My friends were debating this today at lunch.

Is it true if you severely restrict what you eat and hardly eat much of anything, it won't actually help you lose weight but will in fact make your body store as much fat as possible?

i would believe it .

There was a study done on this... can't think of the study name off the top of my head...

Lowering your caloric intake will cause you body to go into starvation mode and store as much fat and energy as possible to make up for the lost calories...

Whether this has been disproven or not I dont' know.

100% true.




ETA: It's not just lowering your calories, as a slight caloric deficit is great for losing weight.  It's only when you eat next to nothing like an aneorexic.

thats what i've always heard

When your body starves it can only obtain essential nutrients from digesting muscle, your muscle. The reduction in muscle mass lowers the rate you burn calories when resting, and the auto-cannibalization of your muscles makes you listless and tired, causing you to burn fewer calories still.

See Covert Bailey's Fit or Fat. I found it a useful read.

Take it to the limit and test it.

Who do you THINK will lose more weight, the person who consumes 2500 calories every day for a month, or the person who consumes 1000 calories a day for a month?  The difference is about 45,000 calories - they are going to come from somewhere, and your ass is the only candidate.   Even better - how about a person eating nothing - now you've got a 75,000 calorie deficit, and it's going to come from somewhere (assuming some constant activity level across these cases, of course)

A person might go into "starvation mode" or whatever, and might retain water and all kinds of other MARGINAL effects, but it doesn't change the basic mathematics of how your body works.  Your body burns fuel (measured in calories or similar measure).  If you do not take in enough calories to resupply the daily comsumption, your body will take it out of reserves, fat, tissue, whatever.

Now - how much or little you eat might affect HOW the body gets that energy, and whether it converts only fat, or some fat and some muscle, etc - but the basic mathematics aren't going to change.  If you have a 45,000 calorie deficit in a month, you are going to lose a significant amount of pounds.  

Probably not a "healthy" or ideal way to lose weight, but the calculation is a simple energy in vs. energy out calculation - nothing really more mysterious to it than that, generally speaking.

Half true.


The diet that has been floating around college campuses is the following:


Day 1) Have a breakfast... nothing else that day except water.
Day 2) Eat nothing, nada zip... except water.
Day 3) Nothing, nada, zip... except water
Day 4-10)  Nothing nada zip
Day 11)  full stick of celery
Day 12-20) full stick of celery
Day 20+) Only veggies such as carrots, celery, peppers.  No taters.


Continue as needed.


The sorority chicks are into this sort of crap... the sad thing is, it looks like it works.

Sending your body into "starvation mode" can only hurt you if you actually start eating again.  
I think they may be on to something with the "ease yourself back into food" thing.

Is it safe?  No... does it work... probly.  

- BG

Quoted: 100% true. ETA: It's not just lowering your calories, as a slight caloric deficit is great for losing weight.  It's only when you eat next to nothing like an aneorexic.

I've never seen a fat aneorexic

Ask Karen Carpenter.

Quoted: Quoted: 100% true. ETA: It's not just lowering your calories, as a slight caloric deficit is great for losing weight.  It's only when you eat next to nothing like an aneorexic. I've never seen a fat aneorexic

They exist.  Called Compulsive Over Eater/Aneorexic.  They'll eat 10,000 calories one day and about 100 the next, thus never actually lose significant weight.

Found this interesting tid bit:

Weindruch and Walford discuss the amazing way in which animals will adapt to dietary change. In general, if calorie intake is increased, their metabolic rate rises and they become less 'efficient' in their use of energy, a tactic which allows them to retain their normal body weight. When calorie intake is reduced they become more efficient in their use of energy, and again tend to retain their body weight at around their individual normal level. This is a phenomenon which glimmers have had to contend with to their eternal frustration.

www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=1218

That's what I heard from my cousin, who got in on good faith from this guy's mechanic, who's brother was in Iraq and heard it from a Jihadi. That's good enough for me.

Quoted: Who do you THINK will lose more weight, the person who consumes 2500 calories every day for a month, or the person who consumes 1000 calories a day for a month?  The difference is about 45,000 calories - they are going to come from somewhere, and your ass is the only candidate.

You're assuming here that calorie consumption will remain constant.  When the body experiences a massive reduction in calories, it drastically reduces metabolic rate.  This is the problem with going on a 1000 calorie diet.  You'll lose weight for a while, but eventually your body WILL slow down to the point that it can maintain on 1000 calories.  The slowdown comes not only from the body cannibalizing muscle tissue, but from reduction in output from the thyroid.

The big problem will occur when the person tries to return to a 2500 calorie diet after the body has adjusted to 1000 calories a day.  The entire 1500 calories that are above the baseline of 1000 calories are stored immediately, and that corresponds to a half a pound of fat in a single day.  Compare that to the weeks that the body took to burn that fat off when the metabolic baseline was 1100 or so.

