starvation mode
Options
Replies
-
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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
EvgeniZyntx 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.
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).
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.
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 pedant0 -
EvgeniZyntx 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.
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-loss0 -
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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
mamapeach910 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?0 -
Some people are completionists.yopeeps025 wrote: »mamapeach910 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?
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »mamapeach910 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.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »mamapeach910 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.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »mamapeach910 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.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »mamapeach910 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.html0 -
...0
-
...0
-
asflatasapancake wrote: »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
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
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 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
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions