starvation mode
Replies
-
Like I said, there's a lot of fame, and possibly money, to be had if you can demonstrably gain weight while eating below maintenance, let alone RMR or BMR.midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »@midwesterner85
There are reams and reams of data that indicate starvation mode simply doesn't exist in the way you're talking about and reams and reams of data that indicate that under a verified caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
As between "you're a special snowflake," "you've made a mistake somewhere in your measurement," or "it's possible to gain weight outside of normal fluctuations when in a caloric deficit," the middle one is, by far, the most reasonable explanation.
If you believe this not to be the case, you should probably contact a research facility and become world famous for defying physics.
A scientific explanation exists for what happened to me. I don't know what it is, and clearly you do not know what it is. I know what it isn't: inaccurate logging.
You can claim it's not a mistake all you want, but it is a mistake. Whether it's a mistake of logging, weighing, your metabolic rate, or whatever, it's a mistake. You simply aren't the one thing in the universe to which physical laws don't apply. You just aren't.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).
I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many people that think like you do but they never answer it.
If your TDEE is 1800 a day you are placed in a locked room for 4 or 6 weeks, they feed you 1000 calories a day and water, when you got locked in you were 40 lbs overweight, when they let you out of the room will you come out heavier? Will you gain weight because you didn't eat enough?
It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).
I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many people that think like you do but they never answer it.
If your TDEE is 1800 a day you are placed in a locked room for 4 or 6 weeks, they feed you 1000 calories a day and water, when you got locked in you were 40 lbs overweight, when they let you out of the room will you come out heavier? Will you gain weight because you didn't eat enough?
It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
And how would that be? Does your body shut down half its organs to burn that much less suddenly?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).
I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many people that think like you do but they never answer it.
If your TDEE is 1800 a day you are placed in a locked room for 4 or 6 weeks, they feed you 1000 calories a day and water, when you got locked in you were 40 lbs overweight, when they let you out of the room will you come out heavier? Will you gain weight because you didn't eat enough?
It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
And how would that be? Does your body shut down half its organs to burn that much less suddenly?
I trying to figure this out too. How does eating below RMR suddenly stop you from losing weight? @midwesterner85
0 -
I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that under controlled conditions you will not gain weight eating below your RMR. Name an amount and we can start looking for somewhere to escrow the money and a lab that will monitor your results.midwesterner85 wrote: »It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Like I said, there's a lot of fame, and possibly money, to be had if you can demonstrably gain weight while eating below maintenance, let alone RMR or BMR.midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »@midwesterner85
There are reams and reams of data that indicate starvation mode simply doesn't exist in the way you're talking about and reams and reams of data that indicate that under a verified caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
As between "you're a special snowflake," "you've made a mistake somewhere in your measurement," or "it's possible to gain weight outside of normal fluctuations when in a caloric deficit," the middle one is, by far, the most reasonable explanation.
If you believe this not to be the case, you should probably contact a research facility and become world famous for defying physics.
A scientific explanation exists for what happened to me. I don't know what it is, and clearly you do not know what it is. I know what it isn't: inaccurate logging.
You can claim it's not a mistake all you want, but it is a mistake. Whether it's a mistake of logging, weighing, your metabolic rate, or whatever, it's a mistake. You simply aren't the one thing in the universe to which physical laws don't apply. You just aren't.
I don't care about fame, but give me the name of a scientist that would be willing to compensate me appropriately, and I'll sign up. There probably isn't such a scientist.
You must think there is some benefit I get, so I make up something that isn't true in order to obtain that benefit (whatever it may be). There really is no benefit. In fact, it would be much easier for me to never tell anyone. It would be easier because I wouldn't be called a liar. I don't share my experience for my benefit (there is none). It is to point out that not everything is as simple as some want to think it is. Sometimes things don't work out as other MFP users argue it will, and often the MFP user knowledge base cannot provide an explanation for what happened.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).
I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many people that think like you do but they never answer it.
If your TDEE is 1800 a day you are placed in a locked room for 4 or 6 weeks, they feed you 1000 calories a day and water, when you got locked in you were 40 lbs overweight, when they let you out of the room will you come out heavier? Will you gain weight because you didn't eat enough?
It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
And how would that be? Does your body shut down half its organs to burn that much less suddenly?
I trying to figure this out too. How does eating below RMR suddenly stop you from losing weight? @midwesterner85
As I've already said several times, I don't know. I know what happened to me, but I don't know how/why it happened.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).
I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many people that think like you do but they never answer it.
If your TDEE is 1800 a day you are placed in a locked room for 4 or 6 weeks, they feed you 1000 calories a day and water, when you got locked in you were 40 lbs overweight, when they let you out of the room will you come out heavier? Will you gain weight because you didn't eat enough?
It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
You are going off the assumption that adaptive thermogenesis is such a quick factor that your body will begin to slow down immediately, that's not the way things work. If you think that your body will adapt that quickly I would like to see where to you are getting that from.
You're saying that it RMR is 800 and you eat 1000 calories you'll come out heavier? That is the complete opposite of how things work.
I would like you to please respond a little more clear and provide the data as to why you are saying that. Not a misinterpretation of what you think happened to you.
No, I'm not going off of any assumptions about anything. As you will notice, I explained my response is based on my past experience.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).
I'm going to ask you a question that I have asked many people that think like you do but they never answer it.
If your TDEE is 1800 a day you are placed in a locked room for 4 or 6 weeks, they feed you 1000 calories a day and water, when you got locked in you were 40 lbs overweight, when they let you out of the room will you come out heavier? Will you gain weight because you didn't eat enough?
It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
You are going off the assumption that adaptive thermogenesis is such a quick factor that your body will begin to slow down immediately, that's not the way things work. If you think that your body will adapt that quickly I would like to see where to you are getting that from.
You're saying that it RMR is 800 and you eat 1000 calories you'll come out heavier? That is the complete opposite of how things work.
I would like you to please respond a little more clear and provide the data as to why you are saying that. Not a misinterpretation of what you think happened to you.
NO man. He been saying all thread that when he eats above RMR and below TDEE he will lose but when he eats below both TDEE and RMR he doesn't lose. I think he says he gains on the latter situation.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that under controlled conditions you will not gain weight eating below your RMR. Name an amount and we can start looking for somewhere to escrow the money and a lab that will monitor your results.midwesterner85 wrote: »It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
How much time? Three weeks?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are some studies cited in some recent weight loss book I read (probably The Lean Muscle Diet) about how people vary in how their activity seems to change with calorie changes. They aren't talking about things that are measurable with a FitBit, but stuff like how you fidget. This is apparently believed to play a part in why some people eat more and have a hard time gaining even when they are trying to--their activity level and metabolism pick up more.
I've noticed that my incidental activity of this sort actually picked up when I started losing, even when I was still at a low calorie level--I think it's because I just felt so much better not having so much extra weight on me--I seem to be naturally kind of moving when I'm not obese, but didn't jiggle my fingers or tap my feet or hop in place or all the silly things I did back when I was obese and not regularly active. I suspect things like that may place more of a role than we can easily see.
For you, my guess would be water retention--that's the only thing that makes sense given the time frame, and I can see why your body might react to increased stress while you were active in such a way. Anyway, since you can lose well between BMR and TDEE it seems healthier to stay there anyway.they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging).
I don't think that means lying. I know that I'm less accurate with my logging at the moment than I was in the past, and it's because I'm tired of dieting (and should stop pretending to try to eat at a deficit) and am okay with my weight. I think if someone is at an overly steep deficit it's common to be sloppier in logging or, if you do have a "cheat day" kind of set up or occasional times when you don't log to go much more overboard then than if you had a more reasonable deficit. This is especially true if someone has a binge/restrict kind of pattern going on. It might not be applicable to you at all, but it's a reason people might loss less well at 1200 than 1500 without CICO being wrong (which I'm sure it's not).
Similarly, I do think that lots of people unconsciously move less if their body feels overstressed or gets less calories. Maybe with a Fitbit you think you can track even unintentional activity (and I don't think this would explain your gain anyway, no), but again it's a reason why people may lose better at a higher calorie level.I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake.
Scientifically, how could you gain fat at a deficit? That's the problem with the "starvation mode" thing--when it gets followed by "your body feels threatened and so starts turning every calorie into fat." Makes no sense. Your body either is burning the calories (through your activity) or it is not. Even if it was preferentially burning muscle instead of fat, that would not make you heavier. Water retention on the other hand would make you heavier.
Also, how do you know your RMR, as this apparently is dependent on you eating below it?0 -
Here's a really well-done article explaining what starvation mode is and what it is not,
and giving examples to easily disprove the myth that eating too little causes a person to gain weight.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
.
Nope. Absolutely not possible.midwesterner wrote:I once thought I could accellerate (sic) 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.
If that were true, there's no way I could have lost the 80 lb I have so far, because I've been eating
well less than my BMR for over a year.0 -
Something along the lines of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Enough time to establish a baseline, then 24 weeks (I think.)midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that under controlled conditions you will not gain weight eating below your RMR. Name an amount and we can start looking for somewhere to escrow the money and a lab that will monitor your results.midwesterner85 wrote: »It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
How much time? Three weeks?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are some studies cited in some recent weight loss book I read (probably The Lean Muscle Diet) about how people vary in how their activity seems to change with calorie changes. They aren't talking about things that are measurable with a FitBit, but stuff like how you fidget. This is apparently believed to play a part in why some people eat more and have a hard time gaining even when they are trying to--their activity level and metabolism pick up more.
I've noticed that my incidental activity of this sort actually picked up when I started losing, even when I was still at a low calorie level--I think it's because I just felt so much better not having so much extra weight on me--I seem to be naturally kind of moving when I'm not obese, but didn't jiggle my fingers or tap my feet or hop in place or all the silly things I did back when I was obese and not regularly active. I suspect things like that may place more of a role than we can easily see.
For you, my guess would be water retention--that's the only thing that makes sense given the time frame, and I can see why your body might react to increased stress while you were active in such a way. Anyway, since you can lose well between BMR and TDEE it seems healthier to stay there anyway.they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging).
I don't think that means lying. I know that I'm less accurate with my logging at the moment than I was in the past, and it's because I'm tired of dieting (and should stop pretending to try to eat at a deficit) and am okay with my weight. I think if someone is at an overly steep deficit it's common to be sloppier in logging or, if you do have a "cheat day" kind of set up or occasional times when you don't log to go much more overboard then than if you had a more reasonable deficit. This is especially true if someone has a binge/restrict kind of pattern going on. It might not be applicable to you at all, but it's a reason people might loss less well at 1200 than 1500 without CICO being wrong (which I'm sure it's not).
Similarly, I do think that lots of people unconsciously move less if their body feels overstressed or gets less calories. Maybe with a Fitbit you think you can track even unintentional activity (and I don't think this would explain your gain anyway, no), but again it's a reason why people may lose better at a higher calorie level.I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake.
Scientifically, how could you gain fat at a deficit? That's the problem with the "starvation mode" thing--when it gets followed by "your body feels threatened and so starts turning every calorie into fat." Makes no sense. Your body either is burning the calories (through your activity) or it is not. Even if it was preferentially burning muscle instead of fat, that would not make you heavier. Water retention on the other hand would make you heavier.
Also, how do you know your RMR, as this apparently is dependent on you eating below it?
RMR was estimated using online calculators, not scientifically measured.
Your point about water weight very well could be the answer... in fact, it makes the most sense so far.0 -
Everyone keeps claiming they eat more or less than their BMR. Question: how do you know what your BMR even is? What the calculations say is just an estimate.
(I also think I lost really well--2-3 lb/week, in fact--during a period when I must have been under my BMR, but that it's not some certain number that we can easily know is a point worth making. Many people who think they are eating under their BMRs almost certainly are not, just given the rate at which they are losing.*)
midwesterner mentioned RMR--did you have a test? [Edit: cross posted, so never mind.]
*Not directed at you, midwesterner, since you were comparing it with losses at a higher number, but the usual person who comes in and says she is eating at some amount vs. her BMR.0 -
Here's a really well-done article explaining what starvation mode is and what it is not,
and giving examples to easily disprove the myth that eating too little causes a person to gain weight.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
.
Nope. Absolutely not possible.midwesterner wrote:I once thought I could accellerate (sic) 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.
If that were true, there's no way I could have lost the 80 lb I have so far, because I've been eating
well less than my BMR for over a year.
Not BMR, but RMR.
Like I said, there must be a scientific explanation, I just don't know with certainty what it is. Whatever it is may not apply to you, but might apply to someone else.
It was probably water weight, but I can't really know for sure.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Something along the lines of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Enough time to establish a baseline, then 24 weeks (I think.)midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that under controlled conditions you will not gain weight eating below your RMR. Name an amount and we can start looking for somewhere to escrow the money and a lab that will monitor your results.midwesterner85 wrote: »It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
How much time? Three weeks?
I can't possibly put that much time into an experiment.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »@midwesterner85
There are reams and reams of data that indicate starvation mode simply doesn't exist in the way you're talking about and reams and reams of data that indicate that under a verified caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
As between "you're a special snowflake," "you've made a mistake somewhere in your measurement," or "it's possible to gain weight outside of normal fluctuations when in a caloric deficit," the middle one is, by far, the most reasonable explanation.
If you believe this not to be the case, you should probably contact a research facility and become world famous for defying physics.
A scientific explanation exists for what happened to me. I don't know what it is, and clearly you do not know what it is. I know what it isn't: inaccurate logging.
You cannot say a scientific explanation exist for your situation if you don't even know what it is. You're guessing. You are just assuming there is an explanation. It's sort of like saying there is a conspiracy but can't say who's involved.
That's a silly statement. Of course a scientific explanation exists for it. It doesnt matter if the poster knows what it is. He can say a scientific explanation exists for it because that's an obvious statement. Unless it was magic. Of course he is assuming there is an explanation. Because there is an explanation.
Its nothing at all like saying there's a conspiracy with no proof - Everything has an explanation. Not everything is a conspiracy.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Something along the lines of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Enough time to establish a baseline, then 24 weeks (I think.)midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that under controlled conditions you will not gain weight eating below your RMR. Name an amount and we can start looking for somewhere to escrow the money and a lab that will monitor your results.midwesterner85 wrote: »It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
How much time? Three weeks?
I can't possibly put that much time into an experiment.
I would if someone is betting me like that poster is betting you.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Everyone keeps claiming they eat more or less than their BMR. Question: how do you know what your BMR even is? What the calculations say is just an estimate.
(I also think I lost really well--2-3 lb/week, in fact--during a period when I must have been under my BMR, but that it's not some certain number that we can easily know is a point worth making. Many people who think they are eating under their BMRs almost certainly are not, just given the rate at which they are losing.)
midwesterner mentioned RMR--did you have a test? [Edit: cross posted, so never mind.]
No, it was also based on an online calculator. I agree it is not perfect. If you want to ignore RMR or BMR and just look at it as that I was losing weight, cut calorie intake further, then gained weight; then it still defies MFP logic. The point of eating below RMR is that the calcuation of RMR compared to calorie allotment is what gave insight as to why I was gaining weight suddenly. That is what prompted me to increase calorie intake to previous levels, which caused weight loss again.0 -
I kind of wish someone would ask me to participate in an experiment, as at this point I need motivation to get back to it. I'm open for (almost) anything! :-) High sugar, low sugar, high fat, low fat, high deficit, low deficit. All for science, of course.
Well, I hate Twinkies, but that's been done.0 -
I'll go $500K, even odds.midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Something along the lines of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Enough time to establish a baseline, then 24 weeks (I think.)midwesterner85 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm willing to bet any amount of money you want that under controlled conditions you will not gain weight eating below your RMR. Name an amount and we can start looking for somewhere to escrow the money and a lab that will monitor your results.midwesterner85 wrote: »It depends on RMR. Based on my past experience, and adjusting to the numbers you provided, if TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 1,200 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then yes.
If TDEE is 1,800 and RMR is 800 and I'm eating 1,000 calories, then no... I would lose weight.
How much time? Three weeks?
I can't possibly put that much time into an experiment.
The hard part will be finding any scientist willing to subject you to that kind of weight loss.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's a really well-done article explaining what starvation mode is and what it is not,
and giving examples to easily disprove the myth that eating too little causes a person to gain weight.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
.
Nope. Absolutely not possible.midwesterner wrote:I once thought I could accellerate (sic) 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.
If that were true, there's no way I could have lost the 80 lb I have so far, because I've been eating
well less than my BMR for over a year.
Not BMR, but RMR.
Like I said, there must be a scientific explanation, I just don't know with certainty what it is. Whatever it is may not apply to you, but might apply to someone else.
It was probably water weight, but I can't really know for sure.
YOU know BMR and RMR are kind of the same. I actually just read a article of how you test both and BMR is more accurate than RMR.
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Everyone keeps claiming they eat more or less than their BMR. Question: how do you know what your BMR even is? What the calculations say is just an estimate.
(I also think I lost really well--2-3 lb/week, in fact--during a period when I must have been under my BMR, but that it's not some certain number that we can easily know is a point worth making. Many people who think they are eating under their BMRs almost certainly are not, just given the rate at which they are losing.)
midwesterner mentioned RMR--did you have a test? [Edit: cross posted, so never mind.]
No, it was also based on an online calculator. I agree it is not perfect. If you want to ignore RMR or BMR and just look at it as that I was losing weight, cut calorie intake further, then gained weight; then it still defies MFP logic. The point of eating below RMR is that the calcuation of RMR compared to calorie allotment is what gave insight as to why I was gaining weight suddenly. That is what prompted me to increase calorie intake to previous levels, which caused weight loss again.
We are cross-posting--I edited to clarify.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Everyone keeps claiming they eat more or less than their BMR. Question: how do you know what your BMR even is? What the calculations say is just an estimate.
(I also think I lost really well--2-3 lb/week, in fact--during a period when I must have been under my BMR, but that it's not some certain number that we can easily know is a point worth making. Many people who think they are eating under their BMRs almost certainly are not, just given the rate at which they are losing.)
midwesterner mentioned RMR--did you have a test? [Edit: cross posted, so never mind.]
No, it was also based on an online calculator. I agree it is not perfect. If you want to ignore RMR or BMR and just look at it as that I was losing weight, cut calorie intake further, then gained weight; then it still defies MFP logic. The point of eating below RMR is that the calcuation of RMR compared to calorie allotment is what gave insight as to why I was gaining weight suddenly. That is what prompted me to increase calorie intake to previous levels, which caused weight loss again.
We are cross-posting--I edited to clarify.
Sorry... I'm not sure what other thread you are on, but just for anyone who is curious.0 -
All, It's been an interesting conversation, but I have stuff to do.
Just try to keep in mind that not everyone's experience matches your knowledge or experience. Sometimes the "starvation mode" is used to explain what is truly unknown.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions