Ketosis... HELP...

[DarkGalaxy]

Good question, Seth... and what about the claim that the first two weeks on a low-cal diet you burn fat for extra fuel and not muscle? This supposedly only happens after 2 weeks or so, or was it 10 days...?

[Seth]

Good question, Seth... and what about the claim that the first two weeks on a low-cal diet you burn fat for extra fuel and not muscle? This supposedly only happens after 2 weeks or so, or was it 10 days...?

Some approach it in "zig zag" way, which means they go below their needs for about three days and on the fourth, they eat without subtracting any calories before repeating the cycle. I have never tried this, however.

[RRM]

Good question, Seth... and what about the claim that the first two weeks on a low-cal diet you burn fat for extra fuel and not muscle? This supposedly only happens after 2 weeks or so, or was it 10 days...?

Nonsense.
Everybody in whatever stage on whatever diet burns both fat and muscles for energy. Only the ratios differ.

Now how am I gonna make sure to eat enough?

You need to start listening to your body. Always be open to the idea of extra energy; 'do i need some energy now?'

One peach and I'm full...

Thats your stomach.
Try to focus on the time after; try to register when exactly your blood sugar is going down a little again.

The whole point is never to GAIN any weight

So, the point is to focus on your energy levels; take some energy only and always when you need some energy.

RRM, what do you thing of that "standard" one hears all over the place of subtracting 500 calories (or 20%) of what your body needs per day to maintain its weight as a basis for losing body fat without losing muscle?

Its too black & white; you are constantly burning fat and losing (and building) muscle. The shift in ratios is gradually, and does of course not remain the same in the range of those first minus 500 kcal.
They just had to come up with some level of 'dieting' that seemed safe to them, so there it is.

[Seth]

Nonsense.
Everybody in whatever stage on whatever diet burns both fat and muscles for energy. Only the ratios differ.

It is arbitrary. It doesn't take into account individual metabolisms which can vary greatly and at any given moment.

In light of this, what do you consider to a more effective approach to losing body fat while retaining muscle mass? Can it be done or does one have to be sacrificed for the other until you have reached whatever goal you may have in mind?

[RRM]

Nonsense.
Everybody in whatever stage on whatever diet burns both fat and muscles for energy. Only the ratios differ.

It is arbitrary. It doesn't take into account individual metabolisms which can vary greatly and at any given moment.

Sure, thats why i wrote: only the ratios differ.
At no point the body completely stops using one of these sources for energy.

In light of this, what do you consider to a more effective approach to losing body fat while retaining muscle mass? Can it be done or does one have to be sacrificed for the other until you have reached whatever goal you may have in mind?

Of course it can be done, but to what extend, and whether you may reach your perfect weight (perfect in your view), differs per person.

[Seth]

Of course it can be done, but to what extend, and whether you may reach your perfect weight (perfect in your view), differs per person.

But body weight and body fat are too differently things. I could weigh what is considered ideal but could retain more body fat that is necessary. My question had more to do with what how you would approach losing body fat in a way that would sacrifice the least amount of muscle. (Since the -500 calories business is not the way you would suggest to go.)

[RRM]

Of course it can be done, but to what extend, and whether you may reach your perfect weight (perfect in your view), differs per person.

But body weight and body fat are too differently things.

Ok, here you go then: Of course it can be done, but to what extend you may end up with the fat-percentage that you regard as perfect, differs per person.

how you would approach losing body fat in a way that would sacrifice the least amount of muscle. (Since the -500 calories business is not the way you would suggest to go.)

Very slowly. Not by 'stimulating burning of bodyfat', but solely by preventing the storing of new bodyfat. As you burn fat anyway, until the body doesnt want to lower the fat-percentage any further.
This is best done by eating as small meals as possible for you (and thus very frequent), so that very little new fat can be created, but frequent enough to diminish the breakdown of muscles for energy.

[Seth]

Ok, here you go then: Of course it can be done, but to what extend you may end up with the fat-percentage that you regard as perfect, differs per person.

I understand...What is ideal for one may not be for another. I was speaking in a more general sense. For example, if someone was at 14% and felt it was ideal to be at 8%.

Very slowly. Not by 'stimulating burning of bodyfat', but solely by preventing the storing of new bodyfat. As you burn fat anyway, until the body doesnt want to lower the fat-percentage any further.
This is best done by eating as small meals as possible for you (and thus very frequent), so that very little new fat can be created, but frequent enough to diminish the breakdown of muscles for energy.

What I am missing is how anyone can lose body fat if you always eat enough calories to maintain the weight. So if I need 3000 calories a day, and continue to eat that much, my body would not diminish its body fat at all, would it?

[Oscar]

What I am missing is how anyone can lose body fat if you always eat enough calories to maintain the weight. So if I need 3000 calories a day, and continue to eat that much, my body would not diminish its body fat at all, would it?

If 200kcal comes from body fat, then you would lose weight.

When carefully listening to the needs of the body, it'll get you to its ideal weight, by either losing weight or by gaining it.

[Seth]

If 200kcal comes from body fat, then you would lose weight.

When carefully listening to the needs of the body, it'll get you to its ideal weight, by either losing weight or by gaining it.

Why would my body take anything from my body fat if it is receiving what it is always getting exactly the number it needs? To me that is equivalent to filling up an 8 ounce glass each time and being told that in doing so I will be losing an ounce each time.

[Oscar]

When eating enough fats, the body "knows" there's no fat shortage, and thus will start using the available extra body fat. So getting what it needs then includes the amount of body fat.

So to use your analogy: normally you would fill up the 8 ounce glass, now you'd fill up a 7 ounce glass because you can use 1 ounce from body fat. The total (need) still remains 8 ounces, so the body still gets exactly what it needs.

[Seth]

When eating enough fats, the body "knows" there's no fat shortage, and thus will start using the available extra body fat. So getting what it needs then includes the amount of body fat.

So to use your analogy: normally you would fill up the 8 ounce glass, now you'd fill up a 7 ounce glass because you can use 1 ounce from body fat. The total (need) still remains 8 ounces, so the body still gets exactly what it needs.

Ah, I see. But all of this, if I am not mistaken, has only one way of being done properly: listening to one's energy needs?

[Oscar]

Yes, exactly.