• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Not eating enough to lose weight !!!

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

WTF?

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

You got me there.
 
Has EXACLY what to do with human metabolism?

Oh wait?

New SOAP will now make us lose weight?

CRAP!!! :yum::yum:

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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :D
 
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
 
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 :D

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!!!! :yum::yum::yum::yum:
 
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.:yum:

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.
 
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.:yum:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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."
 
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. :w00t:

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.
layman2.gif
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."
 
Last edited:
Top