[brraj]

Water therapy
Drink a glass of lukewarm water early in the morning with lemon squeezed in it. For the rest of the day drink normal water when ever you feel hungry.

Some times you will feel giddiness, have glucose water.

My friend tried Water therapy for 3 days and lost 9kgs.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by brraj

My friend tried Water therapy for 3 days and lost 9kgs.

9kg in 3 days I would say is not a good thing. The weight reduction part should be a lifestyle in order to maintain it.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by brraj

Water therapy
My friend tried Water therapy for 3 days and lost 9kgs.

Originally Posted by ampere

9kg in 3 days I would say is not a good thing. The weight reduction part should be a lifestyle in order to maintain it.

+1. It's a fad diet if anything. Your friend is disciplined so it "worked" for him (I use the term with skepticism- most likely it's mostly water and muscle loss rather than fat reduction). Here's a Health article explaining the risks of a water-only diet.

Especially consider this:

When your main (or only) intake is water, your body loses crucial nutrients it needs. The short-term result is that you will lose a lot of weight, most of which will be water not fat, says Upton. "You lose more muscle compared to people losing weight from a recommended calorie reduction of 500-800 calories per day from their normal intake. What this means is that [once off the water diet] you'll have to eat much less [to maintain weight loss] because your metabolic rate will have dropped significantly."

And if you don’t get enough water while fasting, you risk side effects like dehydration, which can result in dizziness, fainting, constipation and headache, just to name a few.

[patron]

Originally Posted by brraj

Water therapy
My friend tried Water therapy for 3 days and lost 9kgs.

Your friend is losing valuable muscle and water. The weight regained as soon as he starts eating solids. This is not a good way to go. Let him have a planned diet and lose over a period of time.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by brraj

Water therapy
Drink a glass of lukewarm water early in the morning with lemon squeezed in it. For the rest of the day drink normal water when ever you feel hungry.

Some times you will feel giddiness, have glucose water.

My friend tried Water therapy for 3 days and lost 9kgs.

It's water loss. It will come back.

Calorie deficit + strength training 3 times a week + 1g per pound of lean body mass every day = real fat loss.

Eat what you want, when you want: If It Fits Your Macros (protein, carb, fat levels) and calories.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by noopster

- most likely it's mostly water and muscle loss rather than fat reduction).

Doesn't make sense evolution wise.
Consider famine, what sense does it make for the body to use amino acids for fuel, when it has much easily and readily usable fatty acids at its disposal?

Also when it uses the body pool of amino acids, the catabolism doesn't happen selectively. So it is not that the muscles of the little fingers are broken down preferentially while the muscles of the heart enjoy govt protection!

I think it is yet another baloney spread by the almighty corporate powers with vested interests ...

[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Doesn't make sense evolution wise.
Consider famine, what sense does it make for the body to use amino acids for fuel, when it has much easily and readily usable fatty acids at its disposal?

What I have read explains that during famines fat is much of a precious fuel to be consumed so easily. Instead body first uses muscle for energy before it feasts on fat. Though I am sure the process won't be as straight as it sounds.

[rajushank84]

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

What I have read explains that during famines fat is much of a precious fuel to be consumed so easily. Instead body first uses muscle for energy before it feasts on fat. Though I am sure the process won't be as straight as it sounds.

Whatever you said is true but comes into play only when there is a calorie deficit and even then a bit of muscle loss will happen after some significant fat loss. But he didn't mention anything about how many calories he is eating vs burning out, he just mentioned drinking lots of water. If he's drinking lots of water but not really in deficit, he won't lose either fat or muscle that too in 3 days. He would just lose water retention weight.

Remember 70% of the body is water and it's easy to get misguided by water weight loss.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

What I have read explains that during famines fat is much of a precious fuel to be consumed so easily. Instead body first uses muscle for energy before it feasts on fat. Though I am sure the process won't be as straight as it sounds.

The reading that we usually do happens on aggregator websites or forums, and therefore can be easily influenced. I am not sure if I recall reading any real research done by universities on this topic.

Jut think about this - what use is fat for the body if there is no muscle left?

In a real famine condition, we can really see the effect of real calorific deficit. Which = loss of huge amount of fat + loss of fair amount of muscles (which means no more bulging mouses). The people are still able to live, walk, work, basically essential mobility required for survival.

But yes, I can understand the morbid fear of losing muscular mass that has come about because of Health magazines - the same mills that churns the bovine excrement about 1 g of protein per lb of weight ... but it is anyway misplaced.

The loss of muscles on calorific deficit is exactly opposite of the gain in muscles due to calorific excess. Remember on the bodybuilding thread what I said about putting on muscles?
1. You should be genetically superior to average (which is realized by the time one is aged 16-20 years)
2. If not above, then you should be prepared to put on large amount of fat in order to gain some muscles. These gain will be obliterated, the moment you embark on cutting journey.
3. If you don't wish to become a sumo wrestler, then welcome to the world of hormones.

The similar is true for caloric deficit:
1. If you are genetic superior to average, you will hold on the muscles even though your body fat goes down.
2. If not above, then you will lose some muscles in order to lose large fat.
3. If you are not interested in the above, then welcome to the world of hormones.

So my point is that if you worry about losing muscles, then you must also worry about losing fat. Both go hand in hand, no matter what you do.

Basically in simple terms every person has a body set point table which has Body fat% and corresponding muscle mass%.
The only way to change table this very slightly is do weight training, and if you are not happy with this slight change, you use hormones.

