THE BIG STARVATION MODE MYTH.
Options
Replies
-
I don't care for him at all. He's right about some things and sooooo wrong about others that it's gotten to the point where he's almost as bad as Martin Leangains. At least Martin replied to me when I challenged him, he might have been drunk though, it was way too easy to poke holes.
What's wrong with leangains? It's quite effective even if he is not for everyone...
I did leangains for eight months..but Beckman is kind of an as$hole...0 -
Everyone loses weight differently, and "starvation mode" really does happen to some people. I personally found that "starvation mode" is real for me. When I was chronically under eating and doing a ton of cardio, my weight loss completely stopped for months and I lost my period. One would think that I would lose weight by netting around 400 - 800 calories a day, and burning a ton of calories from cardio a day. I would frequently burn 1000 calories a day. But as soon as I started eating more, and doing less cardio my body began to recover and I got my period back and started to lose weight again. Do you have an explanation for what was happening to me if it's not "starvation mode"? If I kept that up, my body would have resorted to using my fat for energy again eventually, but I believe that when some people first start to chronically deprive themselves of the calories and nutrients that they need, their body starts to slow down their metabolism and stops body functions that are not "vital" to try to protect the body from losing too much weight and starving to death.. which is essentially the starvation mode that everyone speaks of. But the body can't keep doing that forever, so if someone is starving themselves for a long to eventually the body is going to have to resort to using fat as an energy source again. But this still continues to slow down one's metabolism greatly, so once someone who is starving themselves begins to eat normally again they just pack on the pounds.0
-
'starvation mode' preventing you from losing fat = myth
'starvation mode' subtracting large amounts of muscle mass most people would perfer to have = truth
^^^THIS^^^
You WILL lose SOMETHING on a calorie deficit over time. BUT you want to do it slowly and gradually because you want to retain your health, your muscle and hope that the weight loss is FAT loss (or, at least the largest percentage of it). Otherwise, you are setting yourself up for regain. I did crash diets and yo-yo diet/regain/diet, etc. for many years before I got smart and did it the right way. I have been on this weight loss journey for three years now and in all that time, I have not regained a single ounce. This is definitely a first for me. Realistically, it will probably take me another year or even two years to lose the rest of what I want to lose, but I'm in no hurry. I feel great and am getting healthier by the day. And isn't that what it's all about? Losing body fat while getting and staying healthy is why I'm here. Who cares about "starvation mode"? Eat clean, lose slowly and work out---and you never will have to worry about that.0 -
Personally, I don’t get why this is such an issue (do what you want). MFP set my daily calories @ 1200 (yes, weight loss is possible @ net 1200) and for 2 months I stuck to this. I read time and time again about 1200 calories not being enough. Initially I felt ok and I did loose weight, then I noticed I was always hungry, cranky and tired with no energy to workout. I decided to listen to my body and started eating more; moved my calories to 1400/1500, still loosing weight (but may go higher still).
I feel better, no more headaches, much happier and guessing healthier me. My point is, when someone advises/recommends you may need to eat more, try not take it as if you are being asked to poison yourself, more so good advise from someone who does not know you and still cares.
I also heard people say, how can I eat more to loose, “this is crazy” eating more is what got me “fat”. I don’t believe the expression “you need to eat to loose” means eat a buffet! It means up your calories by 100+ until you get the results you want.
Not sure about everyone else, but I did not gain all my weight by eating 1400/1500/1600 calories. it was well over 2000/3000+ calories that gave me the extra weight. So for those who wish to stay @ 1200 good luck, but I need more calories to give me energy to get off my couch.0 -
dammit. people on this forum have an honest obsession with Lyle McDonald. I don't get it. He is theoretically right on everything, and has the science to back it up.
why do ppl like him so much? omg
I don't care for him at all. He's right about some things and sooooo wrong about others that it's gotten to the point where he's almost as bad as Martin Leangains. At least Martin replied to me when I challenged him, he might have been drunk though, it was way too easy to poke holes.
Back to the topic.
None of us here have experienced starvation, actual starvation.
