By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope. Not eating for 2 weeks isn't a good way to lose fat. Sure you can lose weight, a lot of it will be just water and another big portion will be muscle and glycogen.

He would suffer for 2 weeks, not even counting for the unhealthy portion, but would lose small quantity of fat itself. And that would fast go back once he started eating normally.

Any efficient weight loss program demands a change of habits for the rest of life, just look that almost all extreme diets fat people do results in a gain of weight bigger than the loss they had.

If you don't eat for two weeks, you will lose a lot more than water.  Your body needs fuel to keep going, and it can't use water as fuel.  

Part of it will be muscle and part fat, but why would it only be a small quantity of fat?  I'm legitimately asking cause I've heard this, and never understood it.  Fat is essentially what your body is saving for a rainy day.  So, why would your body burn muscle instead of fat when that rainy day comes?

Because your body needs fat more than it need muscle, first because fat is used to produce a lot of hormones and second because fat is the last thing your body wants to use since it is the last reserve to keep you alive (besides cushioning your inners and keep your heat).

So for you to have a good loss of fat you need to exercise to keep muscle (basically you need to force your body to keep the muscle) and accept a steady but slow loss, 2 weeks of starvation won't do that.

Also muscle burn calories while fat doesn't need calories to keep itself, so body burn muscle so it gains energy from muscle plus will help you need less energy. Besides other mechanism to reduce your metabolism when you reduce your intake (thus why a good program will have you slowly but progressively cutting calories and adding exercise so your body doesn't have a bid impact and adapt fast).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."