That is the reason why I find it amusing when people say - BEWARE! this diet will cause all muscle loss and no fat loss. Sorry sir, the body is infinitely more intelligent than you think it to be. If something causes fat loss, it will ALSO cause corresponding muscle loss (based on your genetic set point table). Whether you used a water diet, a fruit diet, a yogi diet, a paleo diet, "normal diet-500 kcal" etc.
Everything will result in same condition based on the body fat% your reach.

[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by rajushank84

If he's drinking lots of water but not really in deficit, he won't lose either fat or muscle that too in 3 days. He would just lose water retention weight.

But if he is not in caloric deficit how would he lose weight? Or am I missing something!

Originally Posted by alpha1

The reading that we usually do happens on aggregator websites or forums, and therefore can be easily influenced. I am not sure if I recall reading any real research done by universities on this topic.

I totally agree. It was just that I was responding to it from 'evolution' point of view (I have had an opportunity to read a bit of evolution, that's why).

Fat has been (however, I don't know in the current scenario) very important for evolution. A mother when she is pregnant adds fat. A child when he is born is chubby (fatty). All the tastes we relish is either fat or carb. It waters our mouth. The poorer the person is sweeter is his tea.

World's strongest cultures have been (I am talking of scenarion hundred, two hundred years and before) those whose diet have been built around red meat (protein plus lots of fat), not the ones who consume vegetables and fish (protein with meagre fat) by tonnes.

It is the primary energy source. And in terms of weight loss our worst nightmare. First one to come and last to go (the one around the belly).

Famine and fasting are two different things. You can draw comparisons but cannot arrive at conclusions. That is from the evolution point of view. For one it is the role of mind.

From your posts it seems that you have read that book Born to Run. I wish someone wrote on similar lines on Weight Loss and Bodybuilding.

[alpha1]

I am not disputing whether in caloric deficit a person will lose muscle or not.
In fact I have said it quite clearly (in point no.2) that one will.

What I am saying is that this FEAR of losing muscle along with fat is something which is absurd.
You cannot avoid it. Whatever methodology you may indulge in. You may shift the balance slightly by lifting weights. But not much.
In any case, if you were lifting weights while putting on fat, you have already shifted the balance. No further scope of improvement remains.

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

From your posts it seems that you have read that book Born to Run. I wish someone wrote on similar lines on Weight Loss and Bodybuilding.

http://www.amazon.in/Born-Run-Supera...9-00005efe8aae
this book?
Not yet, looks to be very interesting ... thanks for the find!

[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by alpha1

http://www.amazon.in/Born-Run-Supera...9-00005efe8aae
this book?
Not yet, looks to be very interesting ... thanks for the find!

It is very interesting and very engrossing, covering a very side scope to arrive at conclusions, almost akin to science. Though, if I recall correctly, it wasn't this costly when I had bought it.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

World's strongest cultures have been (I am talking of scenarion hundred, two hundred years and before) those whose diet have been built around red meat (protein plus lots of fat), not the ones who consume vegetables and fish (protein with meagre fat) by tonnes.

Do you have any scientific evidence or information around the same? This is an oft-heard nugget - I would like to know the quantitative basis around that.

[Piyadassi]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Do you have any scientific evidence or information around the same? This is an oft-heard nugget - I would like to know the quantitative basis around that.

I've been gagged. But before I whack my brain the usual disclaimers. In terms of evolution it is very difficult to quantify it because the span over which this study will spread would last many lifetime. Apart from it the problem of lack of data.

Please also keep in mind that last time I have studied anthropology, of which evolution is a part was more than 15 years ago so I am not sure of recent studies.

What I had read then was in a chapter evolution at work. Apart from the caveats mentioned in the first para it cites a study in Japan. It said once Japan came under the influence of West it adopted a diet, which was rich in red meat the average height on the population increased.

But much of the fact you can easily extrapolate. See around you. Communities which are primarily vegetarian or consume fish lack in muscles. People where meat has been main food are better built. And by red meat it is not puny goats, it means beef, buffaloes, horses, camels etc. Look at groups, which have been following this diet for centuries a trend will emerge.

As far as our country is concerned, I base my hypothesis in the region I grew up; it is primarily a veg nation. Non-veg is still a side plate and not the main course. And even when we had it we had the option only of fish, for chicken, I think it has been recently introduced in the country, I base this info on the perception of older people in our area who consider it to be a Muslim food and don’t eat it. And goats when we had, I am talking of practice say two decades ago, it was rare and community affair.

Another aspect

50,000 year ago a group of people left Ethiopia and populated the entire world. It was a single genetic pool but the sheer variation that we see today is overwhelming. What caused this change and genetic diversity? Obviously environment, which, among other things, also decided what we ate.

I know the interpretations that I have put forth would have loopholes and counter-arguments but broadly I am confident of its consistency.

I would also suggest you to read Born to Run. In one chapter it has a very interesting study on the evolutionary aspect of running.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Piyadassi

I've been gagged. But before I whack my brain the usual disclaimers.
...

50,000 year ago a group of people left Ethiopia and populated the entire world. It was a single genetic pool but the sheer variation that we see today is overwhelming. What caused this change and genetic diversity? Obviously environment, which, among other things, also decided what we ate.

Perhaps this might be a counterpoint: People ALL over the world, whether meat eaters or plant eaters, were quite diminutive in size in general compared to today's man. So the general increase in height and weight may be correlated strongly to general increase in caloric intake rather than the change in diet. In fact the average height and weight of those places are still low where the diet in general is low in calories (again whether it is meat or vegetables).

Now to examine the diet aspect: Mongolians, Eskimos, Inuits, Red Indians, Bushmen, Aborignals are/were primarily paleo style meat eaters. Not very imposing in size though!