THE BIG STARVATION MODE MYTH.
Replies
-
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
yes they do. what else from your first month of lifting have you retained over the next few months you've been lifting? because it's not working.
You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.
By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.0 -
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
yes they do. what else from your first month of lifting have you retained over the next few months you've been lifting? because it's not working.
You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.
By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.
Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.
I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.0 -
'starvation mode' preventing you from losing fat = myth
'starvation mode' subtracting large amounts of muscle mass most people would perfer to have = truth
^ YYYUP0 -
I read into it what you put into it, however, because of your choice of wording, you open yourself up to being misunderstood. Regarding the maintenance bit, you said "So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight." - that is the perfect thing to do if somebody is already at maintenance, the misunderstanding came when you said first of all For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. - I therefore, thought you meant you stuck your calories at maintenance whilst still trying to lose the last 5-10lbs. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, some topics are a waste of time arguing about, the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.
btw nothing wrong with spending some time trying to dig up some research, it makes your opinions more credible and people will be much more willing to take the ideas on board. However, if it is something that has no credible research or scientific evidence, then it can border on bro-science and bro-science is exactly what we should all be aiming to get away from.
No offence meant and hopefully there are no hard feelings.
First of all, this is a casual Internet forum. I would equate it to talking to someone at a bar over a beer. It's not a university classroom. I try my best to put together my thoughts and to make sure my grammar and spelling are correct, but I have priorities in my day-to-day life, so I am not going to proof read and spend hours writing an essay worthy of a college level course. I would like to do something like that one day, complete with proper research, footnoting and everything, and have a expert rip it to shreds (figuratively). I think that would be a great learning experience! Need to find time, though.
However, my general understanding of this particular topic is that starvation mode/response is a real thing. If it wasn't, then no one would ever die from...STARVATION (not yelling just emphasizing
). Therefore, the phrase, "starvation mode is a myth" is wrong. Would you agree?
Also, I don't get what is wrong with my practical advice. Why is it "wrong" with setting maintenance calories as my goal on MFP? I usually try to stay 10-20% below it, but on a Saturday night I like to have a controlled splurge. Isn't that the whole point of having MFP on your phone? I really don't get the hostility towards this idea.
No offense taken. I just want to learn and help on the way. That's the point of these forums, isn't it?
Helps: "Hey that is not accurate information, check out this paper."
Does not help: "Your a *****. That is wrong. LOL @ quoted."0 -
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
yes they do. what else from your first month of lifting have you retained over the next few months you've been lifting? because it's not working.
You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.
By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.
Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.
I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.
I am just saying 10% is essential fats minimum limit for females.
Are you saying you coach them below that number?0 -
I read into it what you put into it, however, because of your choice of wording, you open yourself up to being misunderstood. Regarding the maintenance bit, you said "So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight." - that is the perfect thing to do if somebody is already at maintenance, the misunderstanding came when you said first of all For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. - I therefore, thought you meant you stuck your calories at maintenance whilst still trying to lose the last 5-10lbs. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, some topics are a waste of time arguing about, the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.
btw nothing wrong with spending some time trying to dig up some research, it makes your opinions more credible and people will be much more willing to take the ideas on board. However, if it is something that has no credible research or scientific evidence, then it can border on bro-science and bro-science is exactly what we should all be aiming to get away from.
No offence meant and hopefully there are no hard feelings.
First of all, this is a casual Internet forum. I would equate it to talking to someone at a bar over a beer. It's not a university classroom. I try my best to put together my thoughts and to make sure my grammar and spelling are correct, but I have priorities in my day-to-day life, so I am not going to proof read and spend hours writing an essay worthy of a college level course. I would like to do something like that one day, complete with proper research, footnoting and everything, and have a expert rip it to shreds (figuratively). I think that would be a great learning experience! Need to find time, though.
However, my general understanding of this particular topic is that starvation mode/response is a real thing. If it wasn't, then no one would ever die from...STARVATION (not yelling just emphasizing). Therefore, the phrase, "starvation mode is a myth" is wrong. Would you agree?
Also, I don't get what is wrong with my practical advice. Why is it "wrong" with setting maintenance calories as my goal on MFP? I usually try to stay 10-20% below it, but on a Saturday night I like to have a controlled splurge. Isn't that the whole point of having MFP on your phone? I really don't get the hostility towards this idea.
No offense taken. I just want to learn and help on the way. That's the point of these forums, isn't it?
Helps: "Hey that is not accurate information, check out this paper."
Does not help: "Your a *****. That is wrong. LOL @ quoted."
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
0 -
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
yes they do. what else from your first month of lifting have you retained over the next few months you've been lifting? because it's not working.
You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.
By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.
Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.
I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.
I am just saying 10% is essential fats minimum limit for females.
Are you saying you coach them below that number?
Holy balls woman. Alright. If you really want to get into this. you cannot have "essential values" as a range. The wishy washy 10-13% concept of is inherently not very essential, otherwise, if there was a definitive value, it'd be like..10.55928. No such value exists so we go on a sample distribution. The reason the range exists is that these figures are taking into account a standard deviation or a bell curve of the general population of women, with 10% being 2 sigma to the left and 13% being 2 sigma to the right, theoretically accounting for some 95% of healthy adult women within a target age group. In reality, it's probably nowhere near this encompassing, but humor me.
NOW. expand that bell curve to include those fitness competitors that have resolved to abandon their monthly menstrual cycles and reproductive health to accomplish a stage presence that is sub 10% bodyfat (wherein the endeavor of maintaining these levels is prolonged for months). This is not healthy, it is not sustainable, nor is it recommended. But it happens. I don't get when people say "women do not get under 10%". Are you saying that it is physically or medically impossible for them to get down to these levels? Because that's ridiculous. Are you saying that they don't need to get to these levels for a show? Maybe true, but do some of them? Do alot of them? Yes. If that 2% is going to be the difference between winner overall, and third runner up overall, someone will by golly do it...even if it means their periods have to stop. They will. There needs to be no further discussion on this shady aspect of human nature.
Usually when I coach someone down to like 15%, they have the mental capability of putting A and B together and getting themselves down to 10 or less (more cardio? less food?)...Usually it's not their first time to the rodeo either, so even if I don't touch it with a ten foot pole, they'll probably carve out their own unhealthy little path.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.0
-
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
yes they do. what else from your first month of lifting have you retained over the next few months you've been lifting? because it's not working.
You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.
By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.
Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.
I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.
I am just saying 10% is essential fats minimum limit for females.
Are you saying you coach them below that number?
Holy balls woman. Alright. If you really want to get into this. you cannot have "essential values" as a range. The wishy washy 10-13% concept of is inherently not very essential, otherwise, if there was a definitive value, it'd be like..10.55928. No such value exists so we go on a sample distribution. The reason the range exists is that these figures are taking into account a standard deviation or a bell curve of the general population of women, with 10% being 2 sigma to the left and 13% being 2 sigma to the right, theoretically accounting for some 95% of healthy adult women within a target age group. In reality, it's probably nowhere near this encompassing, but humor me.
NOW. expand that bell curve to include those fitness competitors that have resolved to abandon their monthly menstrual cycles and reproductive health to accomplish a stage presence that is sub 10% bodyfat (wherein the endeavor of maintaining these levels is prolonged for months). This is not healthy, it is not sustainable, nor is it recommended. But it happens. I don't get when people say "women do not get under 10%". Are you saying that it is physically or medically impossible for them to get down to these levels? Because that's ridiculous. Are you saying that they don't need to get to these levels for a show? Maybe true, but do some of them? Do alot of them? Yes. If that 2% is going to be the difference between winner overall, and third runner up overall, someone will by golly do it...even if it means their periods have to stop. They will. There needs to be no further discussion on this shady aspect of human nature.
Usually when I coach someone down to like 15%, they have the mental capability of putting A and B together and getting themselves down to 10 or less (more cardio? less food?)...Usually it's not their first time to the rodeo either, so even if I don't touch it with a ten foot pole, they'll probably carve out their own unhealthy little path.
