It says that after this though: Starvation ensues when the fat reserves are completely exhausted and protein is the only fuel source available to the body. Thus, after periods of starvation, the loss of body protein affects the function of important organs, and death results, even if there are still fat reserves left.
So I'm very confused :) Apparently starvation is when all fat is exhausted, and protein is the only fuel source left. But also, you can die after starvation even though you still have fat. Wat?
People on diets typically lose more muscle than they lose fat: What? This also contradicts my own experience and everything I've ever heard. Most people think 25% lean loss is normal and that 40% from GLP-1 drugs is terribly bad.
Yea I think it's more of a gradient, like reverse nutrient partitioning. Maybe the best case is 95% fat/5% lean loss, and the worst case the other way around. Thus it makes a huge difference how you are "starving." E.g. eating nothing at all is probably not that bad, but eating 100g carbs and otherwise nothing seems to be super bad, I remember reading a study about that. Basically, a certain threshold of carbs seems to prevent fat adaptation and then you starve real bad, whereas people who truly eat nothing, or just oil, can live off their fat somewhat comfortably.
It says that after this though: Starvation ensues when the fat reserves are completely exhausted and protein is the only fuel source available to the body. Thus, after periods of starvation, the loss of body protein affects the function of important organs, and death results, even if there are still fat reserves left.
So I'm very confused :) Apparently starvation is when all fat is exhausted, and protein is the only fuel source left. But also, you can die after starvation even though you still have fat. Wat?
People on diets typically lose more muscle than they lose fat: What? This also contradicts my own experience and everything I've ever heard. Most people think 25% lean loss is normal and that 40% from GLP-1 drugs is terribly bad.
Is it just skeletal muscle that is lost first? Wouldn't nonskeletal muscle like the heart be preserved more carefully?
Yea I think it's more of a gradient, like reverse nutrient partitioning. Maybe the best case is 95% fat/5% lean loss, and the worst case the other way around. Thus it makes a huge difference how you are "starving." E.g. eating nothing at all is probably not that bad, but eating 100g carbs and otherwise nothing seems to be super bad, I remember reading a study about that. Basically, a certain threshold of carbs seems to prevent fat adaptation and then you starve real bad, whereas people who truly eat nothing, or just oil, can live off their fat somewhat comfortably.