A time-efficient reduction of fat mass in 4 days with exercise and caloric restrictio

[lylemcd]

Article on the main site

[noah_k]

A new level of extremity, interesting. I know the protein was far below suggested requirements, but was still surprised to see such severe and identical LBM loss with both the protein and sucrose group. I'd have guessed 75g for a 100kg fellow would make a difference, but then again not in light of 8.5hrs of exercise.

It's too bad they did not include the same groups but without the exercise, just to compare, though I guess we know LBM losses would still be high, nothing really too useful? But what I'd really like to see is a similar study with variations of extremity, though where subjects take a potent anabolic alongside - to see just how muscle sparing they can be.

The phase 4 losses were kind of cool to see, good habits carried over instead of psychological breakdown gaining back and then some.

[BigPecsPeter]

Originally Posted by noah_k

A new level of extremity, interesting. I know the protein was far below suggested requirements, but was still surprised to see such severe and identical LBM loss with both the protein and sucrose group. I'd have guessed 75g for a 100kg fellow would make a difference, but then again not in light of 8.5hrs of exercise.

Severe LBM loss?! Look at the results. After 7 days (end of Phase 3) the LBM loss from baseline was just 26%. And after 4 weeks where the subjects did as they wished, the LBM loss from baseline was less than 12%. What I find interesting here is precisely how little LBM was lost after 7 days in spite of the most extreme deficits and low protein.

[noah_k]

Oops - you're absolutely right. When glancing over lbm, I didn't realize the the chart was from baseline instead of from the last phase, but that's pretty obvious in hindsight especially looking at the fat loss. And Lyle's small notation beneath it.

But I'm with you, at even half the recommendations of muscle sparing protein, it's still surprising to me to see that the losses were the same as with the sucrose group.

[BigPecsPeter]

Originally Posted by noah_k

Oops - you're absolutely right. When glancing over lbm, I didn't realize the the chart was from baseline instead of from the last phase, but that's pretty obvious in hindsight especially looking at the fat loss. And Lyle's small notation beneath it.

But I'm with you, at even half the recommendations of muscle sparing protein, it's still surprising to me to see that the losses were the same as with the sucrose group.

I wonder what the results would have been on a pure fat diet.

[Sam Hell Jr.]

What stage of metabolic damage were the subjects in? Like 8?

[lylemcd]

Originally Posted by BigPecsPeter

Severe LBM loss?! Look at the results. After 7 days (end of Phase 3) the LBM loss from baseline was just 26%. And after 4 weeks where the subjects did as they wished, the LBM loss from baseline was less than 12%. What I find interesting here is precisely how little LBM was lost after 7 days in spite of the most extreme deficits and low protein.

It's a bodyfat issue as I've talked about before. The fatter you are, the less LBM you lose under all conditions.

[lylemcd]

Originally Posted by Sam Hell Jr.

What stage of metabolic damage were the subjects in? Like 8?

ALL THE METABOLIC DAMAGE!!!!

[NOAMattD]

I'm more interested in the anecdote about the person who had some kind of workstation cycle and did very low-intensity cardio all day. When you said "keeping calories stable" do you remember if that still meant a deficit (just not necessarily a severe one)? If they were eating at/above maintenance and still losing fat it sounds like this could be kind of a "throw money at the problem" solution to calorie partitioning.

[Sam Hell Jr.]

Originally Posted by NOAMattD

I'm more interested in the anecdote about the person who had some kind of workstation cycle and did very low-intensity cardio all day. When you said "keeping calories stable" do you remember if that still meant a deficit (just not necessarily a severe one)? If they were eating at/above maintenance and still losing fat it sounds like this could be kind of a "throw money at the problem" solution to calorie partitioning.

With respect: If we're talking massive activity deficits like that, somewhere around 2,000 cal/day burned, the distinction between eating 80%, 100%, 110% of maintenance is less relevant.