Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Dr.Bernstein & Diabetes
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #766   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 08:39
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,554
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Some lean mass loss during weight loss is almost inevitable. Weight training might push things in the other direction. The thing about lean mass is, it isn't very energy dense.

Suppose somebody loses half a pound of lean mass for every half a pound of fat. Sounds horrible, right? A gram of fat has 9 calories. A gram of protein tends to come with 3 or 4 grams of water. So a gram of lean has about 1 calorie, a gram of fat 9 calories, and a person who gets 90 percent of their endogenous energy from fat during weight loss is still going to lose as much lean as fat. The numbers are a little off, because it's actually a bit more than 9 calories per gram fat or 4 per gram protein, but close enough.

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/foo...7E/UID07E12.HTM

Phinney's reference here gives an example for an obese person getting 94 percent of their energy as fat--but at that rate, expected lean mass losses would still be 41 percent, again because of the much lower energy density of protein stores.

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/berardi40.htm

This old John Berardi article looks at calorie restriction vs. lean mass, in general the lower the deficit, the more slowly you're losing weight, the more is lost as fat vs. lean. Also the leaner you are, the more lean vs fat you'll lose, the fatter you are, the more fat vs. lean. I think he makes some false assumptions, at least for people who go from one extreme to the other, because most of the lean data is probably for people who'd been lean through their lives, dieted-down people are going to be a little different.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #767   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 09:47
Justin Jor Justin Jor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 183
 
Plan: Bernsteinish
Stats: 314/231/199 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 72%
Default

I want to mention again that lean mass does not equal muscle or even organ mass. Those things are lean mass, but lean mass is not only those things.
Reply With Quote
  #768   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 12:05
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,554
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Yes. I find those differences interesting when looking at the difference in metabolic rate vs. lean mass in the Biggest Loser vs. bariatric surgery study Dr. Fung has brought up a few times.

Some factoids. One from Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

Average skeletal muscle contribution to bmr in men is 18 percent. Bmr tracks with lean mass, but most of metabolic rate can't be attributed to muscle.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/...-than-a-female/

Livestrong guesses a typical lean mass for men at 40 percent. 20 percent fat is probably in the ballpark. That would put lean mass at 80 percent, 40 percent of it skeletal muscle.

Now, suppose you diet down while weight lifting, preserving muscle mass. What is the effect on basal metabolic rate? It might be higher. What's the effect on basal metabolic rate vs. lean mass? You've preserved or even increased the portion of lean mass that makes the smallest contribution to basal metabolism per pound.

Or take another tack, bariatric surgery, lose more lean mass. Same idea, muscle contributes less than other lean tissues to metabolic rate. If a greater proportion of the lean mass that's lost comes from the relatively less metabolically active muscle tissue, you could have less of a fall in metabolic rate vs. lean mass. Should you call that a victory?
Reply With Quote
  #769   ^
Old Sat, Dec-30-17, 16:30
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 84
 
Plan: LC / IF
Stats: 224/155/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser


If nothing else, the bmr calculations help explain why it gets so much harder to continue losing weight, after a significant weight loss. For example, my bmr according to the wiki page, was 1808 calories per day at 230 lbs. I hit a stall at 170 lbs, when my bmr was at 1531 calories per day. Since I hadn't made any changes over that period, that 300 calorie difference came right out of the deficit. Another way to look at is its like increasing my calories eaten by 300 per day. At 155lbs, my bmr is down to 1463 calories per day and I have been finding maintenance challenging. While I am not really gaining weight, I have been fluctuating a few lbs up and down while I experiment with adding carbs. The bottom line is if I want to lose another 10 lbs, I probably have to go down to 1200 calories per day. .
Reply With Quote
  #770   ^
Old Sun, Dec-31-17, 07:48
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,554
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Certainly something to consider. One thing you'll see a lot of is conflation of basal metabolic rate with calorie requirement, as if the calorie intake needed to maintain health and the intake for maintenance are identical. Requirement for maintenance might be lower at a lower body weight, requirement for satisfying the appetite/avoiding hunger is liable to go up.

Exercise gets criticized as a weight loss/maintenance tool since there's no guarantee that appetite won't simply increase to make up for the energy use, or that we won't wind up a bit less twitchy when we're not exercising.. Maybe it's good in another way though, if somebody maintained at 1800 calories a day instead of 1500, if it's simply the same kind of food in slightly larger amounts, that's not just 20 percent more calories, it's 20 percent more micronutrition as well. Working up an appetite isn't all bad.
Reply With Quote
  #771   ^
Old Sun, Dec-31-17, 12:08
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 84
 
Plan: LC / IF
Stats: 224/155/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Calorie requirement is the hard part to determine. Most of the online calculators agree with the bmr but terms like sedentary or moderately active are open to a wide interpretation. I don't consider myself sedentary, but even with that setting, the calculator tells me I need 1781 calories per day to maintain my current weight. I must have a pretty slow metabolism because I am maintaining eating around 1400 calories per day.
Reply With Quote
  #772   ^
Old Mon, Jan-01-18, 11:34
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,646
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Wall Street Journal discovers Satchi Panda's research 2 years after publication.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-diet...ries-1514721601

A Diet Strategy That Counts Time, Not Calories
You can eat whatever you want with time-restricted feeding, just not whenever you want. The weight-loss regime limits eating to a 12-hour window each day and is good for diabetes prevention, longevity and blood pressure.
Reply With Quote
  #773   ^
Old Tue, Jan-02-18, 11:06
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,646
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Reminder for the New Year:

The #1 Rule of Fasting...always make sure you are doing it safely.
by Dr Fung

https://idmprogram.com/1-rule-fasting/

Last edited by JEY100 : Tue, Jan-02-18 at 12:43.
Reply With Quote
  #774   ^
Old Tue, Jan-02-18, 12:46
Ambulo's Avatar
Ambulo Ambulo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 860
 
Plan: No GPS/OMAD (23:1)
Stats: 150/124/120 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: the North, England
Default

Quite. I like his climbing Mount Everest analogy. I am sure I could walk up Ben Nevis fasted before I had my one meal. After a longer fast, no way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:49.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.