Starving myself FAT
tlroof
Posts: 3 Member
My epiphany. I recently realized that I was literally starving myself to a fatter me. It's so hard to figure out what to believe in the world of weight loss but this is true! We cannot starve ourselves and get results! I have a very active job working outside since April of this year and I thought I would definitely see some weight loss. I decided to skip breakfast and lunch, eat a late snack and then a small dinner and I hadn't lost a lb! I'm not a 'breakfast person' but I've been forcing myself to eat in the morning, eat lunch each day and an earlier dinner. In the last three days the scale has gone down. I'm sure I'll plateau after I lose water weight but it's good info to get the ball rolling! Eat!
0
Replies
-
Hi I know what you mean. Not eating just makes it worse, doesn't help at all. It's like the body hits in reverse gear.0
-
Your body doesn't work that way. If you're starving yourself, you'll lose weight. But eating that little could set people up for binges, which would negate their progress.
You don't have to eat breakfast if you don't want to; just fit those calories in at a later time.0 -
That's actually not quite how it works. Meal timing and frequency don't matter in terms of weight loss. The only thing that matters is how many calories is consumed and how many are burned.
Perhaps you do actually do better eating breakfast which translates to eating less calories at lunch and dinner. If it works for you, great. But it's not needed or required.
Personally, I have to have breakfast. I'm a total breakfast person. But I tend to eat more calories if I skip breakfast.0 -
The body is an amazing machine, but from what I have read here, weight loss is calories in, calories out and it doesn't matter when you eat the calories. Try accurately tracking your calories for a while by weighing and measuring your food. I just started this and there is a 20-30% difference in the actual number of calories from what I thought I was eating by just estimating.
Good luck to you!0 -
There is no such thing as starving yourself fat. Read up on the Irish prison hunger strikes in the 70's.0
-
I think you were on intermittent fasting which is good as long as you don't over eat on your eating time. I have been doing it for 6 weeks and lost 10lbs.0
-
Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.0
-
Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.0 -
Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.
Yes, I understand the deficit, science thing
I also know that many who are not losing and up their calories, start to lose. Heck, I cannot explain it, but I can say from experience that it's a fact. Everyone is different and we need to find what works best for us 0 -
Or could she be eating less at the end of the day and making better choices because she isn't skipping meals anymore. Maybe she's eating more often but fewer calories. Most people I know who skip breakfast and lunch end up really eating more than they think they do at night.0
-
You do not understand how weight loss works. It helps if you know what you are talking abojt and that means doing some basic research or you will end up deluding yourself with crazy ideas.0
-
Wii_Player wrote: »Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.
Yes, I understand the deficit, science thing I also know that many who are not losing and up their calories, start to lose. Heck, I cannot explain it, but I can say from experience that it's a fact. Everyone is different and we need to find what works best for us
Nope. They aren't eating more, they just aren't tracking their calories correctly .0 -
-
Sadly I starved myself a few times in my early twenties. Lost weight every time0
-
If I don't eat enough, I move less. You don't have to eat breakfast, but fueling up helps me get going in the morning.0
-
OP is talking about a few days of not eating and a few days of eating properly. This is not enough time to prove anything.0
-
Wii_Player wrote: »Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.
Yes, I understand the deficit, science thing I also know that many who are not losing and up their calories, start to lose. Heck, I cannot explain it, but I can say from experience that it's a fact. Everyone is different and we need to find what works best for us
No. The "science thing" works for everyone.
0 -
Wii_Player wrote: »Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.
Yes, I understand the deficit, science thing I also know that many who are not losing and up their calories, start to lose. Heck, I cannot explain it, but I can say from experience that it's a fact. Everyone is different and we need to find what works best for us
Nope. My theory is that they weren't tracking with 100% accuracy and were having "just a bite" too often. When they upped their calories, their self-sabotaging came to an end because they stopped seeing what they ate in red.
From MY experience, if you eat more, you notice a water weight gain, which occasionally does drop off rather sharply.0 -
Your body doesn't work that way. If you're starving yourself, you'll lose weight. But eating that little could set people up for binges, which would negate their progress.
You don't have to eat breakfast if you don't want to; just fit those calories in at a later time.
OP, the "Starvation Mode" you described does NOT exist. It just doesn't. It's a bunch of hogwash that needs to just die already and quit being spread around. You were likely overcompensating at dinner for skipping breakfast and lunch and that was the cause of the no loss. Your body was starving after all day not eating! You are likely losing now because you are no longer letting yourself get so darned hungry before eating.
0 -
But I tend to eat more calories if I skip breakfast.
Just an example for others that everyone is different and they have to find what works for them. I don't eat breakfast and if I do I actually wind up hungrier and eating more calories during the day then if I skip it and eat my first meal at 11 to noon-ish. It's like my brain says "oh we can eat now? Let's get started!" if I eat any earlier.
0 -
barbecuesauce wrote: »Wii_Player wrote: »Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.
Yes, I understand the deficit, science thing I also know that many who are not losing and up their calories, start to lose. Heck, I cannot explain it, but I can say from experience that it's a fact. Everyone is different and we need to find what works best for us
Nope. My theory is that they weren't tracking with 100% accuracy and were having "just a bite" too often. When they upped their calories, their self-sabotaging came to an end because they stopped seeing what they ate in red.
From MY experience, if you eat more, you notice a water weight gain, which occasionally does drop off rather sharply.
That's my theory as well. When you are very hungry, it's much easier to take "just a small bite" and not record it, fooling yourself into thinking it didn't count because it was so small. When you up your calories to a level that doesn't leave you so hungry, you are much less likely to do this and your logging becomes much more accurate - thus a loss!0 -
starvation mode... http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/ temporary but true and can be combated with exercise.0
-
starvation mode... http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/ temporary but true and can be combated with exercise.
Authority nutrition is a crackpot site
Starvation mode does not exist in the way some dieters like to imagine it does0 -
starvation mode... http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/ temporary but true and can be combated with exercise.
Exercise combats nothing but a lack of fitness.0 -
Wii_Player wrote: »Wii_Player wrote: »Basically she is saying that now that she is eating more calories rather than starving herself, the scale is moving.
If she was starving herself the scale would have been going down then, because you know deficit, science thing.
OP make sure weigh all solid foods and measure liquids only.
Yes, I understand the deficit, science thing I also know that many who are not losing and up their calories, start to lose. Heck, I cannot explain it, but I can say from experience that it's a fact. Everyone is different and we need to find what works best for us
Discussion is kind of pointless when you have your own special "science thing". I bet there are as many sciences as there are overweight people.0 -
NO!0
-
I am working with a Nutritionist through my insurance company. She explained that if you eat too little your body starts out gaining weight because the body starts storing the food to protect itself.
I was told that I needed to eat 1200 calories spread out through 5 mini-meals a day. She had me set up an account here on MFP. I started gaining weight after a car wreck. I am almost always nauseated so it has been hard to eat, combined with all the medication I am on.
Basically I eat 3 small meals and 2 snacks a day. I have never been on a diet so it is interesting to log in my food and see how low the calories are. I have only been doing this for 4 days and I have only been able to hit 1200 calories once. I have dropped 2 pounds, but I am guessing that is water weight. I do hope each of you reach your goals.0 -
I had the same thing, I was eating under 1000 callories a day and couldnt lose weight, ive never ate that much, but I spoke to afew slimming experts and they said I was under eating, for 2 weeks ive ate breakfast every morning and made sure I eat enough callories in the day and ive lost 4lb!
I had the same thing before, I was with a slimming company called bitesize and they told me to eat more, I upped my callories and I lost a stone and half.
People automatically think if you dont eat enough you'll lose weight its not true, a hunger strike is different theres no food going in the body, whereas if your eating a small amount through the day your body will go into starvation mode and store the food.
Keep your callories 1200 or above and see what happens, its worked for me both times.
Also I try not to eat after 6pm as your less active after this time.0 -
Natalierae886 wrote: »People automatically think if you dont eat enough you'll lose weight its not true, a hunger strike is different theres no food going in the body, whereas if your eating a small amount through the day your body will go into starvation mode and store the food.
As others have said this is not physically possible. Your body needs energy no matter what, so if what you eat is less than what it needs you cannot store fat. Some people find that if they eat too little their activity level drops off a lot so the calories they need go down, but you would just lose less than expected then, not store fat.
Not that I'm recommending it, but anorectics generally don't eat nothing at all and yet lose weight. Same with people who have inadequate food supply.
What normally happens to dieters is that they eat too little and set themselves up for overeating at a later time, either binging or snacking that they forget or other meals that are larger than planned/they think. It is definitely much better and easier to eat a sustainable, sensible number of calories, but starvation mode as in "if I eat too little I'll gain weight" is not a thing.Keep your callories 1200 or above and see what happens, its worked for me both times.
This is good advice, just not for the reasons stated.Also I try not to eat after 6pm as your less active after this time.
It makes no difference when you eat. Your body will burn it off if you are overall eating below maintenance. Your metabolism doesn't stop/doesn't need you to be active to work and you would burn it off in the morning even if you didn't at night. Don't over complicate.0 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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