rebuild muscles??? Sam, seriously, the idea of perpetual ANYTHING has long since been disproved. 

Look, you were wrong and PG was wrong. Just admit to it and move on already.


----------



## pirate_girl

Keltin said:


> Look, you were wrong and PG was wrong. Just admit to it and move on already.


I wasn't wrong about anything_ I_ was talking about.


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> I wasn't wrong about anything_ I_ was talking about.


 
You said having two starches was a "bad" thing.

That's not true. 

You can not make general and sweeping remarks like that. You have to account for total diet, total caloric intake, total caloric expenditure, activity level, exercise plan, etc, etc, etc.

It's simply wrong to say two carbs are bad. Utterly wrong and propogates misinformation.


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> Hold on chief - your body is in a constant state of tissue *maintenance*.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Just a “tad” bit of protein is all you need for normal maintenance. As I said earlier.
> 
> The body’s inclination to catabolize protein (lean muscle tissue) is very slim, and YOU are wrong to suggest it happens frequently outside of the starvation pattern. Fact.
> 
> Hell, you don’t even see the error in your argument. You suggest that if the body has no protein to work with to repair muscle, it catabolizes lean muscle tissue to repair lean muscle tissue. WTF. No protein to repair muscle, so you tear down muscle to rebuild muscles??? Sam, seriously, the idea of perpetual ANYTHING has long since been disproved.
> 
> Look, you were wrong and PG was wrong. Just admit to it and move on already.


 
Again with the "you're wrong" thing.

Did you even read the links in PG's post?  From your responses, the answer is "no."  The articles were about diet and how to avoid mixing alkalines with acids in any given meal.  Your condescending response about natural hygiene being equivalent to using soap for weight loss was, again, a simplistic, incorrect and wild inference drawn from what appears to be a reasonable post.

Regarding your most recent post, you again draw an incorrect and wild inference from my post.  Muscle tissue isn't the only organ in the body that is constantly regenerating.  Bone, skin, muscle (others) are all constantly redeveloping.  We need protein to fortify these processes.  Google it, like you've Googled the Krebs cycle.

And please.  Stop offering your ludicrous and unfounded interpretations of others' posts to buttress your "argument."  And btw, FF ain't about winning an argument.  We're about enlightenment, or at the very least, sharing points of view.


----------



## pirate_girl

Keltin said:


> You said having two starches was a "bad" thing.
> 
> That's not true.
> 
> You can not make general and sweeping remarks like that. You have to account for total diet, total caloric intake, total caloric expenditure, activity level, exercise plan, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> It's simply wrong to say two carbs are bad. Utterly wrong and propogates misinformation.


I based my statement on experience, and the experience of others.
That doesn't make me wrong.
It makes you want to prove it wrong.

I'm hungry and have a hankering for some Kellogg's corn flakes


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Again with the "you're wrong" thing.
> 
> Did you even read the links in PG's post? From your responses, the answer is "no." The articles were about diet and how to avoid mixing alkalines with acids in any given meal. Your condescending response about natural hygiene being equivalent to using soap for weight loss was, again, a simplistic, incorrect and wild inference drawn from what appears to be a reasonable post.
> 
> Regarding your most recent post, you again draw an incorrect and wild inference from my post. Muscle tissue isn't the only organ in the body that is constantly regenerating. Bone, skin, muscle (others) are all constantly redeveloping. We need protein to fortify these processes. Google it, like you've Googled the Krebs cycle.
> 
> And please. Stop offering your ludicrous and unfounded interpretations of others' posts to buttress your "argument." And btw, FF ain't about winning an argument. We're about enlightenment, or at the very least, sharing points of view.


 

Like I said, take a class or at least Google before you expose your "less-than" on this matter. 

Your vocabulary is good......your understanding is not so in this ring. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid


----------



## Keltin

pirate_girl said:


> I based my statement on experience, and the experience of others.
> That doesn't make me wrong.
> It makes you want to prove it wrong.
> 
> I'm hungry and have a hankering for some Kellogg's corn flakes


 
My experience is that if I don't eat I lose weight. 

