I’ve been on a diet for almost 3 months now, and lost close to 40 pounds. The diet consists of low fat catabolic foods, and is about 1200 calories a day. It’s working and I’m not hungry, so 1200 calories is enough for me. I image that the low calories are the principal reason for my loss.
Or are they?
What if I continued to only ingest 1200 calories a day, but the only thing I ate was lard.(Fat calories=100%)
Would I still loose weight if I ate 1200 calories of lard every day? (assuming I was able to keep from puking! )
hey congratulations, that’s a pretty good weight loss. I managed to lose about 20 pounds and the 1200 cal diet is the only way I could do it. And for an active 6’2" 240lb man like me, that is just about a starvation diet.
Anyway, I don’t think you could eat a 1200cal all fat diet, it would be indigestible. You need sugars or carbs to metabolize fat. But 1200cal of fat isn’t that much, I suspect it’s about equivalent to a large piece of cheese. I suppose you could survive on this sort of diet but it’s lacking in almost every nutrient. You need a wider assortment of nutrients & vitamins when you’re dieting.
There’s a good analysis of dieting and metabolism in the book “Fit or Fat?” and it explains how the body uses each food component (carbs, fat, sugars, etc). You might enjoy it, it gives some good info on healthy dieting.
I’m assuming here that you don’t mean an actual 100% fat diet. If that is what you mean the answer is yes. If you keep it up long enough you will begin losing weight even faster, followed by skin tone, hair and eventually vital signs. You just can’t live on fat for any period of time.
Now being serious if your intake were ,say, 85% fat then you would still lose weight, since you are obviously burning more calories than you’re consuming. It’s possible you may even lose weight faster, since it takes the body more energy to convert fat into a usable energy source than it does to convert either starches or sugars.
The problem with fat intake is more one of weight gain, since it takes the body virtually no energy at all to lay down fat as fat. To lay down starch or protein as fat they must be converted to fat first, and this takes energy, so you actually produce less body fat per calorie consumed. Since you’re no longer laying down fat this doesn’t apply.
And congratulations on your success, it’s impressive to see someone lose so much so sensibly.
Explain to me what are “catabolic foods”? I thought that the body engages in catabolism and anabolism, which, together, is metabolism. I don’t know of any foods which predispose our bodies for catabolism.
Man can live a long time without any food, so long as he or she is able to drink water. So those who say that they lived on nothing but fat for a time, etc., I say :rolleyes:
Sure, but it’s not healthy. And whatever a catabolic diet may be, I’m sure it can’t be healthy, weight loss aside.
> I managed to lose about 20 pounds and the 1200 cal diet is the only way I could do it. And for an active 6’2" 240lb man like me, that is just about a starvation diet.
Wow, for a guy your size, cutting your food intake that severely is a great way to slow your metabolism & burn off some unsightly muscle.
1200 cal of fat would be about a stick of butter (4 oz = about 120 g; fat has 9 cal/g; close enough).
Seriously my wife lost 40 lbs in about 6 months. She is on weight watchers; which is nothing more fancy than counting all your calories and fat with a “point system”. Just like any good diet…
If your body needs 2000 calories per day pkbites & you are only giving it 1200 calories, then it’s going to need to get the energy from fat first. After that, it’ll be eating up those nice muscles.
alright alright, here then is what happens. When you reach around minus 15% of your ideal body weight your blood pressure starts to drop. Around 20%, the kidneys, liver & heart muscle & bone density are effected. After about a year, your heart stops beating & that’s it.
I used “Man” in the generic sense, not referring to just a male but to all mankind, male and female. I’m sick and tired of all this women’s lib complaining about the use of “man.” BTW, what do you call a manhole?
I don’t think I have to explain that. It appears self-explanatory. But if I must: to show that the person could be either male or female. Anyway, that is off the thread and I don’t have to defend my English in posting in the SDMB, I should hope.
)
