MetabolicTrash
Member
Don't see this talked specifically about much here.
I have a history of low calories and even high exercise combined with it from years back. Interestingly I felt way better then during the beginning stages. I initially followed the gym folk advice that is: eat anything to build more build muscle (didn't really work) and starve yourself to get cut/a six pack (ended up making me sick and weak instead).
For some here they could have been in the same boat -- chronic low calories trying to get the "perfect" body and ending up crashing and/or becoming hypo and a whole host of other issues. It seems reducing calories brings about more problems than increasing them, PUFA aside -- but the classic, oversimplified approach is "calories in and calories out." But take in more PUFA calories and watch yourself gain fat much quicker and easier, among other things -- and cut back on food and nutrients and watch you get hypo and feel like you're dying and still have no six pack. Clearly this advice isn't exactly correct, putting both ideas to their own extremes in some cases.
Just look at how some here down tons of calories and do not gain fat -- and others have been fat on not so high PUFA-filled calories. I know similar bodied people who remained obese on under 2,500 calories and others who remain fit at nearly double that with little exercise. Calories in vs. out seems to be far outdated as "gym bro" or gym folk advice as it is too simplistic and doesn't take much else in to account besides calories as a tipping number and nothing else regarding your weight/leanness/etc.
I think we should shed more light on the topic of low calories, such as how it can encourage catabolizing tissue and destroying thyroid/other organs and their function, plus metabolism. The whole thing seems to a balancing act between thyroid/metabolic health all around and then quality of calories/energy coming in at the other end. Some people get too obsessed with the numbers rather than the type of foods they ate and their metabolism overall.
I know now I went too far with the calorie restriction as it showed with ribs being highly visible and no lower abs clearly because my body was desperately trying to hold on to what little fat it had left as I was starving myself slowly basically.
Now the problem with this is trying to heal with the downsides. After so much calorie cutting you lose appetite and get sick easier when trying to re-feed, which makes it harder for people to get back to a healthier state (not adding in other things like the weak thyroid or hiatal hernia or major gut issues that can arise and come together from being chronically low calories and bad ones at that like PUFA).
I have a history of low calories and even high exercise combined with it from years back. Interestingly I felt way better then during the beginning stages. I initially followed the gym folk advice that is: eat anything to build more build muscle (didn't really work) and starve yourself to get cut/a six pack (ended up making me sick and weak instead).
For some here they could have been in the same boat -- chronic low calories trying to get the "perfect" body and ending up crashing and/or becoming hypo and a whole host of other issues. It seems reducing calories brings about more problems than increasing them, PUFA aside -- but the classic, oversimplified approach is "calories in and calories out." But take in more PUFA calories and watch yourself gain fat much quicker and easier, among other things -- and cut back on food and nutrients and watch you get hypo and feel like you're dying and still have no six pack. Clearly this advice isn't exactly correct, putting both ideas to their own extremes in some cases.
Just look at how some here down tons of calories and do not gain fat -- and others have been fat on not so high PUFA-filled calories. I know similar bodied people who remained obese on under 2,500 calories and others who remain fit at nearly double that with little exercise. Calories in vs. out seems to be far outdated as "gym bro" or gym folk advice as it is too simplistic and doesn't take much else in to account besides calories as a tipping number and nothing else regarding your weight/leanness/etc.
I think we should shed more light on the topic of low calories, such as how it can encourage catabolizing tissue and destroying thyroid/other organs and their function, plus metabolism. The whole thing seems to a balancing act between thyroid/metabolic health all around and then quality of calories/energy coming in at the other end. Some people get too obsessed with the numbers rather than the type of foods they ate and their metabolism overall.
I know now I went too far with the calorie restriction as it showed with ribs being highly visible and no lower abs clearly because my body was desperately trying to hold on to what little fat it had left as I was starving myself slowly basically.
Now the problem with this is trying to heal with the downsides. After so much calorie cutting you lose appetite and get sick easier when trying to re-feed, which makes it harder for people to get back to a healthier state (not adding in other things like the weak thyroid or hiatal hernia or major gut issues that can arise and come together from being chronically low calories and bad ones at that like PUFA).