Yeah, that's some great scientific postualtion there. Way to go. 

How about, my experience is, I eat cat turds and I lose weight. 

WOW! New FAD Diet! How wonderful is that crap!

Yeah, let's just base all of this on MY EXPERIENCE.

And what happens when "my experience" is based on billy and bubbas firecracker lunch. 

Good God! That is the most ridiculuous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. 

Thank you for the laugh!!!!


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> Like I said, take a class or at least Google before you expose your "less-than" on this matter.
> 
> Your vocabulary is good......your understanding is not so in this ring. Sorry.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid


 
I will say this.  I figured you had a Google article at the ready.  Instead, it was a Wiki.  In that sense, you finally got me.

Still, you need to give this "prove other folks to be wrong" thing a rest.  You just can't do it when folks know about that of which they speak.  And besides, why is it so important to prove someone else to be wrong?  Why can't you just post information for folks to digest on their own?

To be fair, I'm guilty of that too, but I don't _typically_ refer to others' posts as ridiculous, stupid, or otherwise.  Again, FF, for me, is about enlightenment, whether by opinion, or information.  And it's NEVER about winning a debate, argument or whatever you want to call it.  Sometimes it does involve snarkiness, but most of us realize it's all in good fun.

So Keltin, I concede nothing to you.  I thank you for the information you have posted, but would thank you again not to draw incorrect and far-fetched inferences from my (or others') posts.  If there's room for interpretation, ask me (or them) first.


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> I will say this. I figured you had a Google article at the ready. Instead, it was a Wiki. In that sense, you finally got me.
> 
> Still, you need to give this "prove other folks to be wrong" thing a rest. You just can't do it when folks know about that of which they speak. And besides, why is it so important to prove someone else to be wrong? Why can't you just post information for folks to digest on their own?
> 
> To be fair, I'm guilty of that too, but I don't _typically_ refer to others' posts as ridiculous, stupid, or otherwise. Again, FF, for me, is about enlightenment, whether by opinion, or information. And it's NEVER about winning a debate, argument or whatever you want to call it. Sometimes it does involve snarkiness, but most of us realize it's all in good fun.
> 
> So Keltin, I concede nothing to you. I thank you for the information you have posted, but would thank you again not to draw incorrect and far-fetched inferences from my (or others') posts. If there's room for interpretation, ask me (or them) first.


 

That was fun. So you're done? Ok then.

But, if you'd like scans or pics of my physiology and biology text books proving you to be utterly wrong, I can scan them or snap pics.

Bad information is my problem. I don't like to see crap spread that Snopes would squash. Sorry. 

Have a good one Sam.


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> That was fun. So you're done? Ok then.
> 
> But, if you'd like scans or pics of my physiology and biology text books proving you to be utterly wrong, I can scan them or snap pics.
> 
> Bad information is my problem. I don't like to see crap spread that Snopes would squash. Sorry.
> 
> Have a good one Sam.


 
Yes, by all means, provide scans of your text books to prove me wrong.  And btw, make sure it addresses what I posted.  Not what you think I posted.  Lord knows they're not even remotely close to the same thing.

And you have a good one, too, K.


----------



## Keltin

jpr62902 said:


> Yes, by all means, provide scans of your text books to prove me wrong. And btw, make sure it addresses what I posted. Not what you think I posted. Lord knows they're not even remotely close to the same thing.
> 
> And you have a good one, too, K.


 

You're on.

But let's agree on what you're wrong about:

1. Losing 20-30 pounds of water weight

2. Easy and daily lean muscle catabolization

Those are my two big points against you. Do you want to adjust or retract.....or perhaps use hind-sight to modify?


----------



## Keltin

Good night Sam. I'm going to bed. See ya later.


----------



## jpr62902

Keltin said:


> You're on.
> 
> But let's agree on what you're wrong about:
> 
> 1. Losing 20-30 pounds of water weight
> 
> 2. Easy and daily lean muscle catabolization
> 
> Those are my two big points against you. Do you want to adjust or retract.....or perhaps use hind-sight to modify?


