- This topic has 63 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Now don’t run away Mac. Care to explain this? Basic physiology is far from extreme possibilities.
Let’s engage in an intelligent conversation since you seam to so adamant on proving a point. I’m all about learning. If there one thing I know is there’s a lot I don’t know…The eyes can't see what the mind doesn't understand.
Ok, if you insist. Lol, I’ll try to be gentle… 😀
By “extreme possibilities,” I meant the things you mentioned that can be harmful in a starvation situation, but are a non-issue with reasonable calorie reduction and adequate protein intake.
– Rob wrote:
“1) In a calorie deficit, before accessing fat stores, internal organs & muscle gets hit first by scavenging amino acids unless appropriate measures are taken.”This sounds scary, but it’s a somewhat nonsensical statement. “Scavenging amino acids” is the action that takes place, not a bunch of little varmints on the attack (at least not in this case).
To burn fat, your body may indeed “scavenge” (or more correctly, “borrow”) required amino acids from protein in muscle and organ tissue in order to prepare stored fat for immediate use. However, with adequate protein intake, this is a non-issue.
Why? Because the body is always undergoing anabolic and catabolic processes during cell maintenance/repair, and nutrients are constantly being transported to where they’re needed most. Any “borrowed” amino acids will be replaced when the next protein meal is ingested. Btw, this constant cell activity expends the majority of calories consumed, which is why exercise doesn’t affect fat loss the way most folks expect.
(see next post for the rest, apparently this near-worthless forum software has a size limit)
– Rob wrote:
“2) nutrient intake is never a constant (unless you are fed by an IV I guess). We eat, then do other things, we store fat if appropriate mechanisms are in place then metabolize fat stores again if appropriate mechanisms are in place until we eat again. This happens both in a calorie deficit & surplus.”This is true (which is why point #1 is irrelevant), but it seems rather a nitpick at my statement: “If nutrient intake meets or exceeds the body’s expenditures, there is no reason to access that stored fat.”
To be more precise, perhaps I should have said: “If nutrient intake meets or exceeds the body’s expenditures, there is no reason for an overall reduction of fat stores.”
And there’s not, because any nutrients used will be replaced, and “surplus” calories (due to fat used between meals) will simply be re-stored again as fat.
And… this statement is still true:
“Your body does not, cannot, under any circumstances, create its own fuel. It functions solely on nutrient intake (foods/drinks) and/or stored fat.” Ok, perhaps I should have said “functions primarily” rather than “functions solely,” but I doubt anyone actually misunderstood the meaning.While the body can convert existing resources (depleting muscle tissue, or even organ tissue in extreme cases), nothing extra or new is created (it’s simply converted), and you won’t gain weight as a result. In such cases those resources are being used up, not maintained, and certainly not stored as fat.
On a side note, I recommend this book (free download) to anyone interested in how all this stuff works. It’s called “Your Inner Engine: An Introductory Course on Human Metabolism” by Jane M Vanderkooi, Ph.D. (retired professor of biochemistry and biophysics from the University of Pennsylvania). It’s written in a down to earth manner with students and the general public in mind.
http://www.med.upenn.edu/biocbiop/faculty/vanderkooi/Your constant strawman arguments are brutal.
“Your body does not, cannot, under any circumstances, create its own fuel. It functions solely on nutrient intake (foods/drinks) and/or stored fat.”
This is obvious, and no one is saying this isn’t true. What you’re not taking into consideration is that your body stores more than just fat. It stores carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals, pretty much everything. Carbohydrates via glycogen, protein via labile systems, fats in multiple ways – not simply just “stored fat”.
This thread has gotten way off topic. A former fitness competitor was exercising 11 times a week on not enough food. This is a classic pattern of metabolic damage, and you suggested she drop her calories even more to “see results in a week”.
You are underestimating the effects of exercise because you are focusing on what is happening during the workout. Not what happens after and how the body (and brains, genes, organs, etc) change in response to exercise. We are not static machines, even though you try to be one. You’re also not differentiating between weight loss and fat loss, so the entire context is out of place.
*sigh* If you like “counting every piece of food you put in your mouth” like you stated, go ahead, but don’t throw that bullshit on other people and try to sell it like it’s the only way. I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes.
