so, we know that cutting calories makes you lose weight but

>>39269386

They lose weight faster, albeit with more muscle loss than someone on a smaller deficit. It's also possible to cause metabolic damage but not super likely.

>>39269386
They lose even more weight. The problem is that you become lethargic and weak the lower you go. Weak = cant workout = less muscle maintained while cutting. Since even if you go down that far, the process still takes months. It's unsustainable.

>>39269398
just talking hypotheticals

what if someone cut that much but was still powering through workouts with caffeine or whatever

even if they didnt maintain all of their muscle, they would lose some of it, which would still lose weight, and lots of it

>>39269421
>>39269386

Fucking try it and find out. Any muscle you lose on an extreme cut can be gained back relatively quickly anyway.

>>39269421
Caffeine stimulates adrenaline release, but it's not really the same as the energy your body gets from calories in order to function efficiently. Hypothetically, if caloric intake is far too low, no amount of caffeine will stop your body/organs from breaking down.

>>39269421
You will not have enough energy to be stable through physical labor. There's a reason people working on railroads and shit would just die from exhaustion. Lack of nourishment + extreme physical activity. Not saying you're gonna die, but you will not feel good at all no matter how good your willpower is, you shouldn't have to suffer like that just to lose weight about 10% faster.

>>39269386
You can't keep protein as needed and energy to workout on that low of calories for very long. This is why most fatties fail at their diets, initial overkill. Then they can't maintain it very long and give up.

Exceptions exist, obeasts on medically supervised fasts, etc but they are very much exceptions.

Agree with >>39269489
Test it and you'll see.
About 1000 is as low as I can do it and it's hard to meet my protein but not go over my calories even with a daily scoop. And I'm often tired if I don't get good rest.

If you cut too drastically, your body will think you are starving and store more energy for "bad times". Also you will lose muscle mass.
You won't have as mich energy for training (as I said bc your bod stores everything) and therefore less training volume -> less stimulous -> even more gainz lost

thanks guys for the responses, just talking what ifs


>>39269509
and i just threw caffeine out there just to mean, something to help you go over, so i understand you

>>39269571
Do some math and map out some daily eating plans and you'll quickly see that even in paper it's hard to get 1g/protein per pound of weight on a calorie count that low.
It's obvious you've never done any serious restricting for more than a few days and worked out if you say 'power through workouts with caffeine or whatever'.

Why not plan out something for real and start doing it instead of sitting around here in your head?
I'm honestly interested in your results if you do some real testing. The rest of this is just wishful thinking at best and mental masturbation at worst.

Google the PMSF. Protein modified sparring fast. It's a meal plan designed by bariatric docs to help the mega Obese lose as much weight as possible while sparing the lean body mass. Lost 80lbs on it when combined with EC

>>39269627
what is EC?

>>39269386
There are ways to do that. read "rapid fatloss handbook" by lyle mcdonald for example.

Basically people first tried to fast to lost weight as quickly as possible, but it was found that they lost a ton of lean tissue. So the next step was to give them a lot of protein and nothing else, which is lead to what is called Protein Sparing Modified Fasting. It works very well for losing weight, but unfortunately eating like that will also give you significant deficiencies (calcium, salt, potassium etc).

The solution is to supplement, and the book by Lyle tells you in detail what you need to supplement and how much. This is NOT optional. I followed the book to the letter and had great results (lost roughly 10kg in 5-6 weeks). My friend wanted to try it. He also lost a lot of weight, but was too lazy to read the book and ended up severely deficient.

>>39269627
Not op.
Were you under a doctor's supervision? Were you able to do your regular daily work etc and any sort of exercising at all? How long were you on it?

>>39269658
Not him, but >>39269649

The first couple of days were bad, but after that I felt fine. Exercising was not a problem, but I cut down to 2 days per week focusing mostly on lifting heavy shit for low volume. I drank some Gatorade during workout, like suggested in lyle's book. I kept my strength for a while, but the last couple of weeks strength was dropping quickly. I was getting fairly lean by then so I stopped, and the hanbook also says that people in my "fatness category" (I was around 20% bf in the beginning) shouldn't do it for more than 6-8 weeks.

>>39269386
More deficit, faster loss, that's why Auschwitz was among the most successful diet camps.
However, this also means liver glycogen stores get depleted much faster and then everything goes to maintain a steady glucose level, be it fat or muscle protein. And the body really likes its fat to stay the same, so protein breakdown becomes prominent. Which is why to lose weight properly, you need to maintain enough calories a day to replace the proton losses and still allow a normal glucose level.

>>39269386
Most people vastly overestimate muscle loss during a heavy cut. If you keep up your protein + work out, you'll probably won't that much more muscle.

>>39269421
>what if someone cut that much but was still powering through workouts with caffeine or whatever

you can't do that. not only will gylcogen stores be diminished, they will be less abundant due to reduced dietary intake of carbohydrates and protein. the majority of weight lost at first will be water, and anything subsequent will be primarily muscle protien catabolized to produce energy.

your body will do anything it can to drop muscle and retain fat. muscle is metabolically much more expensive than fat to maintain, and fat is a long term energy storage. so the faster you lose weight, the more of the percentage of total mass lost will be from muscle.

so you will get weaker -- you always get weaker when you lose weight, regardless of how slowly you lose weight -- because you're losing muscle mass. and since you're fucking up your metabolism by doing such a dumbass deficit, the weight loss will plateau very quickly.

you'll get lethargic, reduced sex drive, reduced strength etc because you're literally starving and your body responds by shutting down/getting rid of any non-vital bodilfy functions.

if you couple this with low fat, you're taking a big risk on permanent brain/reproductive dysfunction. common to modern belief, fat and cholesterol are vital to the function of your body, especially the brain and maintaining testosterone (cholesterol is a precursor for many steroid hormones in the body)

but do what you want