So to answer the original question, you'll lose weight rapidly, but it will taper off, and as soon as caloric intake goes up again, you'll gain fat back faster than you lost it.  It's worth noting that in severe caloric deficits, the body will burn muscle preferentially, because doing so reduces the daily caloric requirements.  So it isn't that the body "stores as much as possible" while dieting, but that it burns other fuel sources prederentially, leaving the fat for last.

Ask the people who were on the "Survivor Outback" TV show. Seems like they mostly ate a little bit of rice for over 40 days and lost 20 lbs each.

Here is what I learned:

You cant tell dieters ANYTHING... Everyone who is dieting is on the BEST diet in the world... You cant try to correct them.

I have horror stories... I just dont share because you cant change one's mind.

Remember Dexatrim? Slim Fast? Atkins? Grapefruit Diet? South Beach Diet? A Cork Plug in the Trachea Diet?

No one wants the good old fashioned "Eat Healthy and Excercise" method.

BTW... That includes me.

Quoted: Quoted: Who do you THINK will lose more weight, the person who consumes 2500 calories every day for a month, or the person who consumes 1000 calories a day for a month?  The difference is about 45,000 calories - they are going to come from somewhere, and your ass is the only candidate. You're assuming here that calorie consumption will remain constant.  When the body experiences a massive reduction in calories, it drastically reduces metabolic rate.  This is the problem with going on a 1000 calorie diet.  You'll lose weight for a while, but eventually your body WILL slow down to the point that it can maintain on 1000 calories.  The slowdown comes not only from the body cannibalizing muscle tissue, but from reduction in output from the thyroid. The big problem will occur when the person tries to return to a 2500 calorie diet after the body has adjusted to 1000 calories a day.  The entire 1500 calories that are above the baseline of 1000 calories are stored immediately, and that corresponds to a half a pound of fat in a single day.  Compare that to the weeks that the body took to burn that fat off when the metabolic baseline was 1100 or so. So to answer the original question, you'll lose weight rapidly, but it will taper off, and as soon as caloric intake goes up again, you'll gain fat back faster than you lost it.  It's worth noting that in severe caloric deficits, the body will burn muscle preferentially, because doing so reduces the daily caloric requirements.  So it isn't that the body "stores as much as possible" while dieting, but that it burns other fuel sources prederentially, leaving the fat for last.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like total hokus-pokus to me.  

If we are talking about maintaining the same activity level - say equal to 2500 calories of energy expended every day, then the person only taking in 1000 calories a day has to get an extra 1500 calories from SOMEWHERE.

Where do those 1500 calories come from?  The ether?  A magic portal to another dimension inside the thyroid?  

It is very possible that people who only consume 1000 calories a day end up becoming very lethargic and decide to lay around on the couch all day, and hence they lower their energy expenditure - but then we are no longer talking about the same comparison.  It is still a simple balance between calories burned and calories taken in, but the amount burned is just reduced to correspond to the amount reduced.

I still stand by the concept of simple mathematics.  If two people are both burning 2500 calories a day, and one is taking in 2500 and the other is taking in 1000 - the latter is going to have to convert 1500 calories worth of tissue on average every day - resulting in lost weight.  (Whether it's muscle, fat or whatever, I have no idea - but the energy has to come from somewhere).





Of course - beyond a refusal to believe that weight loss can VIOLATE the basic laws of thermodynamics and mathematics, I really know very litttle about this.  However, since this is arfcom, a lack of knowledge does not preclude me from having a strong opinion.  

Quoted: So to answer the original question, you'll lose weight rapidly, but it will taper off, and as soon as caloric intake goes up again, you'll gain fat back faster than you lost it.  It's worth noting that in severe caloric deficits, the body will burn muscle preferentially, because doing so reduces the daily caloric requirements.  So it isn't that the body "stores as much as possible" while dieting, but that it burns other fuel sources prederentially, leaving the fat for last.

That makes sense.  I couldn't remember all of the details about but that sums it up nicely.

As to DK prof.  I'm still looking for the study... it's hidden on the internet

ETA:  Found the study.

www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/Weight_Control/want_to_lose_weight.htm

Not sure which study it was... but it's in the citations.

No doubt about it, you have to reduce caloric intake to lose weight.  Still, there's something to be said for the theory of the body entering starvation mode when faced with a drastic reduction of calories.

Theories also exist that by dividing one's daily caloric total (say 1500 - 1800 calories) into 5-6 small meals and eating those meals (snacks really) every 2.5-3 hours, one can keep the metabolic furnace burning and hasten the fat burn.  This theory seems to work pretty well for me, but as we all know, everybody's body responds differently.

The real key to weight loss?  Daily, regular exercise.

Quoted: There was a study done on this... can't think of the study name off the top of my head... Lowering your caloric intake will cause you body to go into starvation mode and store as much fat and energy as possible to make up for the lost calories... Whether this has been disproven or not I dont' know.

My wife was given info on this when she started her latest weight loss plan, which encourages healthier, lower calorie meals more often than less overall food.

There have actually been meals that we couldn't finish. The fact that you're stuffed at the end of dinner is better than getting a sprig of parsely and a grilled chicken nugget and being told "that's your dinner"


And yes, she's lost a fair amount of weight, with less cheating, so it seems to work.

If you're fat, a decreased caloric intake will work. However, nto to the extreme. if you're maintaining a 250lb weight at 2500 calories a day, dropping it down to 1500-1800 will work wonders. You're body will just burn off the excess fat. However, those calories can't be Burger King.

Its really about finding out where your metabolism is at and going with less then what you burn until you reach a desired weight.

Quoted: The real key to weight loss?  Daily, regular exercise.

as well as a balanced healthy diet of whole foods and devoid of processed junk.

Quoted: www.ebaumsworld.com/images/ibeatanorexia.jpg

Quoted: Quoted: The real key to weight loss?  Daily, regular exercise. as well as a balanced healthy diet of whole foods and devoid of processed junk.

... and a $hiton of patience...

to a point it is true

if you don't eat your metabolic rate slows, you can counteract this with aerobic exercise

the problem isn't losing the weight, its having it all come back when you return to your normal eating habits.

I do a water only fast for 30 days once a year and tend to lose a lot of weight when I do so (the more overweight I am, the more I lose).    My weight returns to normal once I resume my normal eating habits.

If you want to fast to lose weight, just do the atkins or the south beach instead.  Much the same effect, without the starvation.

Quoted: to a point it is true if you don't eat your metabolic rate slows, you can counteract this with aerobic exercise the problem isn't losing the weight, its having it all come back when you return to your normal eating habits. I do a water only fast for 30 days once a year and tend to lose a lot of weight when I do so (the more overweight I am, the more I lose).    My weight returns to normal once I resume my normal eating habits. If you want to fast to lose weight, just do the atkins or the south beach instead.  Much the same effect, without the starvation.

30 days with nothing but water?! How the hell do you manage that. I go for 12 hours without eating and my stomach feels like it's burning I'm so hungry.

Quoted: If we are talking about maintaining the same activity level - say equal to 2500 calories of energy expended every day, then the person only taking in 1000 calories a day has to get an extra 1500 calories from SOMEWHERE.

This is certainly true on the first few days of the diet.

Where do those 1500 calories come from?  The ether?  A magic portal to another dimension inside the thyroid?

It comes mostly from the body consuming muscle mass.  At the same time, the thyroid, which controls the rate at which the body burns fuel, starts to get messages to slow down production.

What's happened now after a couple of days is the following:  

(A) you have less muscle mass, thus even if you keep your activity levels the same, you require fewer calories to make it through your day.
(B) Your thyroid is producing lower levels of T3 and T4.  This means your body temperature is actually lower than usual, and again, you burn less calories.

You'll lose weight at first, but you'll lose it at a lower rate every day.

It is very possible that people who only consume 1000 calories a day end up becoming very lethargic and decide to lay around on the couch all day, and hence they lower their energy expenditure - but then we are no longer talking about the same comparison.  It is still a simple balance between calories burned and calories taken in, but the amount burned is just reduced to correspond to the amount reduced.

You can't really argue "that isn't the same comparison", because that's how the body is going to work.  The thyroid WILL reduce T3 and T4 production, you WILL become lethargic, and you'll burn fewer calories every day.  

I still stand by the concept of simple mathematics.  If two people are both burning 2500 calories a day, and one is taking in 2500 and the other is taking in 1000 - the latter is going to have to convert 1500 calories worth of tissue on average every day - resulting in lost weight.  (Whether it's muscle, fat or whatever, I have no idea - but the energy has to come from somewhere).

It isn't that your math is wrong, it's that your model is.  Both people aren't brurning 2500 a day.  The person on a 1000 calorie diet will burn 2500 the first day, then 2450, then 2400, etc.  He'll lose weight, but with that drastic of a reduction, the slowdown from the thyroid will cause him to gain the weight back very rapidly (faster than he lost it, and probably more than what he lost).

Of course - beyond a refusal to believe that weight loss can VIOLATE the basic laws of thermodynamics and mathematics, I really know very litttle about this.  However, since this is arfcom, a lack of knowledge does not preclude me from having a strong opinion.

You're on the right track, it's just not a linear process.  I'm not trying to claim that the person on the 1000 calorie diet won't lose weight, I'm just claiming that the weight loss will stop after a while (and sooner than you think).  

Quoted: to a point it is true if you don't eat your metabolic rate slows, you can counteract this with aerobic exercise the problem isn't losing the weight, its having it all come back when you return to your normal eating habits. I do a water only fast for 30 days once a year and tend to lose a lot of weight when I do so (the more overweight I am, the more I lose).    My weight returns to normal once I resume my normal eating habits. If you want to fast to lose weight, just do the atkins or the south beach instead.  Much the same effect, without the starvation.

How much weight do you typically lose?  Do you exercise during this period?

only if you sit around and dont burn any calories, if you keep active and eat less, you will lose weight