No, if you say they go below 10%, then they go below 10%.
and if you say there needs to be no further discussion then there needs to be no further discussion.
and just to say, no I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying 10% is the minimum for essential fats for females, therefore, if that is the minimum, going below that is dangerous, the fact some choose to do so for the sake of competitions, isn't for me to judge.....0 -
I'm 5'2 and just started MFP not too long ago not to loose weight, but to actually make sure that I'm eating enough throughout the day. That being said, I have been eating less than 1200 calories for over a year and my body never went into "starvation mode" ... I have maintained my weight, but I also wasn't working out as much as I am now hence the increase in caloric intake. My opinion: starvation mode by eating under a certain amount of calories is just simply not true. Only you know how many calories you need throughout the day. No one can tell you how many to stay at. For example, MFP tells me if I haven't hit 1200 calories by the end of my day that my body is going into "starvation mode" and that I should eat more. If I were to do that then I would just be eating for the point to appease MFP and counting calories. Not ok with me. Just saying. 0
-
"1200 cals to stay alive if your a woman " is such a generic statement. It's like saying I should weigh 110 pounds because I'm 5 foot one inch tall. It doesn't take bone structure or genetics into the equation at all. If I weighed 110 pounds, i'd be admitted to a hospital for malnutrition!!! It is a proven fact that after you lose a substantial amount of weight, you have to eat 20% less than you used to. So that means; if I ate 1200 cals to lose 90 lbs... I now have to eat 1000 calories to stay normal sized and not gain it all back. The FDA and the AMA and the giant food companies want the public to stay stupid and stay fat so they can sell us diets and drugs and special foods to "help" us.It's all a huge lie and I am NOT buying it.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.0 -
Well the goal here is to teach people to eat and lose weight in a healthy way. If you just want to eat nothing and lose lean muscle mass, we won't stop you, though.
Truth
Truth and ROLL TIDE! :P0 -
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?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.
Also big ups for taking this sentence out of the context. Like, duuuude...0/10.0 -
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.0 -
People say don't eat 1200 or even 1500 calories a day. They say eat more, to weigh less, but people you see on youtube eat 1200 and are losing over 80+ pounds. Can you explain that maybe it is better to eat more in the 1800s, but don't tell people that starvation will come up and get them because it's a flat out lie. Especially if your obese. Some guys did a study and that's the huge thing, that's why people think they're in starvation mode. How can you tell someone to eat more when that's what they have been doing all along, hence why they're overweight to begin with. Look at people in different countries starving, they are not going into starvation mode. No I don't think so. You need to look around you. People want you to fail in weight loss, they will make up anything to make sure you don't succeed. Why IDK. But its true weight loss and takes a long freaking time. You need to think of it in long terms, I mean like 3-5 years, it will need to be a lifestyle change. People think they are going into starvation mode because omg i hit a plateau. It happens with everyone. You're never going to get away from that. Sorry guys. JUST BECAUSE YOU HIT A PLATEAU DOES NOT MEAN YOUR IN STARVATION MODE. 1200 isn't starving yourself. What happens when you don't get enough food your body? It has to go into your fat stores, it's science people. End of story. Comments please thanks:) Oh fyi iv lost 40 pounds.
Where are your citations? They think weight gain has a lot to do with insulin resistance from diets high in fat and refined sugars and carbohydrates. Dr. Al Sears is engaged in active research on this. If you are still hungry after making certain you have adequate fluid intake, the hunger is probably honest and you should make a good, nutritious food choice. When losing weight, you also lose some muscle mass and therefore it is necessary to make certain you have an adequate lean protein intake. This is all coming from the University of Pennsylvania which is a leading health system and one of the best on the east coast. I think you are being overly simplistic when you write that "people want you to fail" at losing weight. 1200 calories should be considered the bare minimum. I gross 1800 and if my body tells me I need more, I make good choices. What works for some doesn't work for all.0 -
I eat about 6-800 calories a day ...swim 45 min . and the weight is coming off great .lost 15 lbs. in may ..not really hungry at all ...starvation mode works for me ... I have a naturally low metabolism if I ate 1200 I wouldn't loose weight...
If your ticker is correct, you've lost 31 pounds and have only 24 remaining. Is your ticker from when you joined the site three months ago? If so, your rate of weight loss is rather high for having only 55 total pounds to lose. And you lost 15 pounds in the month of May alone??? And you're an adult male with a TDEE of less than 1200 calories???
*sigh*
I wish you nothing but success in all your fitness and health goals. You got this! :flowerforyou: - ©20130 -
I screwed off in april if you look at my progress ...too much beer ...EAT MOR CHIK'N...0
-
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...0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions