Spicy McHaggis
I don't know nothin 'bout birthin no babies
- Apr 30, 2002
- 10,633
- 780
- 48
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Here's a question. Why don't we get to pick where the weight comes off at?!? I was rather fond of my bubble butt........
Here's a bit from an article by Tony Gentilcore on "deiting disasters". In this section he was talking about why super-low calorie diets are actually counter productive.
I agree with that alot, mostly because of the potential for muscle loss, but I also fits nicely into targeting 2 or so pounds of fat loss per week, because you can do that by cutting 500 cals a day out of your food intake (drop the sugars IMO) and add 500 cals burned of cardio to be on that track.
* * * * * * * * * * i
Initially the majority of people who restrict calories will make some decent progress for a few weeks as far as fat loss is concerned. However, there will come a point when progress stalls and no matter how much they lower calories or how much they increase their caloric expenditure through exercise that little bit of fat on the abdominals or inner thighs will just not go away.
Why?
Fat cells have both B1 (beta 1) and A2 (alpha 2) adrenoreceptors (specific to the catecholamines adrenaline and noreadrenaline). B1 receptors send good messages and can be viewed as the "good guys". They activate lipase, which causes the fat cell to break down from a triglyceride to a free fatty acid (which is then transported via albumin to be burned off and used as energy).
Noreadrenaline is a stress hormone and is what is used to "light up" the B1 receptors. For example, when someone drastically reduces calories (initially) or engages in high intensity exercise (a stress to the body), noreadrenaline is released, and it seeks out B1 receptors to break down fat.
A2 adrenoreceptors, on the other hand, are the "bad guys," and are the dominant receptors in stubborn body fat. They block lipase in the fat cell, which promotes additional triglyceride formation. They also decrease the generation of noreadrenaline, which results in decreased activity with the B1 receptors, which is not that big of an issue because lower body fat doesn't have many B1 receptors in the first place.
And while I'm sure I lost many of you while you were reading the last few paragraphs, I do have a point. Low calorie diets cause an INCREASE in the number of A2 receptors in the body.
A good example of "stubborn fat" (predominantly A2 receptors) around the hips
In his ground breaking book Underground Body Opus, Dan Duchaine goes into detail on why long-term low-calorie diets are just not a smart way to approach fat loss:
1. Fat is lost first and fastest at the cells with lots of B1 receptors.
2. Very little fat is lost in the fat cells that have lots of A2 receptors. For men this is usually the abdominal and lower back regions. For women it's the hips and thighs.
3. Eventually, your noreadrenaline levels drop, reducing your body temperature (and hence... metabolic rate).
4. The number of A2 receptors increase. The last of the fat becomes hard to mobilize so that the body will have to use more amino acids (from muscle) for fuel. [Again, low calorie diets have been shown to cause up to 45% lean body mass loss.]
5. When you finally give up on the diet, even "normal" eating will cause new fat accumulation right in the fat cells that have just increased their number of A2 receptors.
In short, drastically low(er) calorie diets are about as useful as an [expletivedelted] on your elbow. This is a perfect segway to our next dieting disaster.
Upvote
0
