3 ms·
Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.
by vilmosi 11y ago
Agree to disagree. Starving yourself should never be an option.
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoThis isn't "agree to disagree" territory, this is published and peer-reviewed science. You are wrong. There is no disagreement.
- vilmosi 11y agoFine then, show me. Show me some "science" that show how starving yourself is good for you. Put up or shut up, this isn't productive.
- tjogin 11y agoYou are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.
- vilmosi 11y agoAnd I gave you links explaining the downsides. A calorie deficit diet does not guarantee fat-loss, it's more likely that your muscles break down before your fat. Your metabolism slows, making it even harder to lose weight, you'll be stuck in a vicious cycle. And finally, a big enough deficit can trigger starvation (medically) which tells your body to store fat as much as it possibly can. Meaning that as soon as you stop the diet, the weight will come right back, as fat. The proper way to lose weight is to increase the output (i.e. exercise) and eating more quality food. Not eating less. I'm not against obtaining a calorie deficit because of more exercising or eating less sugar, I'm against having a calorie deficit diet by eating less, as the article suggests. Hope I was more clear enough now. Here's some more reading: http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat-without-losing-muscle/ http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat-without-losin... http://www.livestrong.com/article/518807-negative-side-effects-of-eating-less-than-1-200-calories-a-day/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/518807-negative-side-effec... http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/daily-calorie-intake-calories-in-vs-calories-out/ http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/daily-calorie-intake-cal...
- tjogin 11y agoNone of the claims you just made are correct. You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.
- vilmosi 11y agoHere you go. Clinical study performed at the University of Minnesota on the effects of reduced calorie intake. At least those men did lose weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen... >> None of the claims you just made are correct. Must be fun to be able to ignore everything everyone says unless they did a Phd on the subject, while never actually presenting any arguments yourself.
- tjogin 11y agoThat experiment does not support any of your claims.
- vilmosi 11y agoQuoting: >>> Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis >>> Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase >>> There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Depending on the amount of calorie deficit, the symptoms may not be as sever, but they are there. I don't really understand why you can't accept basic science.
- tjogin 11y agoA moderate caloric deficit is not starvation, however. So the experiment in question is completely unrelated to your claims. Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim.