starvation mode

Options
12345679»

Replies

  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 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.

    You may think it's a silly statement but it's not. He's claiming something exists that we know doesn't exist the way he says it does, he claims there is a scientific explanation for it but has no clue what it is. If he has no clue what the explanation is then how does he know there is scientific proof to support his stance?

    So before you call my statement silly try thinking it through first.

    His stance is likely wrong. There may or may not be scientific evidence to support his stance. But the is, without a shadow of a doubt, a scientific explanation for the facts.

    Its like saying that your car can't run if you misunderstand how a spark plug works ..

    It could very well be that his calculations are wrong and he doesn't know what he's doing so there doesn't "have to be" a scientific explanation. It could very well be he is the problem.

    There *IS* a scientific explanation for everything. Even his situation that he doesn't understand. This is not up for debate.

    There is a scientific explanation for his situation. Just because he is either missing or has misinterpreted data does not mean that science vanishes.

    So you're circling now towards the scientific explanation that he is eating more than he thinks right? If there is some other scientific explanation please enlighten me.

    Circling towards? I started there.

    So if you knew that I was saying he was doing the same thing you said he was doing then what was the purpose of you calling me statement silly? To play word games? That's silly. Please don't waste my time.

    You said "You cannot say a scientific explanation exist for your situation if you don't even know what it is." I'm upgrading that from silly to stupid.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    I just listened to that podcast with Lyle MacDonald. He talked at some length about the increase in cortisol and water retention with high deficits. He also discussed adaptation more generally, very interesting. It is the Sigma Nutrition podcast.
  • Eudoxy
    Eudoxy Posts: 391 Member
    Options
    MKEgal 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/

    .
    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.
    Nope. Absolutely not possible.
    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.

    And we've covered it here

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

    A lot of interesting information in that thread, thank you!
    (The link didn't work, I did a search for it).
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 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.

    You may think it's a silly statement but it's not. He's claiming something exists that we know doesn't exist the way he says it does, he claims there is a scientific explanation for it but has no clue what it is. If he has no clue what the explanation is then how does he know there is scientific proof to support his stance?

    So before you call my statement silly try thinking it through first.

    His stance is likely wrong. There may or may not be scientific evidence to support his stance. But the is, without a shadow of a doubt, a scientific explanation for the facts.

    Its like saying that your car can't run if you misunderstand how a spark plug works ..

    It could very well be that his calculations are wrong and he doesn't know what he's doing so there doesn't "have to be" a scientific explanation. It could very well be he is the problem.

    There *IS* a scientific explanation for everything. Even his situation that he doesn't understand. This is not up for debate.

    There is a scientific explanation for his situation. Just because he is either missing or has misinterpreted data does not mean that science vanishes.

    /start pedant
    Actually, there isn't. We recognize that a) our body of knowledge is limited b) non causal or non-repeatable phenomena may exist and cannot be explained
    /end pedant
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Eudoxy wrote: »
    MKEgal 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/

    .
    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.
    Nope. Absolutely not possible.
    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.

    And we've covered it here

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

    A lot of interesting information in that thread, thank you!
    (The link didn't work, I did a search for it).

    Sorry that was the link before the upgrade, here is the new link.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    sullus wrote: »
    MrM27 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.

    You may think it's a silly statement but it's not. He's claiming something exists that we know doesn't exist the way he says it does, he claims there is a scientific explanation for it but has no clue what it is. If he has no clue what the explanation is then how does he know there is scientific proof to support his stance?

    So before you call my statement silly try thinking it through first.

    His stance is likely wrong. There may or may not be scientific evidence to support his stance. But the is, without a shadow of a doubt, a scientific explanation for the facts.

    Its like saying that your car can't run if you misunderstand how a spark plug works ..

    It could very well be that his calculations are wrong and he doesn't know what he's doing so there doesn't "have to be" a scientific explanation. It could very well be he is the problem.

    There *IS* a scientific explanation for everything. Even his situation that he doesn't understand. This is not up for debate.

    There is a scientific explanation for his situation. Just because he is either missing or has misinterpreted data does not mean that science vanishes.

    So you're circling now towards the scientific explanation that he is eating more than he thinks right? If there is some other scientific explanation please enlighten me.

    Circling towards? I started there.

    So if you knew that I was saying he was doing the same thing you said he was doing then what was the purpose of you calling me statement silly? To play word games? That's silly. Please don't waste my time.

    You said "You cannot say a scientific explanation exist for your situation if you don't even know what it is." I'm upgrading that from silly to stupid.

    "He measured something wrong." Isn't much of a scientific explanation.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.

    You can be both type 1 and type 2?
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.

    You can be both type 1 and type 2?
    Some people are completionists.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.

    You can be both type 1 and type 2?

    Apparently. I really wish that thread still existed.

  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.

    You can be both type 1 and type 2?

    yep.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.

    You can be both type 1 and type 2?

    yep.

    I guess I do not know enough about it then because to be both kind of makes no sense.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    I don't know if this has any bearing on the subject, but another random thing I remember about the poster in question is that he's both a type 1 and a type 2 diabetic. And... there's something dodgy about the way he manages it.

    You can be both type 1 and type 2?

    yep.

    I guess I do not know enough about it then because to be both kind of makes no sense.

    To my understanding, it is when insulin resistance is seen in someone with type 1 diabetes.

    Here is an article that discusses the concept in some detail: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671104/

    Referred to as 'double diabetes' http://www.diabetes.co.uk/double-diabetes.html
  • branflakes1980
    branflakes1980 Posts: 2,516 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    ...
  • branflakes1980
    branflakes1980 Posts: 2,516 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    ...
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    Who knew a thread about starvation mode would go like this? I certainly didn't. Continue...

    It's only until we can continue how for a poster.

    eating below RMR and TDEE= gain weight