Please DONT read if you are sensitive about your weight!

[Wildcard]

be forewarned that this is neither a politically correct nor socially acceptable thread.

Again, it might look like I am trying to start war. No. I just have a ton of questions and this is the biggest weight loss board I know of. If anyone knows of a general weight-loss forum that is this big, please let me know and I'll ask most of my questions there.


I was reading the obesity thread and many people mentioned being unable to lose weight on a VERY LOW CAL, VERY LOW FAT, VERY HIGH EXERCISE DIET.
This concept is not new to me. I have read a non low carb diet book by a Doctor that mentioned that some women were UNABLE to lose weight on a 750 calorie/day diet.

750 calories is very low, even for a small woman, and it must be very discouraging to be unable to lose weight on that low a caloric consumption.

My question is, how do POWs get so lean? Can there be a daily caloric consumption level where the weight has no choice but to come off? Can one gain weight on a 430 calories/day diet?

The example comes to mind of the lady in the obesity thread that said she was eating 500 calories/day and exercising for two hours for two years and STILL gained weight. IS this physically, biologically, or chemically possible? Plausible?

I guess what I would like to know is, health issues aside, at what high-carb caloric consumption level does the body have no choice but to start dropping weight?

[FionaMcB]

In 1973 and 1974 I was a nurse at an Army hospital that recieved POW's. Yes, they were thin, they were half starved. What did we feed them, what they craved: steak, pork chops, hamburgers, bacon,eggs and vegetables of all types. They could have whatever, whenever they wanted as they healed. We benefitted because a real favorite was steak and lobster. I'd say the meals were 80% protein.

It's my understanding that while they were prisoners they were fed a type of rice gruel, congee without the meat base, and that's why they became so ematiciated.

[Wildcard]

Hi,

Do you have any idea the amount of calories the POWs were being fed. This will help a lot in knowing what level weight loss occurs at. I know that POWs get hardly any protein or fat and they still lose a lot of weight, so, what gives?

[Lisa N]

My question is, how do POWs get so lean?

Starvation. Primarily starvation through lack of protein and fat. If you notice, though, these men are not only lean, they are emaciated and lacking in a good deal of muscle as well because their bodies were cannibalizing themselves to provide the essential amino acids and fatty acids they required to function. Take a close look at some of the pictures of POWs from WW2. Protein is expensive to feed prisoners, so most of them got bread or gruel and water. Many of them were also suffering from severe vitamin deficiencies. 2 years or so of nothing but bread and water or gruel/broth will definitely take a good deal of weight off you, but those that didn't die in the concentration camps were often too weak to even walk out on their own two legs.

I've peeked into your journal, Wildcard, and I have to offer my opinion that you are playing with fire as well as your health. Going without eating for long enough periods to become lightheaded, cycles of excess followed by severe restriction, eating only once a day, etc...
My advice is to pick a plan (any plan) and stick with it. All this flip-flopping around isn't in the best interest of your health even if you do manage to lose some weight with it. Eat regularly (and sufficient caloric intake) to keep your metabolism going and eat in a way that provides your body with the essentials that it needs; essential amino acids, essential fatty acids and essential vitamins and minerals. Don't jeopardize your health in the interest of losing a few quick pounds by any means possible.

[Kegan]

Weight loss and calories are not a linerer equation. Meaning that if you stave yourself, your metobolism slows down. Otherwise stated, if you are eating 1500 cal and burning 1400, then cut WAY down to say 800 cal, you may wind up burning only 900 (same net gain of 100 cal). This is because the body does a very good job at regulating itself (homeostatis). The body will slow brain function, cell development, etc. It goes into 'power conservation' mode.

In a related thought, let me tell you how I broke a stall. The second I woke up every morning I headed to the kitchen. There, I ate a BIG honking tablespoon of tuna fish. My body interpeted that dolop of protein as "Oh boy, we're gonna run on a full tank today, rev that engine up" So, the (fat) burning machine went to work ~~ and more calories were burned.

The body has an autotomic (automatic, if you will) response. You can not fool it. Better to understand it and work WITH it, not AGAINST it.

[nowonder]

Interesting question about the POW's, but think about it for a moment...
You are taking soldiers... People in peak physical condition, who do a lot of physical activity... Sounds like a high-metabolism crowd to me. The fact that they can survive to weeks (let alone months) on a low calorie diet shows that their metabolic rate slows down.

So if your metabolism isn't that great to begin with, And you slow it down further, is that the best way to lose weight?

Sure, it might work in the long run, but is it a diet you can stick to without a gun to your head?

--nw

[FionaMcB]

Kegan, interesting thought about the use of tuna fish to get your metabolism going. (It's an autonomic response.) I'm going to give that a try tomorrow morning. We have LOTS of tuna :rolleyes: Thanks for the idea.

[mps]

To answer your original question... I've read that the Nazi's would allow about 800 cals. per day. But I'm not saying this kept everyone alive. (no, I can't cite my source... I don't remember where I read this) At this level for a long period a person will have burned all excess muscle and have a VERY slow metabolism. This is not the way to leanness because when calories are dropped too low a body will preferentially burn muscle over fat, because reducing muscle reduces metabolism and fat is less expesive to keep. This is something competitive bodybuilders call the 'famine phenomenon'. When they are already lean, but trying to loose the last bit of fat, they may drop there calories lower for a few days and it results in a HIGHER percentage of bodyfat with less muscle.
I don't think there are any viable shortcuts... it's a matter of working with your body, keeping it healthy, and gently coaxing it toward your goals.

[cs_carver]

But weren't there problems when the Allies first started refeeding the people in the death camps, and it had been so long since they had real food that they died because they couldn't make digestive enzymes?

I've heard horses coming out of starvation (via abuse) face the same risk--you have to come out of a fast, whether voluntary or not, gently.

This suggests it's not a good thing to mess with starvation to me.

[mps]

Most people that diet eventually return to their pre-diet eating patterns and gain the weight back (plus some). Imagine how unlikely it would be for a starvation diet to result in longterm weight loss. You can't starve forever and the person will not have learned proper eating stratigies.

[Lisa N]

But weren't there problems when the Allies first started refeeding the people in the death camps, and it had been so long since they had real food that they died because they couldn't make digestive enzymes?

I've heard horses coming out of starvation (via abuse) face the same risk--you have to come out of a fast, whether voluntary or not, gently.

This suggests it's not a good thing to mess with starvation to me.

What you're referring to is something now known as "refeeding syndrome" and it's not a result of lack of digestive enzymes, but severe electrolyte imbalances. Those interested can read more about it here:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7445/908

No matter how you look at it, starving yourself is not a smart thing to do unless you're trying to achieve greater loss of lean body mass and potential thyroid problems along with a seriously messed up metabolism and some potentially serious health problems.

[2brickie]

another weightloss issue with POWS is stress. Can you imagine the emotional and physical stress they must have been under? They were underfed, afraid they were going to die, or worse. This alone would cause you to lose weight. I have seen numerous peoples in my previous field of work, that lose day after day eating normally from stress, these pows didnt even get regular food with their stress

[MsTwacky]

I don't know about POW's....
but my Grandfather was in a Concentration Camp and he said that they would feed them some watery broth and if you were lucky there then maybe in that broth you got a sliver of a potatoe skin inside the broth. Not to mention they physically worked them very hard.

[mio1996]

I think it would be obvious that if a man has no real food (only broth) for months he will emaciate. No one ever said that starvation won't make you lose weight. We mainly say that you don't NEED to starve to lose weight. True starvation will always cause weight loss.

[CindySue48]

I think it would be obvious that if a man has no real food (only broth) for months he will emaciate. No one ever said that starvation won't make you lose weight. We mainly say that you don't NEED to starve to lose weight. True starvation will always cause weight loss.

Actually, you will loose weight for a bit, then stop.....then drop a large amount of weight all at once.

I went thru this once....many years ago. I have trouble swallowing, caused by a stricture in my esophagus. Years ago, before they figured out what was wrong, I basically was starving. All kinds of foods, even liquids would "get stuck" on the way down, whcih woould then set off severe hiccups....and it got to the point that it just wasn't worth it. . Initially I lost about 5#.....then maintained for almost 2 months....then dropped 30# in about 2 weeks! (I was seeing a doc just about every two weeks, this is by their weights). I was only taking in about 500 cal/day.

I think until i dropped the 30# the doc thought I was a nutcase. He finally sent me for a test that difinitlely diagnosed me. I had to go into Boston for the test, since no one local did it. Also, he had to fight with the ins co to get me the test (and this was back in the 70's when everything was covered!)....which was the reason he didn't order it earlier.

You weight can and likely will stall when you're starving....that's the starvation response. But if you don't start eating, eventually the body reseases the weight and you do drop it.

[agd]

My question is, how do POWs get so lean? Can there be a daily caloric consumption level where the weight has no choice but to come off? Can one gain weight on a 430 calories/day diet?

The example comes to mind of the lady in the obesity thread that said she was eating 500 calories/day and exercising for two hours for two years and STILL gained weight. IS this physically, biologically, or chemically possible? Plausible?

I guess what I would like to know is, health issues aside, at what high-carb caloric consumption level does the body have no choice but to start dropping weight?
I don't see how anyone could eat 500 calories a day for 2 years, regardless of how much exercise they did, unless they were forced to at gunpoint. Do you have a citation for this?

Weight loss occurs if and only if calories burned exceed calories taken in. Note that this is not fat loss; you could and do lose muscle on a very low calorie diet. This is also why weight training is an important component of any diet, low carb or not.

[westerner]

Weight loss occurs if and only if calories burned exceed calories taken in. Note that this is not fat loss; you could and do lose muscle on a very low calorie diet.
I used to think this, but have come to reconsider it. Our bodies are not bomb calorimeters, and ingesting X calories does not automatically mean our body absorbs it fully, and the food may be absorbed differently from other foods having nominally the same caloric content.

This is also why weight training is an important component of any diet, low carb or not.
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd go further and say resistance training is essential to maintaining one's lean muscle mass over a lifetime, weight loss diet or no.

[elijaeger]

The calories have to be accounted for, they don't mysteriously disappear. The same time, if someone is on 800 cals a day, they have to burn a minimum amount of energy per day to live. As mps stated earlier, body will burn muscle to slow down metabolism. The body still must pump blood, organs, heart, brain, lungs, you can't shut that down. (you can shut down reproductive functions though.)

Look at the success of gastric bypass surgery. You have 400+ pound people who go from eating 3000+ cals a day to 1500 or even 1000 simply because they are limited in stomach space and intestinal absorption. They don't gain weight, instead they lose a ton of it in a year or so. It is a form of starvation.

[Galadriell]

I was reading the obesity thread and many people mentioned being unable to lose weight on a VERY LOW CAL, VERY LOW FAT, VERY HIGH EXERCISE DIET.
This concept is not new to me. I have read a non low carb diet book by a Doctor that mentioned that some women were UNABLE to lose weight on a 750 calorie/day diet.

The example comes to mind of the lady in the obesity thread that said she was eating 500 calories/day and exercising for two hours for two years and STILL gained weight. IS this physically, biologically, or chemically possible? Plausible?

One possible key is the source of these info: "many people mentioned". People tend to overestimate the burned, and underestimate the consumed calories.

I remember a very interesting research. They asked overweight people to record everything they eat for two months. Then the same people moved to a hospital, where they got EXACTLY the same food day by day that they claimed to eat during the previous two months. 80% of them LOST 10+lbs in the hospital.

About exercise. People use charts, gym machines, gadgets, to estimate burned calories. These are useless. Even more useless when it is about repeated activities, the human body adapts to any exercise very fast, becoming more effective, running on less fuel. (Check a couple of gym logs where people record the burned calories - based on some gadgets. If half of those calories were true those people would melt away in weeks.) According my trainer friend, the exercise machine manufacturers deliberately use high numbers, so people would use more those machines :) .

If you check the newbies' questions thread, you can see hundreds of posts starting with " I did everything according the book, but did not lose/gained. Then when you ask: " Please post your typical menu" - in many cases you see dozens of not allowed items, or too much from some free food.

No, I do not say that all these complains are baseless. There are many medical conditions causing slowing metabolism, retaining water, etc. But in many cases the reason COULD be the human subjectivity.

[tagcaver]

I used to think this, but have come to reconsider it. Our bodies are not bomb calorimeters, and ingesting X calories does not automatically mean our body absorbs it fully, and the food may be absorbed differently from other foods having nominally the same caloric content.
The calories have to be accounted for, they don't mysteriously disappear.

Not to be gross or anything, but quite often food we eat goes through the body undigested. Those calories, although eaten, are not absorbed by the body.

[dekdahl]

Doesn't that kind of calorie restriction send one into starvation mode?

[fatburner]

......Weight loss occurs if and only if calories burned exceed calories taken in.


agd, do you actually still believe this? Or are you just being provocative? - which would be kind of infantile but more understandable than the former. ' A calorie is a calorie' ? Puhleeeeesssse............ Perhaps you need to have a more objective look at how the human digestive system works. A more careful reading of this forum will certainly help, but there are many other places you can become better informed, if that is what you really want. I can't become a bomb calorimeter, even if I wanted to. And nor can you or anyone else. Being human is much more interesting anyway.

[Lisa N]

I can't become a bomb calorimeter, even if I wanted to. And nor can you or anyone else. Being human is much more interesting anyway.

Not to mention that whole spontaneous combustion thing can really ruin your day. :lol:

[322432]

I read that one molecule of carbs( 4 cal./gram) combine with one molecule of water( 0 cal./gram) to form two molecules of glucon or glucose that our body can use; this equals 8 cal. per gram. Also, in order for the body to use fat (9 cal./ gram), it takes three cal./per gram to turn it into glucon or glucose that our body can use. Thus, there are three cal. more per gram of carb than per gram of fat for the body to use, store as fat, or whatever. The calorie is a calorie is a calorie is just wrong. A chunk of coal has a lot of calories( raise one gram of warer through one degree celcius). but I doubt we would get much energy from it.

[ItsTheWooo]

One possible key is the source of these info: "many people mentioned". People tend to overestimate the burned, and underestimate the consumed calories.

I remember a very interesting research. They asked overweight people to record everything they eat for two months. Then the same people moved to a hospital, where they got EXACTLY the same food day by day that they claimed to eat during the previous two months. 80% of them LOST 10+lbs in the hospital.

About exercise. People use charts, gym machines, gadgets, to estimate burned calories. These are useless. Even more useless when it is about repeated activities, the human body adapts to any exercise very fast, becoming more effective, running on less fuel. (Check a couple of gym logs where people record the burned calories - based on some gadgets. If half of those calories were true those people would melt away in weeks.) According my trainer friend, the exercise machine manufacturers deliberately use high numbers, so people would use more those machines :) .

If you check the newbies' questions thread, you can see hundreds of posts starting with " I did everything according the book, but did not lose/gained. Then when you ask: " Please post your typical menu" - in many cases you see dozens of not allowed items, or too much from some free food.

