Weight loss accountability/support 2024 edition

Sorry to call you out. But its the most recent example of things I've done in the past too.
This is the definition of unsustainable. The concern is two-fold.

Primarily, the risk of injury, illness, or fatigue. Now there is of course a balance:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01466-1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088915911630099X
But as with all things, too much, too fast, especially coupled with dietary restriction, regardless of supplementation, increases that [potentially] deleterious effect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340979/

Secondarily, as indicated elsewhere as well as [somewhat evidenced] here, cyclists have an already increased propensity to disordered body image, and relying on the "must do more than I put in" maxim works, but shifts the risk towards developing bulimic-type obsessions.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/12/12/490

The overarching point I'm trying to make is- anyone can lose weight fast, but you/we need to understand the risks involved therein, as well as the reality that the loss/gain cycle is potentiated and propagated by that same fast weight loss.

On the above https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-department-of-physiological-hygiene
and the Wiki article on the same is worth a read (MSE)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment)

this is a tangentially related, but fascinating article on the break-down of the 'set point theory' that was developed from that experiment, due to current diet.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6262529/

There is also some evidence that, the utilistation/ reliance on artificial sweeteners in much protein supplementation/ diet foods, may further disrupt our ability to sense caloric density - though as with most (all) dietary studies we must assume the lowest level of evidence due to the presence of so many confounders:
https://www.nature.com/articles/1602649

Finally, to summarise (poorly) from first principles:

If you train, you need more calories. If you get sick, you need more calories.
The mechanisms of repair within both categories rely on energy provision.
Prevention of injury is reliant on repair mechanisms.
Prevention of illness is reliant on immune system function.
These mechanisms are both reliant on bioavailability of macro+micro nutrients.
Depletion of these is inevitable within a dieting phase.
Supplementation reduces the gap created, but does not necessarily close it (due to energy-mediated cellular uptake, etc).
So, at any given point:
If E[in] < E[out], the %chance of injury or illness increases.

TLDR:

1. The thread is great- accountability (positive and negative) works
   
2. Don't overdo it.
   
3. Stability, long-term health and weight-control are massively more important than how much you can lose this month.
   
   
   

**disclosures:

1. I am not a nutritionist. Just someone who has been down to 8% BF and up to 30%BF, been injured from over-exercise and guilty of the inverse- the 'tomorrow I'll start paradox'
   
2. Confounders in dietary studies are a major barrier to their relevance- therefore I often revert to first principles.
   
3. List making = losing ;)
   
4. Please critique as much as you'd like **
   -if the papers don't work and you're interested, please PM me and I'll send you a pdf- I tried to find those not behind a paywall
   
   
   

For those interested in stats:
Dec 20th 2022: 68.5kg
8th Jan 2023: 68.7kg