Family member wants to lose weight

Metabolic damage from long term or drastic caloric deficits is a real thing. That's why fad diets are so bad. They're obviously unsustainable for actual lifestyle changes and cause metabolic damage that makes people gain back more than they lost when they inevitably go back to their old ways.

That said, a deficit can be maintained if you introduce it by 100-150kcal at a time over several weeks and then repeat the process in reverse once you're at your goal weight to prevent metabolic damage.

500 calories under maintenance.

wait, i should stop drinking fruit juice? even real authentic fruit juice? ive been getting them for a dollar a litre :/ no sugar added too. have i been tricked?

It's not THAT bad. Just understand what you're drinking. It's really sugary, just watch your macros.

Not really.

The metabolic damage is actually just lost muscle mass and you naturally burning fewer calories because you're lighter and more efficient.

There's something there also about your NEAT dropping during fast/famine times and people gorging after because of leptin but that can be over come by simply eating a lot of carbs for a while and a full diet break.

Lyle Mcdonald talks about that stuff and he says it's bullshit.

b-but i was told it was ok because its natural sugar. is that momscience?

Kek, yeah that is momscience.

Oh, sorry.

But for women it's kind of different. They're bodies are unbelievably sensitive to calorie restriction. They're bodies will shut down in a heartbeat if it thinks it's starving.

Ironically enough, women do better with relatively fewer calories and full fast diets then men do. Mainly because their bodies spare muscle better then us and they burn fat more readily during exercise.
So when women do those thousand rep exercises and walking while being on 1k calorie or less diets...they are kind of doing something that theoretically works.

However if they simply do high resistance exercises that stimulates muscle growth they will see fantastic results as well.

>fruit juice

This is healthy when mixed with other nutritious food.

"It makes me gain weight" doesn't mean "unhealthy".

Yes, why are Veeky Forumsizens so into bro-science?

The "conservation mode" is a real thing, but it only happens when the caloric deficit is a certain amount. If you start eating like 1500 Cal (I pulled that # outta my ass) under your BMR your body is gonna flip its shit because you're starving yourself.

As a response, your BMR is going to try to conserve energy; your BMR will go down and your metabolism will slow so your body can extract more calories from the food you eat. When you eventually break down and give up on starving yourself, and go back to eating what you had been eating, your body is going to pack on the fat since now your BMR and your caloric intake has remained the same compared to before the "diet"

>EAT A LITTLE LESS
How hard is it for you curl-bros to understand this concept? OP, all you had to do was tell your family member if they eat just a little less and their body won't go into conservation mode.

so its actually better for me to be downing coke zero than fruit juice?

The lack of fiber in fruit juice does make it kinda the same as soda in terms of sugar absorption. What is "better" for you is to drink water/tea/coffee and eat fruits whole.

>extract more calories from the food you eat
total bullshit. Each food has a set amount of calories.

It's easy. You eat less calories, than your body uses.

>that's why all the nignogs dying of starvation are landwhales

Then why doesn't the body stop extracting so many calories once people become overweight/obese to maintain? It's not that the body starts extracting more calories, but since you're not eating enough you'll most likely be tired and using less energy, losing fat AND muscle from not enough calories which means you most likely aren't exercising. So when you start eating enough again, unless you start exercising, your body won't rebuild muscle as quickly as it'll put on fat.

Neither fruit juice or soda is bad in moderation, but a moderate amount of either is only 6 to 8 ounces at the most per day, and that's if you don't consume sugar elsewhere. It's hard to find containers of soda smaller than 12 ounces, which means unless you're a large and physically active male it's too much sugar for you.

It's why it used to be more common to drink a small glass of juice and have a large glass of water with it. You shouldn't really be drinking straight juice like water. You can also add a splash of juice to a glass of water to flavor it, it'll still taste good if you aren't desensitized to sugar.

This is correct, the main reason why fruit juice is "bad" is because it's easy to over drink it and thus to ingest much more sugar than you think.

Also, if you get enough fiber in your diet you don't really have to worry about eating whole fruit. The average person doesn't really get enough fiber anyway because they don't eat enough fruits/vegetables/whole grains; in that case it's better to have the whole fruit, but otherwise you'll still be okay having juice as long as you eat some vegetables/whole grains.

>Starvation mode
That's the problem about meme news companies making stories out of published papers. They get the gist of it, don't understand it, then try to explain it to the even more retarded people that regularly read their tabloid.

You do become energy efficient as you starve, through a variety of ways, 95% of them being unconscious behavioural changes, such as being lethargic and irritable, not wanting company of others and to go out.
The 5% is slight metabolic changes in response to stress reactions from starving.

Whatever you dumb faggots, the point is that your BMR drops when you starve yourself-- and it's not because
>95% of them being unconscious behavioural changes, such as being lethargic and irritable, not wanting company of others and to go out.

Read a fucking book sometime, this isn't rocket science.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914266/
>Indeed one of the difficulties with sustained weight loss results from the reduction in metabolic rate induced by the original calorie reduction [23]. Such weight loss-induced reductions in metabolic rate and overall energy expenditure have been suggested to remain salient for up to 6 years after weight loss [28]. Likewise, a positive correlation has been observed between the degree of fat mass reduction and reductions in thermogenesis

>Neither fruit juice or soda is bad in moderation,
Soda is fucking awful for you in every way. It has no nutritional value, it has a high GI, and it's bad for your teeth. The only thing redeeming about it is that it probably doesn't directly contribute to CVD.

I agree, from what I've been reading FIBER (soluble) is a miracle-food and lack of it may be the cause of virtually everything associated with obesity. Did you know we're supposed to get 14 grams of fiber per 1000 calories? For those of us on Veeky Forums with a 2500 calorie diet that's 35 grams of fiber per day! If your poop doesn't float you aren't getting enough fiber.

>>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914266/
>>Indeed one of the difficulties with sustained weight loss results from the reduction in metabolic rate induced by the original calorie reduction [23]. Such weight loss-induced reductions in metabolic rate and overall energy expenditure have been suggested to remain salient for up to 6 years after weight loss [28]. Likewise, a positive correlation has been observed between the degree of fat mass reduction and reductions in thermogenes

That says the slowing down of metabolism is mostly from weight loss dumbass.
You do realize that FAT burns calories as well correct?

>fruit juice
at least grape juice actually is healthy, its one of the only fruits whose carb content is mainly glucose, and all those phytonutrients. but if youre an obese fuck, more sugar isnt going to do you any good

Tell them they need to eat 4000 calories a day to reset their metabolism. They are never going to put in the effort anyway, might as well kill them faster.

fructose is bad absorbed all at once, its much better when buffered with fiber. also

Everything you have said is immensely, incomprehensibly wrong. Why the fuck do you think you are an authority on the subject to spread such stupid bullshit.
It fucking boggles my mind.

Women don't have some kind of perfectly bio-engineered physiology. They don't shut down their bodies, they don't do better with relatively few calories/fasting (at least in the way that you think, they simple have less mass, and require less energy to survive) and absolutely do not spare muscle better and burn fat more readily during exercise.
Women do not have testicles. They do not produce testosterone in significant quantities. Testosterone is ANABOLIC and muscle sparing. A man starved half to death with still have more muscle mass than a woman starved half to death. It's not because they had more to begin with and just have more despite being inefficient, it's because muscle is prioritised 2nd to survival.
Estrogen is a thermogenic, it stimulates heat production, and therefore energy wastage.

There is a reason that death camps killed the women and children instead of forcing them to do labour, because they would die off faster and waste resources they could instead give less of to men, who would die slower.

>However if they simply do high resistance exercises that stimulates muscle growth they will see fantastic results as well.
No
FUCKING NO. You're full of shit. NO ANABOLIC HORMONES. You have no idea about anything you have just said.

>That says the slowing down of metabolism is mostly from weight loss dumbass.
You're right user, if only I had read the article I would have seen this:
>The reduction in RMR appears to be the result of caloric restriction rather than an intrinsic effect of reduced fat mass, as this effect was not reported following weight loss surgery once corrected for changes in fat mass and fat free mass [37, 38]

If only I had finished high school, I might have reached such intellectual heights as you.

