How fast can fat be lost without muscle loss when dieting?

[Rebel101]

Here is an interesting subject.

I have often wondered what if any is the limit on fat loss when dieting.

Given that as "bodybuilders" we do not want any associated loss of muscle size what is the maximum fat loss that can occur in say a week.

What are the limiting factors? Of course caloric intake, excercise expended have an impact but what else if anything else determines the amount of fat lost in a week.

Can a person loose 100 grams or 1000 grams or ? how much without any associated muscle loss!

Opinions please.

[Dinahlady]

Skeleteal muscle gram for gram of dry tissue weight - you will lose next to nothing if anything at all. 

This is shown time and time again with complete starvation case studies as well as other survival case studies, other examples such as Anorexia and even studies on bbing prep. Your body spares as much muscle tissue as you life actually fully depends on it for survival.. which is what we are built for. 

You are none of these previous extreme examples (except the bbing one) - you are eating 1600 cals and weight training. 

I would elaborate and may do another time, but its seriously nothing to worry about.... 

 

OK heres my first and most relevant elaboration... Bodybuilding case study. 

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.otago.ac.nz/ehost/detail?sid=108f88f2-d2c7-45c8-a6ab-dcd306282107%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=s3h&AN=89927882

Guy goes down from 102.85kg ---> 88.87kg bodyweight. His lean mass goes down from 87.65 ---> 84.97kgs.... In this loss of lean body mass it is also specified that he has also lost over 2kg in that weight from water... Making his total "lean body mass loss - water" about 0.6kgs over his whole prep. This itslef may not actually equate to skeletal muscle mass - it may be anything in that 80kgs (skeletal muscle only makes up probably around half of that (if that) for a bodybuilder). I've mentioned before that "LBM" also includes the weight of the food in your gut, among with so many other factors. This is also presuming all the measurements and calculations are completely accurate.

I"m not saying you will never ever lose any muscle at all... but its not as bad as the bodybuilding community makes it out to be. 

 

[Rebel101]

Hi Dinahlady I hear what you are saying about not loosing muscle size but this is question is not about loosing muscle size.

What I am trying to determine is "Is there a limit on the amount of fat a person can loose in a week?" is it 100 g per week or 500 g per week, or 1000 g per week ?????

[Dinahlady]

Oh haha read it wrong. Doh. Well that's my contribution anyway... 

[Rebel101]

Its cool at least you took the time to reply thanks!

[Dinahlady]

Heres a good study of starvation. I dont have the time this second to read through it. But I think the main question is about maintaining the ability to lose fat continually and preventing hormonal adaptions that will try and conserve the process. But you decide! 

http://www.nejm.org.ezproxy.otago.ac.nz/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197003192821209

 

nejm197003192821209.pdf

[GyzzBrah]

Yoo Dinah I heard a lot of people say that there is no actual limit or 'platau' to plausible fat loss, as it's possible to keep losing weight indefinetley till around 4% bf using just a calorie deficit and possibly cardio?! It seems to be preached by blaha, bios3, ogus, and several others etc. What do you think about that, because imo, the body will adapt to a calorie deficet over a long time, making the prior deficit its new maintanience, which could be the reason annorexics etc need to 'reverse diet' So yeah, u reckon u could offer insight into this?

[Rebel101]

Very interesting article on the mechanism of mobilisation of adipose tissue in circumstances of both short term fasting and long term fasting.

It clearly describes the processes of the body changing from energy production from glucose to the pathways of energy release from adipose tissue and the adaptions that take place to enable this.

The article does not however attempt to quanify any limiting factors is the process mearly describing the processes that happen.

I suspect that in this case practical application from those experienced in the process may be required.

[Dinahlady]

They said in the short term with no food you will lose body fat quickly - and that was around 160gm per day - so up to around a kg per week, but they mentioned it would soon slow down due to adaptations. So I guess somewhere around that mark might be a theoretical "maximum". But there may be so many other factors to consider including exercise etc... 

To really find out youre proabbly going to have to find some more studies on dieting, exercise, or on bodybuilding prep to just look at individuals reposnses if they are documented. 

I guess the real question is how much is the maximum that  you can continually lose without the very quick adaptations that will slow fat loss - if you aim for the most ever by going low cal  or by doing too much exercise you will probably quickly adapt similar to the starvation mechanisms and the fat loss will slow.  But trying to hold off that process while continually losing week to week... 

I understand what youre saying Gyzzbrah about "theres no limit" - theoretically. As your body will burn fat to make up for your expenditure etc etc. But im pretty sure practically you would find there is a limit or response curve. Theoretically I think yes if you made your self starve (or semi starve) and tried and run/walk/stagger through a marathon every day you may lose more than 160gm per day, but the adaptations are going to be working harder than ever to stop this/make you stop/and you would collapse from kidney damage and exhaustion. In reality that type of thing or anything else likened to that in terms of diet and exercise would cause extreme health and psychology issues and proabbly not cause weight and fat loss in the long run.... thats why dieting needs to be kept as sustainable as possible and preventing the adaptations rather than trying to beat down the adaptations with more exercise or less calories. 

 

[crazyfacials]

Not to be a dick, but loose =/= lose.

 

 

[Rebel101]

Its kind of interesting putting information together it is rather like a jig saw puzzle.

I understand that humans carry about 500 grams of glycogen stored in muscle and another 100 g stored in the liver. So in the first week of a carbohydrate delpletion diet removing this and the associated fluid the body carryies with it cold result in about 1.8 kilos of weight lost from carbohydrate depletion and fluid loss. Add to this a potential loss of fat of 1.12 kilo this wold mean somewhere in the vacinity of 2.92 kilos.This is very close to my experience of 3 kilos lost in the first week.

Then in the second week I lost 1.6 kg which would be partially made up of 1.12 kg fat maybe and 0.48 of ?.

Clearly there are many determinants of fat lose including caloric deficit, excercise type and intensity, metabolic rate etc etc etc.

I can't help but think that the bodies prior experience of caloric intake has alot to do with it too. Eg If someone is used to eating 3000 calories of good food for 12 months then the body will expect to be continuing this and resist resetting the metabolic clock for alot longer than a body that has been less consistent.

So much to think about.

[AZIDE]

it is an interesting topic. more like a rubiks cube than a jigsaw though IMO. i have a rubiks cube at home and i was trying to solve it yesterday but i couldnt, despite watching a video on youtube about how to solve one (was pretty boring vid though and i skipped most of it) and it made me late for the gym so i only had 30min to complete my workout. do you think my inability to solve a rubiks cube might mean im retarded?

you might actually be accellerating the weight loss even more by thinking really hard about it? i read that thinking hard a lot actually uses quite a lot of energy compared to not thinking much. do you think that a smarter person would use more energy thinking about stuff as they would be able to think about more complex things, or do you think that it would be the same energy amount but just the smarter person would be using the energy more efficiently?

[Terrymundo]

it is an interesting topic. more like a rubiks cube than a jigsaw though IMO. i have a rubiks cube at home and i was trying to solve it yesterday but i couldnt, despite watching a video on youtube about how to solve one (was pretty boring vid though and i skipped most of it) and it made me late for the gym so i only had 30min to complete my workout. do you think my inability to solve a rubiks cube might mean im retarded?

Retarded, possible not. You're just not as smart as me. My best solve time for a 3X3 rubiks is 37secounds which I believe is a world record for anyone who has been laid.

[AZIDE]

it is an interesting topic. more like a rubiks cube than a jigsaw though IMO. i have a rubiks cube at home and i was trying to solve it yesterday but i couldnt, despite watching a video on youtube about how to solve one (was pretty boring vid though and i skipped most of it) and it made me late for the gym so i only had 30min to complete my workout. do you think my inability to solve a rubiks cube might mean im retarded?

Retarded, possible not. You're just not as smart as me. My best solve time for a 3X3 rubiks is 37secounds which I believe is a world record for anyone who has been laid.

yeah sounds like a decent time. ive got a 5x5x5 'professors cube' one because i thought the smaller ones would be too easy. its actually starting to take over my life now though and i wish id never bought it. ive already wasted like 7 hours of work time on it today and yesterday alone, and when im not physically trying to solve it im on my computer or phone researching on how to do it. apparantly people make 1000x1000x1000 virtual ones using specialised software that are 5 dimensions and shit and solve them for fun. f*ck that.

gym rat do you have a rubiks cube?

[Terrymundo]

Yeah I have the whole set 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5. the 5x5 is actually easier to do than the 4x4. The 3x3 and 5x5 have fixed centers which give you a reference as which edge peice goes where and in which orientation. On a 5x5 the white face is always opposite the yellow, blue opposite green, orange opposite red, but with the 4x4 you can have opposite faces adjacent to each other make it impossible to solve when it comes to placing edge peices. You need to memorise algrothims to fix these cases of parity. I have about 32 algorithms memorised for the 4x4 and only about 15 for the  5x5 not including short cuts. Im sure I can solve any and cube that has an odd number peices on each axis, once you under the logic its much easier. 

[Rebel101]

do you think my inability to solve a rubiks cube might mean im retarded?

you might actually be accellerating the weight loss even more by thinking really hard about it? i read that thinking hard a lot actually uses quite a lot of energy compared to not thinking much. do you think that a smarter person would use more energy thinking about stuff as they would be able to think about more complex things, or do you think that it would be the same energy amount but just the smarter person would be using the energy more efficiently?

U are definitely not retarded, maybe a little toooooo much time on your hands to play with but there are worse things you can play with than a Rubics cube.

As for loosing weight by thinking hard hey I will take it anyway it comes I am not fussy when it comes to losing fat. And I am sure that at the end of each day people dieting lose what they are capable of losing depending on how much they have applied themselves.

Perhaps if you played with your Rubics cube all day every day you would come out with shredded fingers, hehe

[Pseudonym]

I don't know the answer to this, but I think we're about to find out...
 

if you made your self starve (or semi starve) and tried and run/walk/stagger through a marathon every day you may lose more

One of our members, Dubble_D, is about to walk down the western side of the United States, from Canada to Mexico. He sets out on Saturday, and went food shopping today. At this stage it looks like he might be on about 2000 cals a day. I forget how far he'll be walking each day, but it was something ridiculous like 10 hours a day for 5-6 months. So we're expecting a slight change in physique when he returns.

Needless to say, my own goal now is to put on as much size as possible over the next 5-6 months. Just to give him that extra encouragement when he comes back all scrawny and emaciated. Because that's what friends are for, right?

[AZIDE]

Yeah I have the whole set 2x2 3x3 4x4 5x5. the 5x5 is actually easier to do than the 4x4. The 3x3 and 5x5 have fixed centers which give you a reference as which edge peice goes where and in which orientation. On a 5x5 the white face is always opposite the yellow, blue opposite green, orange opposite red, but with the 4x4 you can have opposite faces adjacent to each other make it impossible to solve when it comes to placing edge peices. You need to memorise algrothims to fix these cases of parity. I have about 32 algorithms memorised for the 4x4 and only about 15 for the  5x5 not including short cuts. Im sure I can solve any and cube that has an odd number peices on each axis, once you under the logic its much easier. 

what are your thoughts on the pyramid ones?

[Rebel101]

 

I don't know the answer to this, but I think we're about to find out...
 

if you made your self starve (or semi starve) and tried and run/walk/stagger through a marathon every day you may lose more

One of our members, Dubble_D, is about to walk down the western side of the United States, from Canada to Mexico. He sets out on Saturday, and went food shopping today. At this stage it looks like he might be on about 2000 cals a day. I forget how far he'll be walking each day, but it was something ridiculous like 10 hours a day for 5-6 months. So we're expecting a slight change in physique when he returns.

Needless to say, my own goal now is to put on as much size as possible over the next 5-6 months. Just to give him that extra encouragement when he comes back all scrawny and emaciated. Because that's what friends are for, right?

Absolutely right, hahahhahaha!

What an awesome experience for him to be doing though, trip of a lifetime!