Is it really true you fuck over your metabnolism when you cut

ur metabolism slows down considerably and enters so called starvation mode if you eat at really low calories

>>39603969
Actual source on this?

I've heard it memed everywhere but ive never seen a solid source from an actual nutritionist.

What sort of process could the body go through that would make exercising use less calories?

>>39604006
Not him, but there's an indication here:
>Resting metabolic rate, as measured by oxygen consumption, dropped 23.8% during the 12 weeks of the VLCD(Very Low Calorie Diet).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490

>>39604006
http://exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html
http://exrx.net/FatLoss/WhyDietsFail.html
Basically, your body thinks you're some starving kid in Africa. It cuts out calories from basic processes. The energy that you use on basic functions will be slowed down. You'll be less focused. You'll sleep a lot more.

>>39604006
There are no internet-ready sources on starvation mode except empirical evidence. But it's known that the body completely goes haywire on a hard cut. Cortisol spikes, fat distribution changes and some people even become fatter by eating less - not necessarily heavier, but fatter. This is because muscle and later on bone gets catabolized while fat stays the same.

>What sort of process could the body go through that would make exercising use less calories?
Avoidance of dying. More fat on your belly = better insulation of your organs.

The body has many ways to apparently break the laws of thermodynamics (really doesn't but it looks like it for all intents and purposes).

That's also why there's a new diet every 10 years or so.

>>39604022

By the time metabolic adaptation hits youd be at 8% bodyfat

It's a meme

>>39604022
>The findings indicate that a VLCD can provide a rapid weight loss of more than 75% fat and a concomitant decrease in waist:hip and waist:thigh ratios
>Seventeen subjects lost a mean of 24.2 kg. A mean of 75.5% of the weight loss was adipose tissue as measured by hydrodensitometry
>Waist:hip and waist:thigh ratios showed a small but significant decrease, implying a decreased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease after weight loss

So you still lose a huge amount of fat pretty quickly with significant cutting.

I wonder how quickly the BMR catches back up once you switch to eating at maintenance?

>>39603941
From personal experience, yes. Perhaps not it's not medically or strictly my metabolism, but everything slows down. Mood goes down. Libido. Testosterone levels. Recovery times. Not a good place. I'd get out of it ASAP if you are at all worried.

>>39603941
i-i-is that pic real senpai? i am unsettled by that..

>>39603941
https://youtu.be/5I3MspCR5W0?t=236
Watch it for about 1 min~>>39603941

>>39604083
Same for me. Feels weird, but then again, all studies are biased in some way in my experience. You gotta trial and error, I think.

>>39604151
Yeah, but lying to yourself and being a general idiot ("Continue eating while full aka finish your plate" lolwhat) is strictly an American problem.

>>39604037
So their source is one old man who ran three hours a day and ate 1100 calories. His BRM dropped 30%. But that guy wasn't trying to lose weight, he was trying to run a marathon. So his dumb ass shouldn't have been at such an extream cut trying to run a marathon.

>>39604151
>thinking that a 16 year old making mspaint youtube videos is a credible source

Holy shit you guys are retarded.
TLDR: Don't be retarded and you will be ok

>>39604172
I was trying to point towards the statistic that people who had been on the biggest loser had a lower metabolism than most people, not the beginning part

>>39604193
I see. Sorry.

>>39604187
Not an argument.

>>39604193
Yeah, but lower doesn't mean shit when you are a retard.

You can't lose 200 pounds and then expect to go back to your old diet of chicken wings and soda and expect to stay skinny.

If they just readjusted to and followed a correct diet for their current weight they would gain a few pounds, their BRM would bounce back, then they would lose the weight again.

>>39604187
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
Heres your credible source

>>39604226
Anecdotal.

Those fucking losers went back to their old habits and lied.

>>39604219
Wrong. If your BMR crashes for what was it? 20-30%? Then you're in shit city. Enjoy being on a subjective hunger diet for the rest of your life. Always eating a bit less every month. Until you gain fat on 800 cals a day. And yes, it does happen, of course it does.

>>39604219
Stop calling people retards when you dont even know what you are talking about. The fact is that their metabolism has dropped which shouldn't be the case when you lose weight so if they followed the same died as a normal person they would still gain weight as they burn fewer calories than they normal should

>>39604213
Not being a reliable source is a very good argument, he could literally say anything he wants with zero repercussions and your dumb ass would believe him.

There have been many credible sources in this thread that explain the mechanics of a "starvation" mode better than this retard with a mic.

They all say that in a very large deficit you can lose weight pretty quickly. You will lose 70% fat and 30% other stuff, then after 6 months of a corrected diet you will see your BRM readjust.

Literally calories in vs calories out. Now if you want to MAXIMIZE how much food you can eat while doing that you might want to take this into effect but the truth is that many americans are at way more risk of heart disease because of being fat than they are in trouble of losing too much lean muscle mass.

>>39604242
So your argument is "I'm infallible, everyone who disagrees is lying".

Sorry, but not an argument.

>>39604277
>Not being a reliable source is a very good argument, he could literally say anything he wants with zero repercussions and your dumb ass would believe him.
Conjecture. Not an argument.

>There have been many credible sources in this thread that explain the mechanics of a "starvation" mode better than this retard with a mic.
So you don't like him. Ok. Still not an argument.

>They all say that in a very large deficit you can lose weight pretty quickly. You will lose 70% fat and 30% other stuff, then after 6 months of a corrected diet you will see your BRM readjust.
Hearsay or maybe made up? Not an argument.

>Literally calories in vs calories out. Now if you want to MAXIMIZE how much food you can eat while doing that you might want to take this into effect but the truth is that many americans are at way more risk of heart disease because of being fat than they are in trouble of losing too much lean muscle mass.
Didn't read the thread, non sequitur. Also not an argument.

Feel free to stop posting anytime, underage.

>>39604255
Does it? Can you prove it does?

The only source we have in this thread is an old guy who fixed his BRM crash in 6 months and actually lost fat in the process.

So please explain to me why the only reliable source we currently have is wrong and your "it happens of course it happens" is right?

>>39604268
You're right i probably shouldn't be calling people retards but the fact that your metabolism dropped 30% doesn't mean that a larger cut won't make you lose more weight faster. And i specifically said they WOULD gain some weight then drop it back off in the long run.

>>39604284

>no link to actual study

Here's your (you)

>>39604303
I told your there are no internet sources already. if you can't manage to read the thread, then fuck off.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

Here is the studie

>>39603969
BULLSHIT

YOUR BODY CANT CHEAT PHYSICS

LOOK AT ANOREXIACHICKS, ARE THEY FAT?

NO

>>39604513
>YOUR BODY CANT CHEAT PHYSICS
Xe doesn't have to.

>>39604150
Thats arnold. He was in movies, tv shows, now is gov of california.

>Clearly been living under a rock