No, I do not say that all these complains are baseless. There are many medical conditions causing slowing metabolism, retaining water, etc. But in many cases the reason COULD be the human subjectivity.
I agree. I'm sure that somewhere there is a person who has an abnormally slow metabolism, for whatever reason(s), and they eat very little yet can't lose weight. However, 95% of the time, when someone says they can't lose on x amount of calories, human error is to blame. They are making one or both of the following mistakes.

a) They are eating more than they realize.
I often hear "on low fat I couldn't lose on 800 a day but now I eat twice as much and lose faster!" Granted, there may be a metabolic advantage for people on LC, perhaps some more than others. However, when I hear such a marked divergence in intakes (100% increase in calories AND faster weight loss to boot) I can't but help think more human factors are at work.
The real problem I think is people will often use their satiety as a guide to determine how much energy they are consuming, when this is not such a reliable indicator since satiety is dependant on many other factors besides raw caloric energy. Its easier to believe you are consuming very little if you feel hungry (like on HC), and easy to believe you are consuming a lot if you feel full (like on LC). If you eat a lot of high carb high glycemic food it certainly can feel like you're eating nothing when you try to restrict. A bowl of white rice (200 calories) is going to make you hungrier if you have insulin issues, whereas an ounce of oily nuts (also 200 calories) will keep someone full for a surprisingly long time (because it keeps blood sugar and insulin stable, allowing the body to better catabolize fat for fuel, decreasing perception of hunger).
If someone eats 1600 calories of rice, they may not realize how much they are eating because they feel so hungry. You can easily eat much more high carb food than you realize or intended to. Plus it's easy to mismeasure stuff like grains and cereals. You really need to weigh it dry and raw, not use a measuring cup or other implement which quantifies energy contents by space. For example, I poured 2/3 a measuring cups worth of cereal the other day, which is the suggested portion size. However, when I weighed it on the scale, I was shocked to discover that my 2/3 a cup was actually twice as much as the serving size's weight! There was another time where I had a can of bamboo shoots which said the can contained 5 half cup servings, but when I poured it into my measuring cup it barely came out to more than a cup! Carby things are really, really hard to portion control since the factor of density really affects how much space it takes up. Things settle in shipping, they absorb water (a tablespoon of dry rice can make much more cooked rice), they lose water (a tiny dry apricot is so small compared to a fresh aqueous one).

Basically what I'm saying is it's much easier to take in more high carb energy than you realize for a various number of reasons. They may actually believe they are consuming much less than they are. They may really believe they are eating only 800 calories when they are in fact consuming more.

b) They are overestimating their metabolic rate/daily and therefore they do not realize their caloric levels are too high.
People get hung up on "staying out of starvation mode" thing and all the little charts and graphs which dictate how many calories you need to avoid some threat to your health. Like you pointed out, people often overestimate how many calories they burn after a workout too. They then eat too much and don't lose.

I'm sorry, but I have a REALLY hard time believing that people who are extremely obese are stalling out on 1000, 800, 500 calories. It's just physically impossible. Even if your metabolism is slowed from insulin resistance and hypothyroidism to the point where you feel like the living dead, you will lose weight on calorie levels that low. The body can conserve energy, but it cannot run on air. It is physically impossible to sustain a large body on a pittance of energy like that, even if we assume the body is not burning energy properly because of disease. 500 calories is the metabolic rate of a house hold pet, it's the energy needs of a medium sized dog or something. There's no way a 250 lb human being can't lose weight on 500 calories a day, even if we are assuming those calories are very high carb, and the individual has severe insulin resistance, and hypothyroidism. The body needs to get energy from somewhere, large bodies (and active/growing bodies) need lots of energy. If you are not taking sufficient energy in from the environment your body will either a) burn fat and muscle for energy (thereby losing weight) or b) your body will stop being fueled because it's not burning it's own tissues, you will go into a hypoglycemic coma, and you will die.

When it comes down to it, it's all about energy. LC works because it reduces energy in, and increases energy out. It allows you to stay in with a normal hunger, whereas high carb diets put you on a spiral of fat gain.

Irregardless of type of diet, when you consume energy, it's transformed into other things, but it can't disappear. The whole point of eating is to give your body energy and materials to live. Right now, you're reading these words, you are consuming energy to fuel your existence. That energy comes from the food you eat. If you don't eat enough food, your body will catabolize its own tissues (fat protein etc) for fuel to avoid death. If you don't eat enough food, your body has no choice but to get the fuel from itself, causing you to drop weight. Disease and a thrifty metabolism can cause your body to be more efficient with the energy it has (side effects of energy conservation include feeling lethargic, tired, out of sorts, among others). However, there is a point at which even someone with a messed up metabolism has no choice but to lose weight. If you weigh 280 lbs, your body can't sustain existence on 500 calories and maintain weight equilibrium. It's simply impossible, it can't stretch things that far. A healthy person of that weight needs calories well over 2500 just for metabolism and run of the mill daily activities. I have a hard time believing the body can get by on a sliver of that, without reducing you to an almost comatose state. I'm not a scientist and I don't know very much about metabolism so I can't say what exactly the level is at which it is impossible to not lose weight at a certain energy intake level, all I know is some of the extremely low levels of calories reported by people ain't it. You just know it's not, sort of how you know the taj mahal is worth more than your house. You might not know the exact value(s), but the gulf is so big that you at least know the order of things...

[ItsTheWooo]

By the way, I just wanted to be clear that even though I am very suspicious of claims that very obese people can't lose on xxx amount of calories, I definitely do NOT believe a calorie is a calorie.

Weight maintenence and energy usage is far too complex to be dumbed down to simply counting calories. Calorie counting a crude tool, it is by no means the holy grail. Even if we assume that all calories have the exact same energy efficiency in the body (which I don't believe at all), this still doesn't mean all calories are equal. If some calories are processed in such a way that causes a disruption in your body's ability to burn it's own fat (insulin spiking food), thus increasing the perception of hunger and food intake and delaying fat burning, are those calories "equal" to others? Is an insulin spiking bowl of grain (sugar) equal to a hunger staving ounce of nuts (fat)? Eat the grain and shortly after you'll be hypoglycemic, unable to fuel yourself from fat, and as a consequence ravenous. Eat the grain and you'll eat more. Eat the small ounce of nuts, and odds are you'll go all day without even thinking about food. The nuts burn slow, keeping insulin stable, allowing your body to catabolize fat, decreasing the perception of hunger. Are both these foods "equal" in their effect on weight, even though they have the same calories? I think we know the answer to that question.

[Built]

Not to mention that whole spontaneous combustion thing can really ruin your day. :lol:

LMAO! :lol:

[dekdahl]

Boy, you folks get technical. All I meant was that if I personally go too low calorie wise the scale ceases to move. Yes, I am capable of human error in regards to calorie count, but I have battled the bulge (and lost and won) long enough to feel adequate at doing so. But, I as I said in another post - what works one day does not seem to work the next - go figure.

[Zuleikaa]

I agree. I'm sure that somewhere there is a person who has an abnormally slow metabolism, for whatever reason(s), and they eat very little yet can't lose weight. However, 95% of the time, when someone says they can't lose on x amount of calories, human error is to blame. They are making one or both of the following mistakes.

a) They are eating more than they realize.
I often hear "on low fat I couldn't lose on 800 a day but now I eat twice as much and lose faster!" Granted, there may be a metabolic advantage for people on LC, perhaps some more than others. However, when I hear such a marked divergence in intakes (100% increase in calories AND faster weight loss to boot) I can't but help think more human factors are at work.
The real problem I think is people will often use their satiety as a guide to determine how much energy they are consuming, when this is not such a reliable indicator since satiety is dependant on many other factors besides raw caloric energy. Its easier to believe you are consuming very little if you feel hungry (like on HC), and easy to believe you are consuming a lot if you feel full (like on LC). If you eat a lot of high carb high glycemic food it certainly can feel like you're eating nothing when you try to restrict. A bowl of white rice (200 calories) is going to make you hungrier if you have insulin issues, whereas an ounce of oily nuts (also 200 calories) will keep someone full for a surprisingly long time (because it keeps blood sugar and insulin stable, allowing the body to better catabolize fat for fuel, decreasing perception of hunger).
If someone eats 1600 calories of rice, they may not realize how much they are eating because they feel so hungry. You can easily eat much more high carb food than you realize or intended to. Plus it's easy to mismeasure stuff like grains and cereals. You really need to weigh it dry and raw, not use a measuring cup or other implement which quantifies energy contents by space. For example, I poured 2/3 a measuring cups worth of cereal the other day, which is the suggested portion size. However, when I weighed it on the scale, I was shocked to discover that my 2/3 a cup was actually twice as much as the serving size's weight! There was another time where I had a can of bamboo shoots which said the can contained 5 half cup servings, but when I poured it into my measuring cup it barely came out to more than a cup! Carby things are really, really hard to portion control since the factor of density really affects how much space it takes up. Things settle in shipping, they absorb water (a tablespoon of dry rice can make much more cooked rice), they lose water (a tiny dry apricot is so small compared to a fresh aqueous one).

Basically what I'm saying is it's much easier to take in more high carb energy than you realize for a various number of reasons. They may actually believe they are consuming much less than they are. They may really believe they are eating only 800 calories when they are in fact consuming more.

b) They are overestimating their metabolic rate/daily and therefore they do not realize their caloric levels are too high.
People get hung up on "staying out of starvation mode" thing and all the little charts and graphs which dictate how many calories you need to avoid some threat to your health. Like you pointed out, people often overestimate how many calories they burn after a workout too. They then eat too much and don't lose.

I'm sorry, but I have a REALLY hard time believing that people who are extremely obese are stalling out on 1000, 800, 500 calories. It's just physically impossible. Even if your metabolism is slowed from insulin resistance and hypothyroidism to the point where you feel like the living dead, you will lose weight on calorie levels that low. The body can conserve energy, but it cannot run on air. It is physically impossible to sustain a large body on a pittance of energy like that, even if we assume the body is not burning energy properly because of disease. 500 calories is the metabolic rate of a house hold pet, it's the energy needs of a medium sized dog or something. There's no way a 250 lb human being can't lose weight on 500 calories a day, even if we are assuming those calories are very high carb, and the individual has severe insulin resistance, and hypothyroidism. The body needs to get energy from somewhere, large bodies (and active/growing bodies) need lots of energy. If you are not taking sufficient energy in from the environment your body will either a) burn fat and muscle for energy (thereby losing weight) or b) your body will stop being fueled because it's not burning it's own tissues, you will go into a hypoglycemic coma, and you will die.

When it comes down to it, it's all about energy. LC works because it reduces energy in, and increases energy out. It allows you to stay in with a normal hunger, whereas high carb diets put you on a spiral of fat gain.

Irregardless of type of diet, when you consume energy, it's transformed into other things, but it can't disappear. The whole point of eating is to give your body energy and materials to live. Right now, you're reading these words, you are consuming energy to fuel your existence. That energy comes from the food you eat. If you don't eat enough food, your body will catabolize its own tissues (fat protein etc) for fuel to avoid death. If you don't eat enough food, your body has no choice but to get the fuel from itself, causing you to drop weight. Disease and a thrifty metabolism can cause your body to be more efficient with the energy it has (side effects of energy conservation include feeling lethargic, tired, out of sorts, among others). However, there is a point at which even someone with a messed up metabolism has no choice but to lose weight. If you weigh 280 lbs, your body can't sustain existence on 500 calories and maintain weight equilibrium. It's simply impossible, it can't stretch things that far. A healthy person of that weight needs calories well over 2500 just for metabolism and run of the mill daily activities. I have a hard time believing the body can get by on a sliver of that, without reducing you to an almost comatose state. I'm not a scientist and I don't know very much about metabolism so I can't say what exactly the level is at which it is impossible to not lose weight at a certain energy intake level, all I know is some of the extremely low levels of calories reported by people ain't it. You just know it's not, sort of how you know the taj mahal is worth more than your house. You might not know the exact value(s), but the gulf is so big that you at least know the order of things...

I have to disagree with ItstheWoo's premise.

This is indeed a complex issue. It is not energy in has to equal energy out. Or energy out has to equal a preset lower level for existence. Or even at X amount of calories an individual must lose weight.

There have been studies at the extremes many instances. There have been structured, monitored studies that show people can maintain and not lose weight on 800 or fewer calories per day. Since the people in these studies where men, I have no problem believing that women can gain on 800 calories per day. There have been studies that show that some people's metabolisms can expend 800 calories an hour. There have been studies that show people will gain on 1000 calories a day while exercising regularly and studies that show people who can still maintain their weight on an extra 1000 calories a day while staying at the same activity level.

So I accept all premises regarding individual weight loss as true to a great degree. Weight loss, gain, maintenance is a variable based upon the complex makeup of the individual. There have been studies on the obese that some have very "thrifty" genes. There have been studies on obese African American women that they have even thriftier genes than their white counterparts. Additionally, it is not only the number of calories but the nutritional content of those calories that matters. Some doctors look at obesity as just as much an example of malnutrition as people who are underweigt.

I don't think this is a subject you can generalize on for more than a small part of the "average, normal weight, normal metabolism" population, the natural variations are just too great.

[tom sawyer]

I read that one molecule of carbs( 4 cal./gram) combine with one molecule of water( 0 cal./gram) to form two molecules of glucon or glucose that our body can use; this equals 8 cal. per gram. Also, in order for the body to use fat (9 cal./ gram), it takes three cal./per gram to turn it into glucon or glucose that our body can use. Thus, there are three cal. more per gram of carb than per gram of fat for the body to use, store as fat, or whatever. The calorie is a calorie is a calorie is just wrong. A chunk of coal has a lot of calories( raise one gram of warer through one degree celcius). but I doubt we would get much energy from it.

You assume that you have to turn fat into glucose to burn it. You don't, "normally the product of fatty acid oxidation (acetyl CoA) is fed directly into the Krebs cycle, just like pyruvate (the product of glucose breakdown via glycolysis). Fat actually produces more energy per carbon. Here is a statement from the following link:

"The oxidation of fatty acids yields significantly more energy per carbon atom than does the oxidation of carbohydrates. The net result of the oxidation of one mole of oleic acid (an 18-carbon fatty acid) will be 146 moles of ATP (2 mole equivalents are used during the activation of the fatty acid), as compared with 114 moles from an equivalent number of glucose carbon atoms."

http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/fatty-acid-oxidation.html

Of course, when we are low carbing and acetyl CoA is shunted into ketone body production, this alters the energy yield somewhat. Plus the excess ketone bodies that are excreted do not release energy. I'm not sure if low carbing provides a metabolic advantage, and if it does I'm not sure it stays the same in the long term. I do know that eating a meal with fat and not much carb and feeling full, and not hungry again in an hour is a clearcut advantage.

[4biddenEve]

Weight loss and calories are not a linerer equation. Meaning that if you stave yourself, your metobolism slows down. Otherwise stated, if you are eating 1500 cal and burning 1400, then cut WAY down to say 800 cal, you may wind up burning only 900 (same net gain of 100 cal). This is because the body does a very good job at regulating itself (homeostatis). The body will slow brain function, cell development, etc. It goes into 'power conservation' mode.

In a related thought, let me tell you how I broke a stall. The second I woke up every morning I headed to the kitchen. There, I ate a BIG honking tablespoon of tuna fish. My body interpeted that dolop of protein as "Oh boy, we're gonna run on a full tank today, rev that engine up" So, the (fat) burning machine went to work ~~ and more calories were burned.

The body has an autotomic (automatic, if you will) response. You can not fool it. Better to understand it and work WITH it, not AGAINST it.

I have to agree with the above. Also in my case, I experienced what most of those people in the obese forum have posted. I exercised daily ( I have always enjoyed it) and did not loose any weight. I never kept track of my caloric intake, but I am sure ti was way low. I mean how many calories does a king size bar of butterfinger has? I would skip breakfast and have a candy bar with a regular soda for lunch. If I was hungry I would have another bar for dinner. If not, I would skip dinner all together. But religiously I would have some type of cookies & milk before bed. Oatmeal, Oreos, Pepperidge farms (anyone hungry yet?) LOL
So it is possible to eat very few calories in a day and exercise and not loose weight. Your metabolism is dead, you are eating empty calories (mainly sugar), what do you think will happen to your body? It will be like POW's? Ahhhh..... NAH!!
That's all I have to say about that!

[ItsTheWooo]

I have to disagree with ItstheWoo's premise.

This is indeed a complex issue. It is not energy in has to equal energy out. Or energy out has to equal a preset lower level for existence. Or even at X amount of calories an individual must lose weight.

There have been studies at the extremes many instances. There have been structured, monitored studies that show people can maintain and not lose weight on 800 or fewer calories per day. Since the people in these studies where men, I have no problem believing that women can gain on 800 calories per day. There have been studies that show that some people's metabolisms can expend 800 calories an hour. There have been studies that show people will gain on 1000 calories a day while exercising regularly and studies that show people who can still maintain their weight on an extra 1000 calories a day while staying at the same activity level.

So I accept all premises regarding individual weight loss as true to a great degree. Weight loss, gain, maintenance is a variable based upon the complex makeup of the individual. There have been studies on the obese that some have very "thrifty" genes. There have been studies on obese African American women that they have even thriftier genes than their white counterparts. Additionally, it is not only the number of calories but the nutritional content of those calories that matters. Some doctors look at obesity as just as much an example of malnutrition as people who are underweigt.

I don't think this is a subject you can generalize on for more than a small part of the "average, normal weight, normal metabolism" population, the natural variations are just too great.
Zuleikaa,

I have no doubt there is a great gulf of difference between person a's metabolism and person b's, even if both are the same age/gender/height/weight. Person a might burn 1600 cals at rest, person b might burn 1300. Difference like that I can see occurring. You are asking me to believe that person a can burn 2500 cals at rest (a healthy, typical, morbidly obese person), but person b burns less than 500. That I do not believe. I'm not arguing that there is differences between metabolisms (there certainly is), I am merely contesting that it is possible for human energy needs to vary so much to the point where a 300lb human being is maintaining weight on under 1000 calories a day. The body is capable of conserving energy, and yes disease can also cause your body to store more fat and/or burn less for energy (diseases which cause malnutrition/inability to burn sugar for fuel like type 2 diabetes/severe insulin resistance, or diseases which affect metabolic rate like hashimoto's disease can both affect how much energy your body burns vs how much it stores as fat). However, even when these factors are considered, you must realize there are limits to how far it can take things without rendering you incapacitated or forcing you to drop weight to make up the deficit.

I simply refuse to believe a morbidly obese person, irregardless of disease status or personal/familial background can survive - and not merely survive but do daily functions without much compromise of efficacy - on under 1000 calories per day, without that person catabolizing their own tissues for fuel. In other words, I seriously doubt the claims made by really fat people that they can't lose on under 1000 cals per day.

You say there are studies which show people gaining weight on 800 calories a day. Studies of men, even. Were these men emaciated starvation victims? I have no doubt a true worst case anorexic or starvation victim is going to gain both muscle and fat on 800 calories a day. Starved people have very little mass, and their bodies are at the limits of energy conservation. A very small starved person can maintain that state on a pittance of energy, because they've eaten away all the metabolically active muscle and fat tissue.

My original point of contention was not that it is impossible to not lose weight on 800 calories per day, if you are a 50 lb anorexic you won't lose weight on 800 cals per day, of course. My point was that it is impossible for a very obese person to not lose weight on 800 cals per day, and this is a position I will maintain. An obese person has very high energy needs, fat is metabolically active tissue. Obese people have more fat and muscle (insulin is an anabolic hormone that stimulates both fat and muscle growth, plus obese people do more weight-bearing activities than others just by existing) than thin people. Like I said, even if we assume the obese person in question has a myriad of metabolic abnormalities and thrifty genes, the human body can only go so far with energy conservation. I don't see how it's possible for a very obese, very large individual to be using less energy than a healthy very very small person (even a 90 lb healthy petite young woman burns more than 800 cals per day), without being reduced to an almost comatose state. I am open minded, so if you can provide evidence of obese people with such severe metabolic problems that they are not losing weight on starvation levels of calories, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong. Do you have a link to an abstract showing very obese people failing to drop weight on under 1000 cals per day?

If you want to see an example of the limits of energy conservation, take a look at starvation victims. People who are starving can barely even move because their bodies are using so little energy, as their bodies are trying in vain to preserve the precious resources on their body (muscle and fat). They can't will themselves to stand. They black out spontaneously. They can't think, because their brains are deprived of sugar. Their muscles spontaneously give out. This is what happens when your body doesn't have energy ... it starts to not work. One thing is certain, unless you feel like a 50 lb starved person - prone to passing out, not being able to move your own body, etc - you can be sure your body is not at the limits of its ability to conserve energy.

When the "metabolically resistant" morbidly obese are certain they're eating anorexia level cals, but the only abnormal symptom they experience is weight maintenance (and maybe feeling a little bit less alert/lively)... you can be sure that they are underestimating their calorie intake. You can't feed a very large body very little, maintain weight, and function effectively. Weight maintenance on extremely little calories (i.e. extreme energy conservation as seen in anorexics and starved people) is a mutually exclusive occurrence with being able to function like a regular person. If someone claims the two are occurring together, you can be sure they're over estimating their caloric intake. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising tomorrow.

[ItsTheWooo]

I think my point is getting confused. Let me restate my position, and this time I will try to be clear and concise as possible.

My position: It is not physically possible for an extremely large person (i.e. 300 lb human being) to exists - and thrive (i.e. function effectively) - on the calorie levels more appropriate for an extremely small person (i.e. a house pet, or a very small child).

My position was not that it is impossible to gain weight or maintain weight on 800 calories. I believe this is possible.
What I do not believe is that it (weight maintenance on very little calories) possible is when all the above qualifiers are present together as a cluster (large amounts of metabolically active tissue, extremely low calorie levels, AND the ability to function more or less normally). An example of people maintaining or gaining weight on very low levels of calories, but there is an exclusion of one or more of these qualifiers, invalidates the case as evidence against my position.

Here are a few examples of invalid cases which do not count as evidence:
1) A case study of people with very low amounts metabolically active tissue. A 52 lb starvation victim gaining weight on 800 calories a day is not evidence against my original claim, because this person has very little metabolically active tissue. (One of the qualifiers of my original claim is that the person must have large quantities of metabolically active tissue, i.e. be obese. Furthermore, starved people also tend to show all signs in the most extreme manifestation of energy conservation, so examples of starvation victims are invalid cases on two counts.)

2) A case study of people who manifest extreme symptoms of energy conservation. A person - even an overweight person - gaining weight on 800 calories a day with simultaneously occurring symptoms of extreme energy conservation is not evidence against my original claim. Examples of extreme energy conservation include but are not limited to hair falling out in clumps, scaly flaky skin, blacking out or fainting, being unable to will yourself to move or get up when lying down, subjective reports of feeling half-dead, extremely tired, or otherwise a significant perception of lacking in energy, muscles spontaneously giving out, an inability to concentrate, think, or remember anything, etc. (This person, despite having lots of metabolically active tissue, is exhibiting signs of extreme energy conservation (i.e. their body is failing on them). This again does not count as evidence).
a) Please note that cases where the people are showing minor symptoms of energy conservation (some diffuse hair shedding, feeling less alert than normally, feeling physically weaker than normal, etc) do not count as examples of extreme energy conservation. When you restrict energy, even if slightly, your body tends to conserve energy which results in very minor manifestations of starvation symptoms. The presence of these symptoms, when minor, is not evidence that their bodies are in an extreme energy conservation mode (and via extension not evidence that the body is "starved" for energy to the point where they will maintain weight on seemingly impossibly low amounts of cals).

Like I said, it is important to remember that I am contesting the claim of weight maintenance on very low levels of calories only when these two qualifiers are present together: very large quantities of metabolically active tissue and the ability to function more or less like everyone else.

I hope I have made myself clear.

[adkpam]

Well, I can jump in here, because one of the things that started me investigating low carbing was the experience of my mother, who was dealing with menopause when she discovered her previous weight maintenance strategies (low fat, lots of exercise) weren't working, and she was GAINING weight without changing her routine.

This got my attention, because it would be me in a decade or so...

And my mother was doing 600-800 calories and walking 5 miles a day. And GAINING.

What was happening was her body was cannibalizing the protein in her muscles and elsewhere (she had thinning hair and nails) while hanging on like grim death to the fat, since it wasn't getting any. She'd whacked out her metabolism over years of low fat/high exercise and it was doing the best it could with what it was given.

When she went on Atkins, she doubled or tripled her calorie intake, dropped the exercise, and lost weight. Because her body was getting plenty of fat, it didn't need to hang onto it. Because it was getting plenty of protein, it was able to build muscle, hair, and nails again.

That's my short, admittedly unscientific version. And yes, if she'd gone to a concentration camp, she would have lost weight. Because as little as she was eating, it was voluntary. Enforced starvation, whether from an external authority or your own brain, as in anorexia, will make you lose weight anyway. But thank goodness she didn't have to.

[lpioch]

Well, I can jump in here, because one of the things that started me investigating low carbing was the experience of my mother, who was dealing with menopause when she discovered her previous weight maintenance strategies (low fat, lots of exercise) weren't working, and she was GAINING weight without changing her routine.


Interesting!

This is actually the premise of the BodyRX program by Dr. Scott Connelly.
He calls himself "a metabolic scientist with one foot in the medical world and one in the weight room."
Actually, it's one part of the premise.

He studied how people who ate the least are in fact the ones who gain the most...
AND (more well known) he studied and worked with wasting syndrome - patients, severely injured or ill, wasting away even though they are fed a high-calorie diet intravenously.

Anyway, it's an interesting read, and an interesting program.
But it does take a good 18 or so weeks to see some dramatic results...
Right now, I don't have the patience. :-)

But when I've dropped a decent amount, I'm going back on this program (it's 4 phases, and the 3rd phase - for fat loss - is basically Protein-Power levels of carbs).

-- Loretta Pioch