starvation mode might be a myth

diannethegeek

Because I like sourcing things, this seems to be the original: http://www.fattyfightsback.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

Though it's been copied so many times that it's hard to say.

Sourcing things is polite. Copyright infringement is bad.

bainsworth1a

speaking from my own experience. very low calorie diets wreak havoc with metabolism and how I burn calories. I was on a liquid diet and lost 30 lbs in one month. when I went to eating low calorie 1200 I gained back all 30 lbs. plus more. I went on another low calorie diet where I ate 600 calories a day and was losing 3 lbs a week. again when my calorie intake went up to 1200 I gained back everything plus more.
My MFP calorie goal daily is 1280 to lose 2 lbs a week and is way more sensible.

Starvation mode or not my body doesn't do well on too few calories

SLLRunner

Selina,

Your paragraph is too difficult to read because it has no paragraphs, thus I did not read it.

Starvation mode to the common dieter does not exist. In other words, if you eat too little, your body will not hold onto fat and stall weight loss.

Science dictates:

You eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.
You eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
You eat about the same amount of calories you burn and you will maintain weight.

There is no way around this. Even if you have diabetes or insulin resistance, you still have to figure out how many calories you need to lose weight because it might be lower than what you'd expect.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

HeySwoleSister

Poor OP hit a paragraph bandit and got some teal deer skepticism. She was serving some truth. The TL;DR version is thus: "Starvation mode doesn't apply to overweight people seeking weight loss. Stop thinking you'll lose weight by taking in more calories. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."

Selina_Kyle_60

ok sorry I have not been on this site very long also this is new to me. I am not some super fit person that is knowledgeable about all things fitness. if you don't like it just don't respond its not that serious. its not necessary to chastise people

Christine_72

What does TL; DR mean?

And Selena, not having a go. But using paragraphs makes things so much easier to read and understand xx

SLLRunner

Selina_Kyle_60 wrote: »

ok sorry I have not been on this site very long also this is new to me. I am not some super fit person that is knowledgeable about all things fitness. if you don't like it just don't respond its not that serious. its not necessary to chastise people

What you see as chastising are simple, honest answers.

mccindy72

christinev297 wrote: »

What does TL; DR mean?

And Selena, not having a go. But using paragraphs makes things so much easier to read and understand xx

TL;DR means too long; didn't read.

Lefty1290

elphie754 wrote: »

I love South Park. LOL

HeySwoleSister

christinev297 wrote: »

What does TL; DR mean?

And Selena, not having a go. But using paragraphs makes things so much easier to read and understand xx

Too long;didn't read. Abbreviated as TL;DR and then as "teal deer," usually with commonly found images of just that.

Christine_72

mccindy72 wrote: »

christinev297 wrote: »

What does TL; DR mean?

And Selena, not having a go. But using paragraphs makes things so much easier to read and understand xx

TL;DR means too long; didn't read.

Thanks. I think I'll be using that abbreviation a lot on these boards

Khukhullatus

These days the "starvation mode" myth doesn't bug me so much as the mystical magical 1200 calories. It's as low as MFP will go, so it must be instantaneously lethal if we fall below it.

I have two female friends who are both small enough to function just fine on under a thousand calories. One's maintenance calorie level is something like 1100, yet every day I see threads that start with an OP saying some version of "I'm eating 1199 calories" and the first fifteen respondents going apoplectic and shouting the 1200 number.

No one would INSIST that they should only buy clothes made for people 5'5" or above, why the belief in the magical number 1200

Mr_Knight

FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »

No one would INSIST that they should only buy clothes made for people 5'5" or above, why the belief in the magical number 1200

Because there is nothing - NOTHING - that humans can't turn into a religious food fight.

Khukhullatus

Mr_Knight wrote: »

FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »

No one would INSIST that they should only buy clothes made for people 5'5" or above, why the belief in the magical number 1200

Because there is nothing - NOTHING - that humans can't turn into a religious food fight.

haha, as far as options for holy wars go, I'd say "food fight" is far and away the best option.

SLLRunner

FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »

These days the "starvation mode" myth doesn't bug me so much as the mystical magical 1200 calories. It's as low as MFP will go, so it must be instantaneously lethal if we fall below it.

I have two female friends who are both small enough to function just fine on under a thousand calories. One's maintenance calorie level is something like 1100, yet every day I see threads that start with an OP saying some version of "I'm eating 1199 calories" and the first fifteen respondents going apoplectic and shouting the 1200 number.

No one would INSIST that they should only buy clothes made for people 5'5" or above, why the belief in the magical number 1200

The point is not to eat under your BMR, and 1200 is generally lower than most people's BMR. I have a difficult time believing that any adult maintains at 1100 calories. They could definitely be eating more than they realize.

elphie754

Selina_Kyle_60 wrote: »

y is there so much confusion about weight loss

s.

Selina_Kyle_60 wrote: »

y is there so much confusion about weight loss