if your body goes into starvation mode, how long does it take to get out of it?

lemurcat2

ccrdragon wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?

For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.

The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?

Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?

The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.

Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.

It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.

The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.

Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD. Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.

If you look at the bottom left hand corner of the posts, you will see the date that the response was posted. The vast majority of the posts in this thread are from 2014. The disagrees that you are referring to are probably converted over from the 'WOO' button that was active during that timeframe - except for the disagree that I did against the post that resurrected the thread today.

I started here in 2014, and there wasn't a woo button yet either. Don't know if it was something else or perhaps the person who reinstated this one checked a bunch or random other readers over time did.

Curious! ;-)

Remains true that whoever did it probably is not reading now and likely is no longer on MFP.

lemurcat2

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?

For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.

The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?

Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?

The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.

Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.

It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.

The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.

Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.

This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.

I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.

I didn't defend anything. I noted that the whole point of the disagree button is that it allows people to express disagreement without having to derail the thread with discussions of why they disagree. Do you think this thread would be BETTER if there were several responses explaining why starvation mode is a totally real thing and we need to watch out for it?

I'm a big fan of people having to intellectually support whatever position they take, not just anonymously click a button. The anonymous click of a button permits one to be a critic without ever having do to the thought to offer a critique.

Not that I don't do it too often as it is, but what value does it really add for me to explain why I, say, disagree with a post that says starvation mode does not exist if others have already done it in the thread? That's the point of the disagree button -- to help people control that impulse, so the thread doesn't seem like a pile-on or go way off on some tangent.

Do people click disagree for reasons I find mysterious and without an explanation? Sure. Have I remarked on it at times? Sure, although I can't really defend most times I've done so, and hitting disagree also can easily be an unnoticed accident. But yelling at everyone in a thread isn't really all that helpful.

janejellyroll

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brianpperkins131 wrote: »

Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?

For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.

The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?

Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?

The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.

Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.

It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.

The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.

Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.

This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.

I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.

I didn't defend anything. I noted that the whole point of the disagree button is that it allows people to express disagreement without having to derail the thread with discussions of why they disagree. Do you think this thread would be BETTER if there were several responses explaining why starvation mode is a totally real thing and we need to watch out for it?

I'm a big fan of people having to intellectually support whatever position they take, not just anonymously click a button. The anonymous click of a button permits one to be a critic without ever having do to the thought to offer a critique.


As pointed out in another reply here, the disagree clicks are not from the original era of this thread. They are much more recent events.

I'm a fan of all kinds of things, but I don't think that means people are obligated to do them in threads. There's a disagree button. Some people would rather click it than type out why they disagree. That's . . . pretty much it. What Brian wants and prefers isn't the dominant value in every situation.

I have not argued that the disagrees are artifacts. I just think it would be especially ridiculous for people to bother typing out in detail why they disagree with a post from 2014.