 » Site Navigation | | | | » Tag Cloud | | Search Tags
| | » Stats |
Members: 36,397
Threads: 16,798
Posts: 175,228
Top Poster: maleficent (21,583)
| | Welcome to our newest member, pixeldust | | | Welcome to Weight Loss Forum - This information will disappear after Registration.
| | |
Welcome to the Weight Loss Forum forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
Note: After registering, you will receive an activation email. This will contain a link required to fully activate your account and allow you to post. Some email providers may put this in your JUNK or SPAM folder.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
|
 | | 
February 15th, 2008, 06:23 AM
| | New Member | | Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: UK
Posts: 64
Rep Power: 1324 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor10  sorry to say this but at only 500 calories a day, i guarantee most of your loss on the scale is due to muscle loss....there is absolutely no way you kept your muscles and burned all fat on 500...that or you didn't actually stay at 500 and ate more.
im not trying to be an ass, im just letting you know eating that low is not a good idea | Why do so many people seem to think that when you're starving most of the weight loss is from muscle? Actually most of the weight loss will be fat. There will be protein loss, and most of the protein loss will be from muscle rather than other sources; but of the weight lost, a far greater proportion will be fom fat than protein. Typical protein loss for someone who had starved for 5 weeks would be about 3kg, and fat loss over the same period would be about 10kg (figures read off a graph showing the effect of starvation on the food stores of the body in "textbook of medical physiology" by Guyton and Hall)
__________________
|
February 15th, 2008, 09:59 AM
| | New Member | | Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 0 | | | Without having any science or research to back up my guess, I'd be shocked if I lost more muscle than fat. I didn't have much muscle before I started (i.e. wasn't lifting weights or anything) but now I do, yet a lot of excess fat has disappeared.
Last edited by alsace; February 15th, 2008 at 11:07 AM.
|
February 15th, 2008, 12:34 PM
| | New Member | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 48
Rep Power: 181 | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Caterpillar Why do so many people seem to think that when you're starving most of the weight loss is from muscle? Actually most of the weight loss will be fat. There will be protein loss, and most of the protein loss will be from muscle rather than other sources; but of the weight lost, a far greater proportion will be fom fat than protein. Typical protein loss for someone who had starved for 5 weeks would be about 3kg, and fat loss over the same period would be about 10kg (figures read off a graph showing the effect of starvation on the food stores of the body in "textbook of medical physiology" by Guyton and Hall) | OK OK pick us up on our Grammar or terminology if you like...the 'greater loss' might be from fat not muscle..but ANY muscle loss from starvation is bad and at 33% muscle loss to fat that is very detrimental to organ health. Perhaps it would be better to look at the bigger picture in terms of health rather than to score points of someones well meant advice to someone who was adopting an unhealthy if not downright dangerous life choice!!
__________________  | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 AM.