 
Again, misinterpreting posts. 

Again with combative commentary.

"My points against you".  Seriously?

Never said, "Lost 20-30lbs of water" in whatever time frame.  This is getting so old.

Catabolization simply means breaking down complex stuff into simpler stuff.  Just address my comments about protein consumption head on, if you're up to it.  Don't obfuscate it with words like "catabolization."


----------



## SShepherd

Keltin said:


> You can over eat on protein and leafy veggies. When calories in exceed calories burned, you gain weight. Period. Saying protein in is the answer is bogus. Cats are designed to metabolize protein primarily and have little tolerance to carbs (treat it as fiber) yet they get fat. Basic rule, Calories In > Calories out = weight gain. Reverse that for weight loss. Protein has 4 cals per gram and fat has 9 grams. This simply means you can eat more than 2x protein as compared to fat for the same caloric intake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Only one organ in your body requires pure glucose for energy, and that is your brain. All other organs and tissue can run on other forms of energy. Fat deposits (lipids) are converted to glycerol (which your brain can't use) for energy, which is fine for most of the body, but the brain needs glucose. Only protein can be broken down to glucose. However, if your diet contains even a modicum of carbs, it will be used to fuel the brain first (with glucose).
> 
> Further, before excess energy is stored as lipids, you first refill your glycogen stores, and glycogen _can_ be converted to glucose. So in 99% of most active people, there is no reason to burn lean muscle tissue for glucose unless you are absolutely starving yourself for days on end (or athletically pushing the envelope 2k or more calories beyond your stores).
> 
> If you DO burn protein as a fuel source, a side affect is the production of ammonia. So unless your sweat smells like cat pee, you aren't burning protein in any measurable degree.
> 
> You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either.
> 
> In a nut shell, protein is used to build new muscle IF the muscle has been challenged and suffered trauma (workout and micro tears). Other than that, it gets converted to glycogen, and then to glycerol. If you're sedentary, you need very little protein. If you workout a bit, then you need a very modest amount of protein for muscle repair.
> 
> 
> 
> 20 to 30 pounds in water weight? You can't be serious.
> 
> That is utterly ridiculous. The most you can hope for is 2-3 pounds, and those are seen in the first few days of a new diet. This is why so many people believe a new diet is working….you drop 2-3 pounds immediately from water weight. From there, you have to dip into your lipid stores to see weight loss.


 
oh good greif, I didn't think I'd have to post a thesis and insult the OPs' intelligence.

OF COURSE you still have to watch your calorie intake

I've had the same issue as the OP for the past 3 years. I went on a starvation diet for a year--1300cal, lost 60lbs--was a miserable SOB

Tried another "plan" for 8 months while going to the gym, didn't work an I was stagnant from a slow metaolism.

5 months ago I started working with a Professional bodybuilder (all natural-no roids, with his pro card)

The "gist" if my eating schedule is 2500 cal, broken into 7 meals a day. Lean protien and veg.

everyones body is different, you have to find what works best for you and your fitness level/goals

if the OP wants more details, he can email.


BTW, one big problem with "diets" and fitness plans is that there's a million places on the net that will tell you a million differing opinons.

*You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either*

in about 10 seconds I found an article written by a guy who master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest and other popular fitness magazines that doesn't agree with you.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/blog/losing-muscle-as-well-as-fat

One good illustration of these principles comes from a research team led by Dr. Donald Layman, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois.
In the study, researchers compared the effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet against a high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet combined with exercise in 48 obese women. Both diets contained 1,700 calories, 30% of calories from fat, and about 17 grams of fiber.
However, women on the high-protein diet substituted high-protein foods (e.g. meats, dairy, eggs, and nuts) for foods high in carbohydrate (e.g. breads, rice, cereal, pasta, and potatoes) to get about 30% of their total calories from protein (1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight).
Women on the high-carbohydrate diet ate about half that amount of protein (0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight) and got about 60% of their daily calories from carbohydrate.
*The women also followed two different exercise programs.*

Exercise in group one involved voluntary "light walking activity." Women in this group averaged about 100 minutes per week of added exercise.
While group two walked a minimum of five days per week, they also did resistance exercise (30 minutes of weight training) twice weekly. The exercise was supervised and averaged 200 minutes or more each week.

After four months, both groups of dieters lost weight. Not surprisingly, body composition tests show that women who did resistance exercise lost less muscle and more fat.

High-protein dieters who did resistance exercise group lost an average of 22 pounds and less than one pound of muscle.
High-carbohydrate dieters who also did resistance exercise group lost an average of 15 pounds. But they also lost over 2 pounds of muscle.
So, nearly 100% of the weight lost in the high-protein group was fat, while around 15% of the weight lost in the high-carbohydrate group was muscle. This was due mainly to their low protein intake, which averaged just 0.7 grams per kilogram of bodyweight per day.



What about the group who only did the walking?
The high-protein dieters in this group lost an average of 19 pounds. However, over 4 pounds came from muscle. The high-carbohydrate group lost 17 pounds, but nearly 6 pounds came from muscle.
"Both diets work because, when you restrict calories, you lose weight. But the people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."
The main weakness with the study is that calorie intake was self reported. This is a notoriously inaccurate way to measure calorie intake, and goes a long way to explaining why the high-protein group lost more fat than the high-carbohydrate group.
*Anyway, that's enough of the theory. Let's get to the practical application.*


If you want to lose fat without losing (or even gaining) the precious muscle tissue you've worked so hard to build, here's what to do...

Don't let daily calorie intake drop below 8 calories per pound of bodyweight (e.g. a 200-pound person wouldn't eat less than 1600 calories per day).
*Set your protein intake at a level that's adequate to preserve muscle (around 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight). This number assumes that you're doing some form of resistance exercise twice a week, which I consider the bare minimum for anyone wanting to lose fat while preserving muscle*.
Get around 20-30% of your calories from fat, ensuring that you get roughly 2 grams of the *essential long-chain omega-3 fatty acids*.
Adjust your carbohydrate intake according to how active you are without exceeding your daily calorie intake goal.
If you're a subscriber to the Members-Only Area, there's an easy-to-use *Calorie Calculator* in *How To Burn Fat Without Losing Muscle* that works it all out for you. These guidelines are not ideal for people who are extremely overweight, as those with a lot of fat to lose can generally sustain a larger calorie deficit than leaner individuals without running the risk of losing muscle.
Now, although these numbers are based on the results of several well-designed studies, I've had e-mails from a couple of readers who think that the recommended level of protein is too high.
"On a 1600-calorie diet," wrote one reader, "200 grams of protein comes to 800 calories, or 50% of someone's total calorie intake. Isn't that a bit high and not what you intended?"
Firstly, I should point out that the 8 calories per pound of bodyweight number is a suggested _lower limit_ and not a figure I consider optimal. But if somebody does little or no exercise, their calorie intake will need to be on the low side if they're going to lose weight at a decent rate. Normally, I'd recommend a figure nearer to 10-12 calories per pound of bodyweight (depending on how much exercise you're doing), which would change the percentage of calories from protein.
Second, I don't consider expressing nutrient intake in percentages to be a particularly accurate or effective way to evaluate your diet. That's because they depend to a large extent on your total calorie intake.
For example, let's say that you consume 200 grams of protein per day. On a 1600-calorie diet, that comes to 50% of your total calorie intake, a number that some would consider too high. But when that same 200 grams of protein comes from a 2300-calorie diet, the percentage is only 35%, a number considered by even the Institute of Medicine (an organization that helps the US Government set dietary guidelines) as a *safe level of intake*.




*"people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."*


----------



## SShepherd

here's another:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15303108

 CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a high-soy-protein and low-fat diet can improve the body composition in overweight and obese people, losing fat but preserving muscle mass.


----------



## Keltin

SShepherd said:


> oh good greif, I didn't think I'd have to post a thesis and insult the OPs' intelligence.
> 
> OF COURSE you still have to watch your calorie intake
> 
> I've had the same issue as the OP for the past 3 years. I went on a starvation diet for a year--1300cal, lost 60lbs--was a miserable SOB
> 
> Tried another "plan" for 8 months while going to the gym, didn't work an I was stagnant from a slow metaolism.
> 
> 5 months ago I started working with a Professional bodybuilder (all natural-no roids, with his pro card)
> 
> The "gist" if my eating schedule is 2500 cal, broken into 7 meals a day. Lean protien and veg.
> 
> everyones body is different, you have to find what works best for you and your fitness level/goals
> 
> if the OP wants more details, he can email.
> 
> 
> BTW, one big problem with "diets" and fitness plans is that there's a million places on the net that will tell you a million differing opinons.
> 
> *You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either*
> 
> in about 10 seconds I found an article written by a guy who master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest and other popular fitness magazines that doesn't agree with you.
> 
> http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/blog/losing-muscle-as-well-as-fat
> 
> One good illustration of these principles comes from a research team led by Dr. Donald Layman, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois.
> In the study, researchers compared the effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet against a high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet combined with exercise in 48 obese women. Both diets contained 1,700 calories, 30% of calories from fat, and about 17 grams of fiber.
> However, women on the high-protein diet substituted high-protein foods (e.g. meats, dairy, eggs, and nuts) for foods high in carbohydrate (e.g. breads, rice, cereal, pasta, and potatoes) to get about 30% of their total calories from protein (1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight).
> Women on the high-carbohydrate diet ate about half that amount of protein (0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight) and got about 60% of their daily calories from carbohydrate.
> *The women also followed two different exercise programs.*
> 
> Exercise in group one involved voluntary "light walking activity." Women in this group averaged about 100 minutes per week of added exercise.
> While group two walked a minimum of five days per week, they also did resistance exercise (30 minutes of weight training) twice weekly. The exercise was supervised and averaged 200 minutes or more each week.
> 
> 
> After four months, both groups of dieters lost weight. Not surprisingly, body composition tests show that women who did resistance exercise lost less muscle and more fat.
> 
> High-protein dieters who did resistance exercise group lost an average of 22 pounds and less than one pound of muscle.
> High-carbohydrate dieters who also did resistance exercise group lost an average of 15 pounds. But they also lost over 2 pounds of muscle.
> So, nearly 100% of the weight lost in the high-protein group was fat, while around 15% of the weight lost in the high-carbohydrate group was muscle. This was due mainly to their low protein intake, which averaged just 0.7 grams per kilogram of bodyweight per day.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the group who only did the walking?
> The high-protein dieters in this group lost an average of 19 pounds. However, over 4 pounds came from muscle. The high-carbohydrate group lost 17 pounds, but nearly 6 pounds came from muscle.
> "Both diets work because, when you restrict calories, you lose weight. But the people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."
> The main weakness with the study is that calorie intake was self reported. This is a notoriously inaccurate way to measure calorie intake, and goes a long way to explaining why the high-protein group lost more fat than the high-carbohydrate group.
> *Anyway, that's enough of the theory. Let's get to the practical application.*
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to lose fat without losing (or even gaining) the precious muscle tissue you've worked so hard to build, here's what to do...
> 
> Don't let daily calorie intake drop below 8 calories per pound of bodyweight (e.g. a 200-pound person wouldn't eat less than 1600 calories per day).
> *Set your protein intake at a level that's adequate to preserve muscle (around 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight). This number assumes that you're doing some form of resistance exercise twice a week, which I consider the bare minimum for anyone wanting to lose fat while preserving muscle*.
> Get around 20-30% of your calories from fat, ensuring that you get roughly 2 grams of the *essential long-chain omega-3 fatty acids*.
> Adjust your carbohydrate intake according to how active you are without exceeding your daily calorie intake goal.
> If you're a subscriber to the Members-Only Area, there's an easy-to-use *Calorie Calculator* in *How To Burn Fat Without Losing Muscle* that works it all out for you. These guidelines are not ideal for people who are extremely overweight, as those with a lot of fat to lose can generally sustain a larger calorie deficit than leaner individuals without running the risk of losing muscle.
> Now, although these numbers are based on the results of several well-designed studies, I've had e-mails from a couple of readers who think that the recommended level of protein is too high.
> "On a 1600-calorie diet," wrote one reader, "200 grams of protein comes to 800 calories, or 50% of someone's total calorie intake. Isn't that a bit high and not what you intended?"
> Firstly, I should point out that the 8 calories per pound of bodyweight number is a suggested _lower limit_ and not a figure I consider optimal. But if somebody does little or no exercise, their calorie intake will need to be on the low side if they're going to lose weight at a decent rate. Normally, I'd recommend a figure nearer to 10-12 calories per pound of bodyweight (depending on how much exercise you're doing), which would change the percentage of calories from protein.
> Second, I don't consider expressing nutrient intake in percentages to be a particularly accurate or effective way to evaluate your diet. That's because they depend to a large extent on your total calorie intake.
> For example, let's say that you consume 200 grams of protein per day. On a 1600-calorie diet, that comes to 50% of your total calorie intake, a number that some would consider too high. But when that same 200 grams of protein comes from a 2300-calorie diet, the percentage is only 35%, a number considered by even the Institute of Medicine (an organization that helps the US Government set dietary guidelines) as a *safe level of intake*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."*


 

Yes. In a resistive weight training regimen where you periodically break down and stress muscle tissue, high protein is needed to repair and build new muscle. It’s a basic and fundamental principle of bodybuilding where 1 gram or protein per pound of bodyweight is recommended (but often debated). That is not in question.

The question is, if you are not hitting the weights and you simply want to drop caloric intake to lose weight, how important is protein. 

Two different cases. But I do appreciate you covering the other scenario so thoroughly.


----------



## SShepherd

Keltin said:


> Hold on chief - your body is in a constant state of tissue *maintenance*.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Just a “tad” bit of protein is all you need for normal maintenance. As I said earlier.
> 
> The body’s inclination to catabolize protein (lean muscle tissue) is very slim, and YOU are wrong to suggest it happens frequently outside of the starvation pattern. Fact.
> 
> Hell, you don’t even see the error in your argument. You suggest that if the body has no protein to work with to repair muscle, it catabolizes lean muscle tissue to repair lean muscle tissue. WTF. No protein to repair muscle, so you tear down muscle to rebuild muscles??? Sam, seriously, the idea of perpetual ANYTHING has long since been disproved.
> 
> Look, you were wrong and PG was wrong. Just admit to it and move on already.


 

per my previous post;

*What about the group who only did the walking?
The high-protein dieters in this group lost an average of 19 pounds. However, over 4 pounds came from muscle. The high-carbohydrate group lost 17 pounds, but nearly 6 pounds came from muscle.
"Both diets work because, when you restrict calories, you lose weight. But the people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."*


----------



## Treefriend

Whoa! 1000 calories?

That would be ok if "Big Al" was a 3 foot midget. Is he?  

I just ran a profile at the Pearson diet analysis site and I should

not go lower than 2100 calories per day to _lose_ weight...maintenance is

higher. 1000 cals is a starvation diet for a grown man.


----------



## Keltin

SShepherd said:


> per my previous post;
> 
> *What about the group who only did the walking?*
> *The high-protein dieters in this group lost an average of 19 pounds. However, over 4 pounds came from muscle. The high-carbohydrate group lost 17 pounds, but nearly 6 pounds came from muscle.*
> *"Both diets work because, when you restrict calories, you lose weight. But the people on the higher-protein diet lost more weight," says Professor Layman. "There's an additive, interactive effect when a protein-rich diet is combined with exercise. The two work together to correct body composition; dieters lose more weight, and they lose fat, not muscle."*


 
Exercise.

What about change nothing and remain sedentary while restricting caloric intake. OP never said he jumped on the athletic bandwagon and began walking miles or deadlifting and doing farmers walks. 

I'm all for a right and rigorous exercise program....I follow one myself. But OP never brought it up. He maintains a simple reduction in calories.

Again, thanks for covering the bit of adding exercise, but that is a different story.


----------



## Keltin

Treefriend said:


> Whoa! 1000 calories?
> 
> That would be ok if "Big Al" was a 3 foot midget. Is he?
> 
> I just ran a profile at the Pearson diet analysis site and I should
> 
> not go lower than 2100 calories per day to _lose_ weight...maintenance is
> 
> higher. 1000 cals is a starvation diet for a grown man.


 
Which will cause RMR to drop for conservation. Exactly correct.


----------



## SShepherd

doing nothing....sedintary..you've never heard of muscle atrophy?a


----------



## Keltin

SShepherd said:


> doing nothing....sedintary..you've never herd of muscle atrophy?


 
Not with proper caloric intake to meet RMR and basic daily expenditure.....no. If you are a bodybuilder and suddenly sit on your butt, yes, there is atrophy because you no longer stress and work the muscle to the same degree to generate new tissue growth.

If you are a programmer that never touched the iron in his life, no. There is no muscle atrophy with a caloric intake that meets or exceeds RMR and daily activity. 

Protein jeopardy in restricted diet is due to the fact that lipids can not be converted to Glucose which your brain needs to function. Take the average Joe, let him ingest enough carbs to make glucose for brain activity, and guess what, no lean muscle catabolization. 

But, and this is a WHOLE NEW thread, start exercising strenuously, and that goes out the window. 

Again, the OP subject was strict caloric reduction with no major change in exercise. 

Last I checked, this was not a thread about how to gain lean muscle mass through proper exercise and diet. But I'd love a thread like that!

Further, ideas of exercise were not even introduced by the OP. The only thing mentioned was caloric reduction for weight loss. From there, we were floored with crazy ideas of 20-30 pounds of water weight loss, and massive lean muscle catabolization all without the introduction of resistive or any other form of exercise. I disagree.


----------



## SShepherd

Keltin said:


> Exercise.
> 
> What about change nothing and remain sedentary while restricting caloric intake.*OP never said he jumped on the athletic bandwagon and began walking miles or deadlifting and doing farmers walks. *
> 
> I'm all for a right and rigorous exercise program....I follow one myself. But OP never brought it up. He maintains a simple reduction in calories.
> 
> Again, thanks for covering the bit of adding exercise, but that is a different story.


 

per the OPs' post #10
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showpost.php?p=310681&postcount=10

"We started walking more and doing the execising routine too . Today I got my butt kicked helping my son install a new landscaped wall using railroad ties . I could only use one arm but I am willing to bet I may have dropped some weight .I have not worked that hard in a long time . Maybe getting more physical and the walking will get me kicked into gear again ."


----------



## Keltin

SShepherd said:


> per the OPs' post #10
> http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showpost.php?p=310681&postcount=10
> 
> "We started walking more and doing the execising routine too . Today I got my butt kicked helping my son install a new landscaped wall using railroad ties . I could only use one arm but I am willing to bet I may have dropped some weight .I have not worked that hard in a long time . Maybe getting more physical and the walking will get me kicked into gear again ."


 
Ahh. Ok. I missed that one.

I concede. 

Well done.


----------



## BigAl RIP

Ok !I guess my body is happy again . I started dropping weight again at a good clip . I tried the 1200-1400 calorie a day thing but did not like it so I went back to a 1000 calories a day and increased my work outs each day . 
I am now also running a mile a day and hitting the bike too . I ain't no spinter but it gets my heart rate up to where it should be . Feeling pretty damn perky too ! 

So I am back to losing 1/2 -1 pound a day . I'll be real happy with 5 pounds a week .


----------



## SShepherd

Just remember, it can go back on as fast as it came off


----------