Have any of you read the book 'Hunger' by Sharman Apt Russell, or anything close to it? If so message me, please. Sorry, slightly off topic there.
why would he waste his time with people? if he replied to everyone he would go crazy0 -
Everyone loses weight differently, and "starvation mode" really does happen to some people. I personally found that "starvation mode" is real for me. When I was chronically under eating and doing a ton of cardio, my weight loss completely stopped for months and I lost my period. One would think that I would lose weight by netting around 400 - 800 calories a day, and burning a ton of calories from cardio a day. I would frequently burn 1000 calories a day. But as soon as I started eating more, and doing less cardio my body began to recover and I got my period back and started to lose weight again. Do you have an explanation for what was happening to me if it's not "starvation mode"? If I kept that up, my body would have resorted to using my fat for energy again eventually, but I believe that when some people first start to chronically deprive themselves of the calories and nutrients that they need, their body starts to slow down their metabolism and stops body functions that are not "vital" to try to protect the body from losing too much weight and starving to death.. which is essentially the starvation mode that everyone speaks of. But the body can't keep doing that forever, so if someone is starving themselves for a long to eventually the body is going to have to resort to using fat as an energy source again. But this still continues to slow down one's metabolism greatly, so once someone who is starving themselves begins to eat normally again they just pack on the pounds.
i would call that metabolic slowdown..
everything I have read defines starvation mode as your body turning on itself for energy ....i.e. turning muscle into energy as a primary source of energy ...which is brought on by not eating for at least 72 hours or longer...
I had this debate on a previous thread but a lot of people through around starvation mode for people that are netting 1200 calories or is you skip breakfast, or skip snack 2e out of 24...so there is a lot of misinformation as to what true starvation mode is...0 -
Not the way starvation mode is bandied around on MFP, I do not agree with how the term is used, in fact the way people mean it on here is mythological.
Those that die from starvation in the real world are a different matter, they usually have NO food from one day to the next, they lose weight continuously until their internal organs give out which is ironic really, because going by how, many people seem to think on MFP, these same starving people in places like Africa are on way below 1200 calories per day, now you would think their metabolisms would have slowed down to a virtual standstill and their body would be holding onto to all its calories and fat really wouldn't you - this is if you agree with the starvation mode idea on here that is, which I don't, see.
This however, does not happen, they actually continue to lose weight, they do not stall and they do not store any calories or fats.
Regarding your own maintenance level, you missed that bit out first time round, I mean the bit about staying below 10-20% lol, now I do see what you are doing with regard to controlling your own weight
I agree! That is what I mean when I say starvation mode is real. It's a process that happens when one does not eat for a prolonged period of time. This is common scientific knowledge. You can even say it's common sense. However, a metabolic slowdown from eating a low calorie diet is the real topic in question here. Using the term starvation mode to define whatever happens during a very low cal diet is blowing things way out of proportion and misleading. My original point was that to me the argument is moot. Why eat at 20-30+% below maintenance, when you can eat 10-20% and still lose weight? I meant it for people slightly overweight and lower. I regret saying the 5-10 lbs remark. I put it in quotes because that is what people usually say when casually talking about dropping some weight. I was clear about how obese people should have a trained professional guide them.
My real concern is the people who get so obsessed about weight loss that they become anorexic. Starvation mode can become a real thing in this situation. That's why, in the end, it's always best to consult a licensed professional if you want to eat at a very low cal level.0 -
I question starvation mode as well. Unless you starve until you ruin your health or die your going to keep losing weight. Is it healthy to starve yourself to lose weight? Not at all and I am not advocating diets under 1200 calories. I just think starvation mode is actually ruining your health not holding onto fat.0
-
why 1200 calories though? why not 1199?
i mean, at which point does it actually make a difference?
everyone goes with 1200 when the actual recommended amount for adults is either 2000 or 2500?
plus, as ive said in the past.... GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY... if starvation mode existed then that surgery wouldnt work... you say its not sustainable but people live with them for years!!0 -
dammit. people on this forum have an honest obsession with Lyle McDonald. I don't get it. He is theoretically right on everything, and has the science to back it up.
why do ppl like him so much? omg
I don't care for him at all. He's right about some things and sooooo wrong about others that it's gotten to the point where he's almost as bad as Martin Leangains. At least Martin replied to me when I challenged him, he might have been drunk though, it was way too easy to poke holes.
Back to the topic.
None of us here have experienced starvation, actual starvation.
