starvation mode
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
I assume you are talking about my experience? It is right on topic with starvation mode. My experience does not prove that starvation mode is a myth, and apparently that upsets some MFP users?
No, I think this was about the discussion of starvation in Africa.0 -
geez guys, cool your jets! No, I don't know how many times this exact post has been done, but now that you've brought it to my attention, I'm sorry I posted it. Also, I was only saying that if the starvation mode existed, those poor kids on the commercials wouldn't be so thin and sickly looking. I realize that there are starving kids and adults all over the world, but I never see them in commercials. I agree about the 8 bottles of water a day too that another poster posted.beating a dead horse..do you know how many times this exact post has been done...
0 -
susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
Fact of the matter is .. Fasting raises your metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24057170 -
TyronnePanaino wrote: »I think people that mention 'starvation mode' are regularly referring to metabolic damage... Just sayin
I think you're right!
Starvation is what happens when your body has used up all it's reserves of tissues(fat, tumors) and is now going after vital organs/tissues (like the heart) to sustain life. Ouch.
0 -
You don't want to see it - so you started an entire thread about it?
Drama.0 -
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »
my thought as well.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, generating energy from nothing is what doesn't hold water.midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I once thought I could accellerate weight loss by reducing calories further. After gaining weight progressively for 3 weeks, I read something that indicated if one consumes fewer calories than their RMR, they could gain weight. A quick calculation showed my new calorie level was below estimated RMR. So I returned to a higher calorie level (which was above RMR and below BMR) and began to lose again.
I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of hate for sharing my experience, and some will call me a liar. I don't know the scientific reason behind why I started gaining when restricting calories further, but I will not do that again (at least not for more than a day or 2). It set me back and lost time.
if you really gained you were eating more than you thought.
you can eat lower than your RMR and lose weight and it not be unhealthy as long as it's not done for a prolonged period of time...and 3 weeks is not long enough.
That is an easy explanation, but doesn't hold water. I didn't change methods of measuring and logging food. I used a food scale before, during, and after the weight loss.
If I had, at the same time I dropped my calorie limit, stopped weighing food and started "eye-balling" everything... then returned to weighing when I resumed a higher calorie intake, then I could see your point.
CICO equation is math...there are variables but if you are sure of CI than it was your CO part that was off.
I also used a Fitbit both before, during, and after... so no changes to method of measuring calories out either.
I'll repeat: I don't know the scientific reason behind why I started gaining when restricting calories further. But just because I don't understand something does not make it untrue.
There's your answer, and I think he's right- your CO was off. My Fitbit drastically overestimates my burn. There is no true way to know how many calories you're burning. IMO a Fitbit is just a step counter.0 -
I'm about 276 calories a day off from where I "should" be. You've got measurement error in my logging, in the nutritional info, in my UP24, etc., but I think a big chunk of those calories are from the adaptive thermogenesis as a result of my letting myself get so big and then to a more suitable weight range. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Either way, all in all, it's a manageable number. I try to take enough steps to offset those 276 calories and I land pretty much spot on with the calculators. And, really, missing 276 calories off of a projected 3400 or so a day burn would be a relatively small price to pay for my stupidity.maillemaker wrote: »This is your "starvation mode" that sometimes shows up if you are counting all your calories and still hitting a plateau. On the Scooby accurate calculator they have a mechanism for compensating for this - the "calibration factor". I think the last time I went through it mine was like 250 calories or so.
End end result is this: If you've gotten yourself obese, in order to lose weight you might have to eat 300-400 fewer calories than otherwise in order to lose weight at your desired rate and/or maintain weight loss.
It's not an excuse for not losing weight - it's recognizing the damage you did to your body by getting obese and you will have to deal with having to make due with less food.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
I assume you are talking about my experience? It is right on topic with starvation mode. My experience does not prove that starvation mode is a myth, and apparently that upsets some MFP users?
Your experience doesn't make any sense. To gain 6 pounds in 3 weeks you'd have to have been at about a 1000 calorie surplus daily. At what is around a grown guy's BMR, that would be a sudden drop to a TDEE of less than 800 calories.0 -
http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
0 -
http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This0 -
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
I hear ya, it just might be more accurate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means" than "it doesn't exist".
I will say - whenever I've eaten very little (for whatever reason), I've lost weight very quickly. (Not recommending)
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
I hear ya, it just might be more accurate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means" than "it doesn't exist".
I will say - whenever I've eaten very little (for whatever reason), I've lost weight very quickly. (Not recommending)
I am currently experiencing the flu as a dieting method. I've lost a lot of weight in a very short amount of time. I've been eating... just not a lot.
Would not recommend.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
I hear ya, it just might be more accurate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means" than "it doesn't exist".
I will say - whenever I've eaten very little (for whatever reason), I've lost weight very quickly. (Not recommending)
I am currently experiencing the flu as a dieting method. I've lost a lot of weight in a very short amount of time. I've been eating... just not a lot.
Would not recommend.
I experienced the same with shingles. Also would not recommend.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
I hear ya, it just might be more accurate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means" than "it doesn't exist".
I will say - whenever I've eaten very little (for whatever reason), I've lost weight very quickly. (Not recommending)
I am currently experiencing the flu as a dieting method. I've lost a lot of weight in a very short amount of time. I've been eating... just not a lot.
Would not recommend.
Yuk, I hope you feel better soon.
0 -
I think it's just the part, "your body holds onto your fat" that gets me. If you're not eating anything and your body "holds onto the fat cause it thinks you're starving" doesn't make any sense. Just like the myth about eating breakfast. Everyone eats breakfast, it's the first meal you eat upon waking up, whether it's 6am, 12pm or 6pm. That's why it's called breakfast. You're breaking a fast.0
-
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »I think it's just the part, "your body holds onto your fat" that gets me. If you're not eating anything and your body "holds onto the fat cause it thinks you're starving" doesn't make any sense. Just like the myth about eating breakfast. Everyone eats breakfast, it's the first meal you eat upon waking up, whether it's 6am, 12pm or 6pm. That's why it's called breakfast. You're breaking a fast.
But, why does your body only burn so much fat per day before it starts burning muscle instead? In a sense, doesn't it try to hang on to fat if it thinks your starving it? It's not that you won't continue to lose (and lose fat) on a deficit, but you'll lose too much muscle if you go too extreme.0 -
you got a point there. I guess that's why eating protein and strength training is so important.rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »I think it's just the part, "your body holds onto your fat" that gets me. If you're not eating anything and your body "holds onto the fat cause it thinks you're starving" doesn't make any sense. Just like the myth about eating breakfast. Everyone eats breakfast, it's the first meal you eat upon waking up, whether it's 6am, 12pm or 6pm. That's why it's called breakfast. You're breaking a fast.
But, why does your body only burn so much fat per day before it starts burning muscle instead? In a sense, doesn't it try to hang on to fat if it thinks your starving it? It's not that you won't continue to lose (and lose fat) on a deficit, but you'll lose too much muscle if you go too extreme.
0 -
http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
The link you provided indicates adaptive thermogenesis is a natural response to "long term" calorie restriction...which is true...but "starvation mode" as talked about by laymen means "my body is holding onto fat after 1 week of "assumed calorie deficit"
This is actually a better link for adaptive thermogenesis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Lol I didn't really think anyone thought you'd go into starvation mode after a week. my bad >_<
I know right but you see it here all the time..."you're in starvation mode" when an op complains they've been dieting for a week or two and haven't lost anything....it's a "SMH" moment for sure.
I regularly eat less then a 1000 calories and have for many months. I am also active when not at work. Also working out 3 times a week. I have
Not lost a single lb. In 5 months.
When I hear/read ppl say reduce cals and you will lose weight it pisses me off. Stop generalizing not all bodies respond the same way. Same goes for the crap around BMI.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 989 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions