The Fastup/Slowdown Principle // Was: Dr. Walford on severe restriction

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

A couple of additional points to add to the comments below regarding

the possible benefits of cycling weight with different rates of

weight gain and loss. Perhaps it could be called the Fastup/Slowdown

principle?

***IF*** it works over periods of months (which is FAR from proven),

then might the same principal also apply to daily fluctuations in

caloric intake? In other words, would a similar LBM building effect

result from pigging out on all-you-can-eat chinese one day, thereby

putting on a half pound of net weight with a high proportion of LBM,

followed by a couple of weeks with a daily caloric deficit of 100

calories, with a comparatively minor loss of LBM? Thereby achieving

a gain in LBM while weight has been net stable. (Or even on an

intraday basis - one large meal per day with small snacks the rest of

the day?)

Of course this is all speculation arrived at by taking the data in

one table in the article you linked to its logical conclusion. But

if the data in that table are accurate then this is highly

significant to everyone here, imo.

It also TOTALLY destroys any vestige of belief that FASTING is

beneficial. Fasting is the exact opposite of this, and could not be

better calculated to destroy LBM no matter how hard you tried - of

course ***IF*** it is true.

Perhaps it is also worth noting that the average SAD dieter is one

who slowly gains ten pounds over three years and then tries to lose

it all in a couple of months. Again - if this principal is correct -

that is the exact opposite of what is desirable.

Food for thought.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hi Tony:

>

> Well it would be nice if in the real world things were as cut-and-

> dried as that formula suggests. If you lose weight while your body

> fat is 20% you will lose almost exactly 55% as fat .......... if

> your BF is 15% almost exactly 48% of the weight lost will be fat.

>

> My experience has already been different, going from 20% BF to 15%

> while losing over 70% of the weight as fat - not the 50% to 55%

> predicted.

>

> But also, and likely more convincing to you, will be the fact that

in

> that very same article for which you were kind enough to provide a

> link, there is a table which purports to show that the amount of

lean

> body mass that will be lost can be varied ***by a factor of 3***

> simply based on the rate at which the weight is lost - a factor

which

> that neat little formula ignores completely.

>

> So, *if* that article is correct, that there is a huge direct

> relationship between the rate of weight change and the proportion

of

> LBM lost or gained - losing or gaining a lot of LBM if the rate of

> change is rapid, and losing or gaining much less LBM (one-third as

> much) if the rate of change is slow - then therein resides a

> delightfully simple solution to the body fat issue. The following

is

> the solution:

>

> Lose five pounds slowly, then gain five pounds rapidly. Then do

the

> same again. And if you like, again. And again, perhaps? If that

> article is correct then each time you lose slowly you will not lose

> much LBM. But each time you gain rapidly you will put on a large

> amount of LBM. After a few cycles even the couch potatoes among us

> should all be fat-free and bulging with LBM. (I can just imagine

the

> picture of us all at the next get-together!!!)

>

> Do you believe the article's analysis? If you do then that is the

> logical conclusion to be drawn from it. What is more, it is very

> much easier to lose weight slowly than quickly. And it is dead

easy

> to put weight on fast!!! So it shouldn't be too difficult.

>

> Are you gonna try it? : ^ )))))

>

> Rodney.

>

> PS: I may try it sometime, but not before I am down to 10% BF%.

> Then take a ten day all-you-can-eat vacation in Mexico and go from

my

> 10% BF weight up five pounds very quickly, and when I get back home

> drop back to my 10% BF weight again at a rate of one-fifth of a

pound

> a week. (Put it on in ten days, and take it back off in six

> months). As I said, I ***may*** try it.

>

> If anyone has other scientific information that sheds more light on

> whether or not this makes sense, PLEASE post it.

>

> I wonder why they don't do it with cattle - if it is true.

>

> ==============================================================

>

> --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

wrote:

> >

> > >>>

> > From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> > Date: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:39 am

> > Subject: Re: Dr. Walford's caution about severe restriction

> >

> > If on the way down from 15% BF only ten

> > percent of the weight they lost had been fat, then by now they

would

> > weigh around zero pounds. (Because if your lean mass is falling

nine

> > times as fast as your fat mass then your BF% will go UP, not down,

> > right?)

> > ...

> > (I guess you could say that I do not think that that formula you

> > posted will reflect what happens to my body fat in the next few

> > months. But I am more than willing to be persuaded otherwise.

> > Especially by personal empirical evidence.)

> > >>>

> >

> > A 150-lb person with 15% body fat has 22.5 lb of fat and 127.5 lb

of

> > lean body mass. The person would have to lose 8.3 lb of pure fat

> > without losing lean body mass to get to 10% body fat. I have not

> read

> > anything that says that you can lose only fat.

> >

> > I suspect that you are joking when you say that it is possible to

> get

> > to zero pounds (anorexic cadavers weigh about 85 lbs). Some

organs

> > and tissues remain fairly constant as you lose weight, e.g.,

bones,

> > cartilage, skin, blood, tendons, brain, and nerves. When you lose

> > weight, you lose mostly muscle and adipose tissue. The type of

> tissue

> > that you lose will depend on your diet to some degree. A high

> protein

> > diet will spare you from losing too much muscle if you exercise.

> > Exercise stimulates fat burning and muscle building

simultaneously.

> > This is the reason why bodybuilders adopt low calorie diets that

are

> > very high in protein for about 12 weeks prior to competition

(that's

> > how they get to 6% body fat for a few days). People who have

> > substantial weight loss are often afflicted with flabby skin

which

> has

> > to be removed surgically because it is not absorbed by the body

in

> the

> > same way as adipose tissue.

> >

> > With regard to the formulas (Message 15864) and their

reliability, I

> > applied them to my weight loss and got results within a few

> percentage

> > of my actual figures. I doubt that you are so unique that

formulas

> > that were developed based on a large number of cases would not be

> > applicable to you, but we will see.

> >

> > Tony

> > ===

> >

> > PMID: 12630623

> > Psychosocial consequences of weight loss following gastric

banding

> for

> > morbid obesity.

> > Most patients (87%) were happy with the extent of weight loss.

> Weight

> > loss, however, was connected with negative consequences for the

body

> > such as flabby skin (53%), abdominal skin overhang (47%) and

> pendulous

> > breasts (42%).