Have any of you read the book 'Hunger' by Sharman Apt Russell, or anything close to it? If so message me, please. Sorry, slightly off topic there.
why would he waste his time with people? if he replied to everyone he would go crazy
Aside from being prone to manic depression, he spends most of his time reading research (not actually researching) performance nutrition....the way he comes off..he's not well liked in the industry. His client is reads like a who's who of people who you wouldnt call elite athletes. Goes to show, all brains and not being able to teach is a very sad thing. How many people can actually read his body comp and get 10 major "take-home" points from it? Compare that Aragon's Girth Control, or even the mundane read of Advanced Human Metabolism. I'm reading Supple Leopard now, and that thing is full of applicable yet scientific things you can immediately apply and see results. Martin over at LG crams his worldview down your throat but you have to admire the way he does it, speaking from a fat guy to a rock hard guy that deadlifts 500+ for reps.
What is the merit to arguing hypothetical when you the author cannot even pull it together to pack on some muscle of your own? (I know there's folly in criticizing someone for being knowledgable but not having the physique to back it up, but there's something wrong here. Why are the guys championing science backed physique sports all not very big, or lean?) There's a reason his peers sort of put him out in the annex of "he's probably going overboard". While at the same time rightfully respecting the work he has invested in advancing the theoretical. Eric Helms (an actual researcher by vocation) recently made a video about the misapplication of science, and the recent brand of "myth busting" fitness guys on these forums. Stop myth busting. Bro science works for the novice much better than applied science misapplied. If they advance to a stage where they are willing to absorb knowledge, they will be like me and you...and seek it out. Nothing wrong with letting the natural course of things take shape for themselves.0 -
Not the way starvation mode is bandied around on MFP, I do not agree with how the term is used, in fact the way people mean it on here is mythological.
Those that die from starvation in the real world are a different matter, they usually have NO food from one day to the next, they lose weight continuously until their internal organs give out which is ironic really, because going by how, many people seem to think on MFP, these same starving people in places like Africa are on way below 1200 calories per day, now you would think their metabolisms would have slowed down to a virtual standstill and their body would be holding onto to all its calories and fat really wouldn't you - this is if you agree with the starvation mode idea on here that is, which I don't, see.
This however, does not happen, they actually continue to lose weight, they do not stall and they do not store any calories or fats.
Regarding your own maintenance level, you missed that bit out first time round, I mean the bit about staying below 10-20% lol, now I do see what you are doing with regard to controlling your own weight
I agree! That is what I mean when I say starvation mode is real. It's a process that happens when one does not eat for a prolonged period of time. This is common scientific knowledge. You can even say it's common sense. However, a metabolic slowdown from eating a low calorie diet is the real topic in question here. Using the term starvation mode to define whatever happens during a very low cal diet is blowing things way out of proportion and misleading. My original point was that to me the argument is moot. Why eat at 20-30+% below maintenance, when you can eat 10-20% and still lose weight? I meant it for people slightly overweight and lower. I regret saying the 5-10 lbs remark. I put it in quotes because that is what people usually say when casually talking about dropping some weight. I was clear about how obese people should have a trained professional guide them.
My real concern is the people who get so obsessed about weight loss that they become anorexic. Starvation mode can become a real thing in this situation. That's why, in the end, it's always best to consult a licensed professional if you want to eat at a very low cal level.
All this time, we were on the same wavelength and having digs at each other :laugh:
I am a fine one to talk anyway I have done the same s you in the past, stuck something in a post, it has been taken out of context or not in the way it was intended.
:flowerforyou:0 -
dammit. people on this forum have an honest obsession with Lyle McDonald. I don't get it. He is theoretically right on everything, and has the science to back it up.
why do ppl like him so much? omg
I don't care for him at all. He's right about some things and sooooo wrong about others that it's gotten to the point where he's almost as bad as Martin Leangains. At least Martin replied to me when I challenged him, he might have been drunk though, it was way too easy to poke holes.
Back to the topic.
None of us here have experienced starvation, actual starvation.
Have any of you read the book 'Hunger' by Sharman Apt Russell, or anything close to it? If so message me, please. Sorry, slightly off topic there.
why would he waste his time with people? if he replied to everyone he would go crazy
Aside from being prone to manic depression, he spends most of his time reading research (not actually researching) performance nutrition....the way he comes off..he's not well liked in the industry. His client is reads like a who's who of people who you wouldnt call elite athletes. Goes to show, all brains and not being able to teach is a very sad thing. How many people can actually read his body comp and get 10 major "take-home" points from it? Compare that Aragon's Girth Control, or even the mundane read of Advanced Human Metabolism. I'm reading Supple Leopard now, and that thing is full of applicable yet scientific things you can immediately apply and see results. Martin over at LG crams his worldview down your throat but you have to admire the way he does it, speaking from a fat guy to a rock hard guy that deadlifts 500+ for reps.
What is the merit to arguing hypothetical when you the author cannot even pull it together to pack on some muscle of your own? (I know there's folly in criticizing someone for being knowledgable but not having the physique to back it up, but there's something wrong here. Why are the guys championing science backed physique sports all not very big, or lean?) There's a reason his peers sort of put him out in the annex of "he's probably going overboard". While at the same time rightfully respecting the work he has invested in advancing the theoretical. Eric Helms (an actual researcher by vocation) recently made a video about the misapplication of science, and the recent brand of "myth busting" fitness guys on these forums. Stop myth busting. Bro science works for the novice much better than applied science misapplied. If they advance to a stage where they are willing to absorb knowledge, they will be like me and you...and seek it out. Nothing wrong with letting the natural course of things take shape for themselves.
Why are you going to hold his manic depression over him? Its a disease and it has nothing to do with his knowledge. His deadlift does not impress me to be honest.
Not everyone wants to build muscle, he could just like the science.
what myth busting am I doing? I know where you are coming from especially when everybody cries metabolic damage or some horse ****.
There hasnt been anything I have passed around that has could be detrimental to a novice at all, nor is there anything I could possibly think of. The problem is if we do not correct them and we know we are explaining the proper info, then the cycle of misinformation is spreading further0 -
I personally found that "starvation mode" is real for me. When I was chronically under eating and doing a ton of cardio, my weight loss completely stopped for months and I lost my period.
I would call this "overexercising mode" to be honest.0 -
1200 may or may not be starvation mode, but seriously, WHY would you want to eat that little when you can eat more and still lose? My life is much more enjoyable with food.
Think this says it all for me. Losing is losing, be it half a pound a week or two pound a week. I know that I for one am just happy that the scale is going in the RIGHT direction. Why make yourself miserable to achieve this?
You presume everybody on 1200 calories per day is miserable...... many are not. I am not miserable on 1200 per day, but then again, I do not go around all day obsessing about food and continually thinking about it.
Now if I did that and was unable to have any due to being on 1200 calories per day - I could see why I might end up miserable in that case, but as I don't and just eat at my meal times., I can put my energies to better uses than thinking about my next meal.
THANK YOU.
I am SO SICK of people automatically asusming i must be miserable and constantly thinking about hunger and eating because i'm on 1200 a day.
I've said it before and i'll say it again; each to their own. I don't come on here and say to people who are on 1800 calories a day "Oh my god, you eat so much! You must be so sickly full all the time and bloated, how do you find the energy to do anything on such a huge amount of food?!" Because if i ate that much a day, that is how i would feel.
Everyone is entitiled to their opinion, but not everyone is entitled to judge.0 -
well, I gain weight if I eat anything above 1000kcal, so go and figure. All I can say is that it is highly personal based on the medical record, genes and who knows what else.0
-
oh and fyi I believe your body need nutrients more than it needs calories, so the calorie intakes can vary.0
-
oh and fyi I believe your body need nutrients more than it needs calories, so the calorie intakes can vary.
Please quantify this statement into something meaningful?!0 -
Go research glycogen.well, I gain weight if I eat anything above 1000kcal, so go and figure. All I can say is that it is highly personal based on the medical record, genes and who knows what else.0 -
It's when you end your diet and start eating normally at 1800 or so that it bites you in the bum. Your metabolism has gone to pot and you gain more than you lost.0
-
It's when you end your diet and start eating normally at 1800 or so that it bites you in the bum. Your metabolism has gone to pot and you gain more than you lost.
Define "eating normally" ?
Is that figure - 1800 - just random one, or is there a reason why you chose that? Because believe it or not, that is not my own maintenance figure when I am my goal.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions