Where does the weight actually go?

[jt512]

Yes, I am claiming that. Are you claiming this is wrong? You refuse to actually say. Why?

It's not my place to say why. It's pretty hard to prove a negative. You've made an affirmative claim, which you now admit you can't back up. You merely assumed it was true, which is what I figured.

Perhaps I can't.

There's no "perhaps" about it, is there?

Frankly, I haven't tried, and I'm not all that interested in doing so, because I think the issue is so basic and obvious that we need not appeal to specific literature to make a determination.

You think the issue is "basic," yet you are unable to articulate a rational basis for thinking so.

Seriously: why does protein deficiency basically never occur in the absence of calorie deficiency? Have you given even a moment's thought to why this might be so?

Because any real-world diet contains sufficient protein per total calories such that if a person is consuming sufficient calories, he is automatically consuming sufficient protein. I doubt you'll understand that, but give it a try.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I think the answer is what skinny people eat. Their sugar intake is very low. They eat a lot of fruit and veg.

Nope. Until I had kids (relatively late in life) and felt I should set an example, I barely ate any fruit or veg. I had a hugely unhealthy diet of fried food, red or processed meat, crisps, chocolate, sweets and biscuits - especially biscuits. Eg for my two years of A levels I had battered sausage and chips for lunch nearly every day. And before you ask, I was also a non-sporty nerd so I didn't burn it off with physical exercise.

Never put on weight. In fact couldn't put on weight. As a short, skinny bloke (you can get away with tall and skinny) I was completely invisible to women so I did spend some time in my early twenties desperately trying to bulk up. I was taking double the recommended calorie intake for men, protein shakes, raw egg in milk etc and hitting the weights. After six months the only discernible effect was that I was now pooping twice a day!

So in my case at least, it just comes out the other end.

I now eat much more healthily and have periods where I go to the gym regularly but am still as puny as ever. Only difference is when I'm on a gym kick, what little I have is more toned and when not, it becomes slightly less defined. Weight stays exactly the same.

 

[GlennB]

Because any real-world diet contains sufficient protein per total calories such that if a person is consuming sufficient calories, he is automatically consuming sufficient protein.

Yep. In a related thread some of us dug around a notional average diet that delivers 2200kcals and found it very difficult to avoid average protein intake from purely incidental sources. Include a typical meat-based meal even once a day and you're there with ease.

I too find it hard to casually accept the idea that a protein deficiency caused by an illness or protein absorbtion problem will lead to increased appetite. It might be true but needs backing up as it isn't at all 'obvious'.

 

[casebro]

I know that running low on salt will make me very very thirsty. On a hot day, I can drink a gallon of iced tea or water, and still be thirsty. I slosh when I move to refill my glass. OOps, add a 1/8 tsp of salt to the next glass and my thirst is gone. So there is some credence for cravings meaning something. And we do have taste buds for protein- look up Umami.

But Hokey FSM, I don't know why so many people are anti-protein. Blood phobia maybe?

 

[Ziggurat]

I too find it hard to casually accept the idea that a protein deficiency caused by an illness or protein absorbtion problem will lead to increased appetite. It might be true but needs backing up as it isn't at all 'obvious'.

Why is that hard to accept? A high protein diet suppresses appetite. Seems obvious that protein deficiency should lead to hunger.

Observed decrease in appetite with increased protein:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41.abstract
Appetite reduction from protein mediated by hormone PYY
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/cp-epb082806.php

 

[Magrat]

Why is that hard to accept? A high protein diet suppresses appetite. Seems obvious that protein deficiency should lead to hunger.

Observed decrease in appetite with increased protein:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/41.abstract
Appetite reduction from protein mediated by hormone PYY
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/cp-epb082806.php

In fact you can buy protein water to curb snacking .

http://lifespa.com/protein-deficiency-the-hidden-signs/: first sign of protein deficiency is food cravings

 

[SteveL]

It used to be common knowledge in farming communities that feeding low protein diets to pigs resulted in fatter pigs.

Here's one study -

https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/2791/Swine97pg85-89.pdf?sequence=1

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, the mass is expelled as metabolic wastes. One should note too that the processes described above are exothermic, they produce heat. That's why we get hot and sweat to cool the body when exercising.

Its also why we measure food intake in calories, the energy content of that food. Obviously if you take in 1 kilogram of food or drink you will weigh 1 kilogram more. But losing that kilogram is a product of the caloric value of that food or drink. A Kilogram of water will be lost with little to no metabolic processes, you sweat and pee it out. However, a kilogram of sugary drink will mostly be that water, but the rest will have to be metabolized, its chemical energy used to power the body.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've heard this many times but, it just struck me that one pound of muscle weighs exactly one pound, as does one pound of fat. A pound is a pound.

I think what is being expressed is that one pound of muscle takes up more volume, than fat? (Or rather, the same volume of muscle weighs more than the same volume of fat.)

Does that sound correct?

What exactly does "muscle weighs more that fat" mean?

No, a given mass of muscle is contained in less volume than the same mass of fat.(the flip side is that for a given volume of muscle or fat, the muscle will have more mass). While people often say 'muscle weighs more than fat' its not scientifically correct. The proper explanation would be that muscle is more dense than fat is. It has more mass per unit volume.

Therefore a person may work out and lose inches from the waist while staying at the same weight, or losing very little. They lost a greater volume of fat than they gained in muscle but since the muscle is more dense, they lost body volume(inches off the waist).

In my 20s this occurred to me. I joined a gym and worked out 3X/week. I went from 182 lbs to 179lbs after three months. However I also went from a 33" waist to a 30" waist, my face lost some roundedness and my chest and arms got a bit bigger.(and I felt better )