“If you have to count your almonds, you have an eating disorder” – Dan John
So I was a bit nit picky in my response…maybe there’s a point there I don’t know.
So how do you figure hormones play into this which I think was the whole point of the “elephant in the room” Coach T was referring too?
My point: simply lowering calories works sometimes but not all of the time.
The argument shouldn’t be about calorie deficient of excess in regards to storing or metabolizing fat. I should be about if hormonal signaling is doing what it is supposed to do and what to do about it.
In regards too the OP’s dilemma, I believe that either in adequate nutrient intake or excessive endurance activity could be causing a situation where overstimulation of stress hormones might be affecting downstream processes causing what is commonly referred to as “starvation mode” where fat sparing is occuring.
This is why Layne Nortons reverse dieting is getting so popular. It resets hormonal profiles so they can get fat metabolism going like it should without one starving themselves or cardioing to death.Note: this is just my opinion, I’m not a doctor and have no credentials…
You say 2 + 2 = 4 which is true.
But so does 5 – 1, & 3 +`1. The right answer is which is the path of least resistance.The eyes can't see what the mind doesn't understand.
This is why I hesitated to even respond.
You guys seem to think the body can sustain itself with inadequate nutrition and without weight loss.
By that theory, WWII POWs should have been roly-poly fat instead of walking skeletons.
I see no sense in wasting our time since we can’t even agree on basic physics (especially thermodynamics). We just have no common reference point.
Guess I’m really done this time. Have another nice day. 🙂
We’re not talking about 3rd world starvation levels here.
So now we are talking about actual starvation?
We’re not talking about 3rd world starvation levels here.
So now we are talking about actual starvation?
No, I’ll admit I was a bit annoyed that when MT replied, who is a bright guy and has helped many with their questions, gets nit picked apart which I thought was undeserving. Hence my reply to Macs logic. My apologies there.
Hopefully we can get beyond this non-sense and actually get to help the OP.
The eyes can't see what the mind doesn't understand.
No that was in response to
By that theory, WWII POWs should have been roly-poly fat instead of walking skeletons.
Tony, my apologies for not responding to you more directly (even though you don’t seem to read my replies very thoroughly).
And since you gave me a favorite quote of yours, I’ll share one of mine (from these forums):
“your total daily caloric intake goal for the week/day must be appropriately in a caloric deficit to achieve fat loss”
It’s from Body IO Coach Andrea Jengle (AJ), in this thread:
http://one.body.io/groups/body-io-coach-andrea-jengle-aj/forum/topic/macro-confusion-2/Have a nice day. 🙂
Lol the fact you think I don’t agree that you need to be in a deficit is laughable.
That was never being disputed. OP IS IN A DEFICIT.
At a bodyweight of 125lbs, she should at least be eating 1600 at maintenance, and that’s on the lower end.
You didn’t read anything she posted. You didn’t even know she was working out 11 times because you thought I was suggesting you suggested that. You just told her to drop her calories when she’s already in a deficit.
This is what I’ve been trying to explain to you, but you’ve been evading with random strawman arguments and references that are irrelevant.
– Body IO Coach Tony
No, that’s where we disagree. You think she’s in a deficit, and I don’t, because there is apparently no fat loss after a couple of months.
I also specifically posted that a couple of brief, heavy workouts can prevent muscle loss. So I’m still not sure why you keep bringing up the 11 workouts as if I condoned it.
But this is exactly what I didn’t want to get drawn into – a ridiculous discussion with someone of your obvious intellect.
An ad hom attack, ow my feelers.
There are plenty of people, women especially, who destroy their bodies because of terrible advice like this. This leads to metabolic damage and hormonal down regulation which is a vicious cycle too many get caught in. You can disagree with me (for whatever reason) and you’re free to do anything you want to do with yourself. However when it comes to other people you may want to hold back that kind of advice, especially when you don’t actually read their posts or understand the consequences of the advice you shell out.
And once again, we’re back to a disagreement on basic physics.
You seem to believe the human body can maintain weight with less nutrition than it actually requires (below maintenance), and continue maintaining that state for two months.
I do not agree, nor do any laws of physics (including thermodynamics, hysteresis, entropy, nor anything else I can think of).
But I’ve truly had enough, so feel free to denigrate me as you wish. My time would be better spent banging my head against a wall.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.