In regard to muscle loss and dieting, I'm not quite sure I accept it on its face. Muscle loss can ocur for a lot of reason to include inactivity. I've known many people that, when they diet, they have less energy and move less. Acitivity goes down. NASA has done several studies in support of prolonged space flight and has determined that detectable muscle atrophy is acheieve after just 3 days of inactivity. I'm wondering if a lot of the so called muscle loss might be attributed to this effect rather than the restricted calories.
If we think about the idea that our hunter-gatherer ancestors often when a day or two without eating, but they still needed their muscle to hunt down and kill prey, the body would have adopted to preserve muscle tissue rather than consume it in times of hunger. I've read a couple of studies recently that the catabolic process is entered only for short term whith prolonged fasting. Muscles, it seems are able to use ketones for energy and brain cells seem to thrive on them.
I actually don't think anyone knows the real answer at this point. Most studies concentrate on only 1 or 2 aspects of nutrition at a time and even then, humans are notorious for lying about their adherence to the specified protocols of various studies (most are not conducted under fully supervised conditions).
As to the topic of this thread, you would have to monitor your calories constantly to avoid gaining weight, so in that sense, dieting is perpetural. What is not perpetual is the calorie restriction part of 'dieting' unless you consider eating no more than what you need calorie restriction - then dieting is perpetual.
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”
― Isaac Asimov
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin
