Most of that dietary protein will be used on gluconeogenesis. Hence the reason why very low-carbers have to eat so much protein in order to maintain muscle mass. Try stopping obsessing about yourself for just one moment and think about the numbers that you are proposing.
Originally Posted by Gorbag
Chronic low-calorie diets regardless of macronutrient content will always result in muscle loss, as muscle is very expensive to maintain, and pointless in maintaining for a sedentary subject - and for some reason you wish your experimental subjects to be sedentary. The morbidly obese can lose weight very comfortably on twice the calories that you quote in your alleged 'thought experiment'.
A thought experiment when used appropriately is a philosophical tool that can make everyone question and reevaluate their beliefs, values and judgments, and provoke intelligent debate.
Some posters have contributed such as to steer this thread in such a more positive direction ... however, you have made no such effort to do so.
Well ... in my judgment, you have the maturity and intelligence of a slug. Actually, I take that back, as it's insulting to slugs.
F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.