←back to thread

234 points Eumenes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
polishdude20 ◴[] No.42199549[source]
It seems the article isn't just saying it's heart muscle that's being lost but regular muscle in general. Even more so than in a low calorie diet.
replies(2): >>42199559 #>>42199599 #
sfink ◴[] No.42199559[source]
There's a linked article saying that 40% of the weight loss is muscle.
replies(1): >>42199586 #
com2kid ◴[] No.42199586[source]
Outside of cardiac muscle, which is a bit worrisome, 40% of weight loss being from muscles is incredibly typical for any diet that sheds pounds.

There are very complex dietary regimes that can be followed to minimize this, but most studies have shown that they don't save any time compared to losing weight and then working to get the muscle back afterwards.

> Dyck’s study comes on the heels of a commentary published in the November issue of The Lancet by an international team of researchers from the U of A, McMaster and Louisiana State University who examined emerging research showing that up to 40 per cent of the weight lost by people using weight-loss drugs is actually muscle.

This is, again 100% typical of what happens with caloric restriction.

replies(2): >>42199706 #>>42199790 #
loeg ◴[] No.42199790{3}[source]
> There are very complex dietary regimes that can be followed to minimize this

The dietary regime isn't complex -- just consume a LOT of protein. Something like 1-2 g/kg/d. And non-dietary: do strength training.

replies(2): >>42199995 #>>42201687 #
1. com2kid ◴[] No.42201687{4}[source]
This works until it doesn't.

Professional body builders do bulk/cut/bulk/cut because after awhile you can't lose weight and put on muscle at the same time, especially if you want to get to the point of being shredded.

(well you can do it, but there is no benefit over bulking and cutting)