So, I was kind of wondering about this concept a few weeks ago. On the 19th of November I had a small stroke and was in the hospital for 3 days. While there, for the first 40 hours I was not allowed to eat or drink due to them not knowing if my ability to swallow had been effected. I need to get and eval form Physical Therapy first. In that 40 hours I lost nearly 12 lbs. I’ve always been a pretty big guy, was up to 468 lbs in 2019, but have since lost quite a bit and upon admission was down to 291. Since getting out and coming home, I’ve started intermittent fasting, which will help with what caused the stroke as well (diabetes). Now if I can just figure out how to pay this $200,000 hospital bill. lol.
That hospital bill sucks, but I’m glad you’re home and doing (relatively) well.
I was never a big guy, 205 at my heaviest, but a recent illness has knocked 25lbs off me in a month.
NOW I get what people mean when they say “I’m cold,” and it’s only 40°F out.
It’s not true right? I refuse to believe that all of the effort I put in to become starvation proof is based on a lie…
The article says that with full starvation it doesn’t change much because some vital organs will not be able to use your fat, but rather the proteins from your muscles, including your heart, until it fails. But if you somehow have partial starvation with some protein intake, then you may outlive a skinnier person.
My initial shower thought was if someone very muscular would outlive someone less muscular, I found this article and not one precisely on my thought. But I guess it does imply that. I am still wondering if having more muscles could also make you starve faster because your basic metabolism would require more energy?Extremely fat people who are still active have tons of muscle. It’s not easy to carry 400 pounds around all day.
I am still wondering if having more muscles could also make you starve faster because your basic metabolism would require more energy?
A recent video by Kurtzgesagt has lead me to believe that having lots of muscle doesn’t increase your basal metabolic rate very much. It’s a myth. It’s using your muscles that burns more energy. Simply maintaining extra muscle doesn’t burn all that many extra calories.
I would venture that having extra muscle would mean it would take longer for you to starve.
Muscles require nutrients to exist, and without it they atrophy. So being more muscular means you need additional calories to stay muscular. Whenever I stop working out for a while, I usually stop force feeding myself too, and my muscles disappear pretty rapidly. If I continue eating a ton then the muscles stick around longer, but I also get fatter, since I’m not burning the excess.
Yes, and I said as much. All I said is I watched a video that says the amount of extra calories burned per additional unit of muscle mass is not as much as everyone seems to think. The video was backed by science and your anecdote is not. I edited my original comment to add a link to the video.
The point I was trying to make is that even if it doesn’t increase your metabolism, it increases your minimum caloric need. So, you can eat more without getting fat, or you can lose fat without eating less. It’s not even “can”, you must eat more to meet your kcal minimum. That’s well documented scientifically as well. So ultimately the effect is the same, it’s easier to lose fat when you have more muscles.
Watch the video. Or don’t. I don’t care. Everything you said is strictly true, but unless you look like a body builder, it’s not as big of a calorie drain as many people think.
This whole discussion makes me hungry tbh. I guess the real answer is to always have loads of food in the cupboard (just in case). Lucky - due to watching too many zombie apocalypse movies, combined with living in a not entirely stable country - I do.
The problem is that your body doesn’t selectively consume muscle. If your body is starving, it will break down your heart and your biceps regardless of how big either is.
Wouldn’t a bigger influx of energy from non-essential muscles somehow reduce the speed at which essential muscles are consumed?
I knew a guy who had bariatric surgery, and his doctor told him that he had enough fat stored to live an entire year without eating a single thing.
Read the article, it explains you’re still going to need proteins because some organs can’t use the fat.
I did, although I’d hardly call 3 short paragraphs an article. I’m just telling you what an actual doctor told my friend. I’m assuming the body can cannibalize muscle for protein, but I’m not a doctor.
I’m assuming the body can cannibalize muscle for protein
It does, but the issue is that it will also consume your heart and it will fail. That was in the article.
That’s not how that works. You still need nutrients, fat is energy but you will die in 30 days if you don’t eat.
I’m genuinely curious, could that be padded with a multi vitamin?
It is an interesting thought. What is the rate at which fat tissue can be used by the body as a food source? If its lower than the rate of sustenance needed to stay alive then you need consume the difference to avoid dying.
Practically I think there are health issues with losing weight too fast
Most people gain it right back too. It’s dangerous, and without lifestyle changes, useless.
Of course it can, any diet can be padded with a multi vitamin. If you’re asking if you can survive off your fat and a multi vitamin I highly suggest asking a Medical Doctor. This is dangerous territory and shouldn’t be attempted without medical supervision.
Oh yeah, if someone were to do this they should definitely make a plan with a Dr. I’m thinking purely hypothetical.
That is exactly how it works, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri's_fast
I mean, that guy was eating vitamins and yeast, which sounds like exactly the kind of thing the previous commenter was suggesting you’d need to eat, so maybe they had a point.
He subsisted on tea, coffee, sparkling water, vitamins and yeast extract
Oh look nutrients and medical supervision. Stop spreading misinformation.