>your body is 100% efficient in digestion
when you eat a lot, not everything has the chance to be fully broken down and absorbed. on top of less food being more easily digestible, your body will work harder to absorb every last nutrient it can if it is not getting enough

biologically we developed to live through scarcity, not to live through overabundance. your body will take advantage of the energy you give it and save that energy because it developed to prepare for when you didnt have access to food. which now is practically never and it sucks for people without self-control, but at least thats the final form of natural selection we have left

Don't tell me to read shit that you have no idea how to read, you fucking moron.
>this isn't rocket science
>Indeed one of the difficulties with sustained weight loss results from the reduction in metabolic rate induced by the original calorie reduction [23]. Such weight loss-induced reductions in metabolic rate and overall energy expenditure have been suggested to remain salient for up to 6 years after weight loss [28]. Likewise, a positive correlation has been observed between the degree of fat mass reduction and reductions in thermogenesis

You don't understand any of what they said, and the actual real-life implications.

If every cell in your body requires energy to stay alive, imagine what happens if you reduce the amount of energy several billion cells need.
I'll tell you what happens;
>a reduction in metabolic rate induced by the original calorie reduction
Gee willikers, batman.

The funniest thing is that you don't know what any of the terms mean. They aren't talking about the RQ or REE, they are talking about overall energy expenditure, you know, the very thing you seem to be trying to disprove
>unconscious behavioural changes, such as being lethargic
Hahaha, you stupid cunt, git gud. You know nothing.

I'm not going to go on about thermogenesis, because it's more complex than your feeble mind can actually understand. There's a shitload of physiological mechanisms associated with it. It's part of the 5% I mentioned earlier. Sit the fuck down and shut up.

I got you senpai. Mr. Google-fu Arts student here hasn't even read the sources of 'his article'.

A follow-up from >reduction in RMR appears to be the result of caloric restriction

You don't know how RMR are even calculated. STFU. That source uses a 'meta-analysis' conducted by other people and tries to combine data to find something. Problem is, people don't have a universal RMR. It's different in different areas and countries. They say they found a 3-5% difference in RMR. In real nigga terms that accounts for something like 100 calories in men, less for women, even with people from different areas being used. What if someone from norway during winter was measured and it's fucking cold? RMR numbers don't discriminate that from the data given by people living in death valley.

What's wrong with while grain bread? I was literally about to make my own with while grain flour, 7g yeast, salt and water. No preservatives ect...

Is this bad?

*Whole, obviously xxx

Maybe it's time for you to put down the keyboard and go to bed, user, you sound a bit cranky. Thanks for putting things in a way I can understand though,
>There's a shitload of physiological mechanisms associated with it
> In real nigga terms

A Dindu arts student such as myself has trouble understanding white people speak and my feeble brain can only handle up to a piss-load of information. I don't know what I'd do without your informative posts.

Calories in calories out why dont you niggers get this? You can lose weight eating only big macs and gain weight eating only fruits and vegetables.

Nothing is wrong with whole grain bread, that poster is an idiot. Everything he's railing about is healthy, he's just over-reacting because he's mad that the media calls every one of those a "superfood" like it's the second coming of Christ.

HFCS is bad for you but I haven't see anything saying it's worse for you than any other sugar. HFCS just has a bad rap because it's the sweetener du jour-- most things with added sugar use HFCS as the added sugar, but those foods are unhealthy because they have tons of sugar, not because they use HFCS specifically.

Nice try media man

This is why I've stopped trying to help normies altogether.
I've tried so many times, people think I want to talk about lifting and usually the conversation heads to the direction of "I've been thinking about getting fit too" and shit. Sometimes people ask for advice or help. In the past I've wasted countless hours helping them out but every single one has been a huge disappointment/ waste of time so now I just nod politely and say "Yeah you should, its good for you" and if they ask for advice I just tell them to look up stuff online or do yoga and eat blueberries or whatever the fuck.

Never going to invest time and effort into trying to help fat lazy pieces of shit again. They are too stupid to help.

Because they know it's something that'll require effort and the less willpower they have, the more they'll look for excuses.

Pretty easy to understand tbqhwy.

Tell him hes parotting a misinterpreted definition of starvation mode adapted by fat people so they can get away with lying about food intake

Fucking normies
>what is thermodynamics

They are correct in a sense. If your body thinks it has to go without food for long stretches of time it conserves energy so you can function properly during down time.

But it's a matter of frequency, not quantity.

Just tell them to eat less food but significantly more frequently throughout the day.

A couple of glass a day are fine. Don't listen to Veeky Forums when it comes to fruit

There's not a single thing in your post that's even remotely close to reality. What the fuck man

>muh starvation mode

get fucked

What?