Lost only 2 pounds in 4 weeks! Help please

nicediva007

What most people are taught about weight loss and weight gain is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many other layers. Not sure if this particular case fits you, but at least you have more info now.

I think that will slowly back away from the conversation now. It's been real folks. Believe what you will. No skin off my back.

Good luck OP!

eshnna

I too have a desk job and ever since I got my fitness tracker I have been trying to put my 12k daily. In fact I do better during the workdays then on the weekends now. I have a scale and weigh most of my food. This is what is working for me.
- On days I know I want a special treat for dinner I eat shirataki noodles with about 150 grams of chicken. Very satisfying and the noodles are 0 calories!
- I always have a low calorie snack around. Jicama is my go to these days (with lots of chile and lime juice), other favorites are strawberries and blueberries.
- I get up every hour and do a quick walk around the office.
- I walk during my two 15min breaks. Take your breaks if you have them!
- I do 20 mins of exercise during my lunch break. - Then I get home and do at least 20 mins of exercise and then play chase with my daughter. I like to walk to jessicafitnesstv videos if I wake up in the early morning. She has the greatest walking videos.
- Lastly, I bought an under-the-desk strider (Stamina is the brand) for when I am too busy to get up for my walks. It is great because it also counts my steps.

The secret is to keep moving to get more calories burning!

kshama2001

Traveler120 wrote: »

If you're losing 0.5 lb/week, it means you're creating a 250 calorie deficit/day. That's the reality. The advice to eat more food (while keeping everything else constant) is bad advice that will only reduce your deficit and leave you losing even less. [snip]

Not saying it's the case for this OP, but often when people say they aren't losing weight while eating X, they are in fact underestimating what they eat. Because their goal is too aggressive, they are cheating, and not logging the cheats. When they heed the advice to set more realistic goals, such as to lose 0.5 pounds for every 25 pounds they want to lose, they then start to accurately log the amount of calories they are eating, and have better weight loss results. While on paper it appears they they are eating more, they are in fact eating less, and so losing more.

If @TiaGia101 is positive she is accurately logging her CI and CO, she could ask her doctor to be tested for issues like PCOS and thyroid that make it more difficult to lose weight.

Mezzie1024

I'm another one that thinks 0.5/week is a healthy loss.

A few things that stuck out from your posts:
1. You mentioned stopping certain exercises because of water weight gain. But if you know it's water weight, why would you stop? It doesn't last long (a couple weeks max for each major exercise change in my case; usually a week), and it doesn't keep you from losing the fat you want to lose. If anything, it helps you preserve muscle. Don't let a number on a scale keep you from healthy activity.

2. It seems that if you're tracking your calorie intake accurately, you're eating very little. I net at least a couple hundred calories more than you, I'm five inches shorter, and I've only got about four more pounds to lose. I eat 100% of my exercise calories, which I know doesn't work for everyone. My point is: if I'm smaller than you and losing on more calories, then something is innacurate. Maybe you retained water from the walking if that was new exercise for you. Maybe there's some menstrual bloating. Maybe you're eating more than you think. Heck, maybe I'm the one who's wrong, though I think with five months of consistent loss on track with what I've logged, I could make an argument that I'm not. I just don't think you need to be quite so restrictive to get reasonable results.

3. Patience takes a while to build. Sometimes I'll go a couple weeks with no change on the scale whatsoever, and then I'll suddenly drop a pound or more. That happened just this morning, in fact. Once you spend some time tracking your food and weight, you'll get used to the stalls and fluctuations and they won't concern you so much. You mentioned in a frustrated tone that 0.5/week loss would mean almost a year of this, and that's probably true, but think of it this way: that's nearly a year of going in the right direction (after all, if you give up, you'll make no progress) and learning about your body, calorie counting, and exercise. By the end of that year, you'll be ready to maintain your goal weight and you'll be less likely to gain everything you lost back. Should life circumstances be such that you do gain some back eventually, you'll know exactly what to do to get back on track. That time is an investment in your health, and you deserve it.

Besides, slow weight loss gives you time to save up for a new wardrobe when you hit your goal. Sometimes I feel like the only person who is relieved this is a slow process; if I could drop everything overnight, my budget would be shot.

Good luck to you. Many successful people on here started with similar frustrations, but they stuck with it and learned what worked for them. I hope to see you on here a year from now helping others get past those early frustrations.

kshama2001

Blueseraphchaos wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

At 1200 calories per day you should be losing two pounds per week not the half pound you're losing.
- You say you don't eat back all of your exercise calories. What percentage of them are you eating back?
- Are you sure you're logging all the food you eat? I have to be scrupulous to log anything I eat after I leave the computer for the night - I make sure I leave notes or dishes to remind me.

1200 doesn't mean you should be losing 2 lbs a week. it just means that mfp bottomed out when she selected her weight loss goal per week vs her height and weight and age.

if i ate 1200 calories a day, i'd only lose 1.5 lbs per week. if i wanted to lose 2 lbs per week, i'd have to eat 560 calories a day.....

She's 5'10" so I didn't think MFP would bottom out for her. What's another calculator that won't bottom out?

brianpperkins

nicediva007 wrote: »

kkenseth wrote: »

Starvation mode as you explained it here is NOT TRUE, and it doesn't work that way. You don't lose by eating more, you lose by logging accurately.

This is very inaccurate and unfortunately you don't seem like you're open to science that isn't one size fits all. Calories in/Calories out is a general rule that works 99.5% of the time, but don't forget our bodies are not robotic and they have mechanisms which protect us if we teeter of balance. I've advised several women (those who are postpartum, nursing, and also trying to lose on a severely restricted diet), and when they are only eating 1200 calories and still working out consistently with NO snacking, and STILL not losing, you can best believe they are in starvation mode.

Btw, my credentials are that I have a PhD in Organic Chemistry and I've been a successful volunteer fitness trainer for a few years.

Sorry for the snark but I'm just not wrong.

The scientific studies on the subject say you are wrong. Thanks for the laugh resulting from you telling others that they are not open to science while then advocating a disproved concept. The adaptive thermogenisis study does not advocate starvation mode as you presented it in this thread ... it actually counters it.

MKEgal

nicediva wrote:

I've been successful losing 15-20 lbs in about 10 weeks total with 5-6 days a week cardio/strength and a healthy diet within a specific calorie range of 1400-1600 cals per day.

If a person starts out morbidly obese, that's possible to do & could even be healthy.
I've done it.
Heck, there were several weeks last year that I lost 5 lb, and my doctors were perfectly pleased with my health.
But OP is at a healthy weight, trying to lose just a little more, so even losing 1 lb a month is good.

.

(physiologically, at least) there isn't anything wrong with losing it fast

Except gallstones.

.

I think you might be eating too few calories. If you have a lot of muscle mass already then your metabolic needs are likely higher and you could be in starvation mode, especially putting in 4 miles a day... If you restrict too much for your caloric needs it can often backfire.

She's _walking_ only 4 miles a day. That's maybe 300 calories.
And no, she's not in 'starvation mode'.
And no, she won't lose weight by eating more.
And no, starvation mode is not what you think it is.
And no, she's not likely put on (or retained) enough muscle mass from simply walking or running to
make a difference in metabolism.

http://www.ncsf.org/enew/articles/articles-poundofmuscle.aspx
"Sedentary muscle mass burns about 6 kcals per pound/day ...
Fat about 2 kcals per pound [per day]."

So if someone loses 20 lb of fat, they're down 40 cal/day.
If they also work very hard & put on 5 lb of muscle, they've added 30 cal/day.
So overall they're down 10 cal/day.
They do not need to eat more, they need to eat less.

If they work longer & harder, adding a total of 10 lb of muscle, they've added 60 cal/day,
so they'd only need 20 cal more than in the beginning. Have an ounce of apple.

.

Calories in/Calories out is a general rule that works 99.5% of the time... I've advised several women (those who are postpartum, nursing, and also trying to lose on a severely restricted diet), and when they are only eating 1200 calories and still working out consistently with NO snacking, and STILL not losing, you can best believe they are in starvation mode.

I hope they checked your advice with a doctor (MD), and did not follow it.
CICO works 100% of the time, because science.
If you are gaining weight, you're eating more than your body burns.
If you are losing weight, you're eating less than your body burns.
Period.
There are no exceptions.
If there is, and you've discovered it, you'll be getting the Nobel prize.
But how about you do a little humanitarian work first, teaching your trick to famine victims, so they don't DIE?

Read this. Then read it again.
Bookmark it so you can use it to explain to other newbies what "starvation mode" is and is not.
What you're thinking it is, it's not.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

The body needs energy (calories) to run.
It prefers to use glucose (blood sugar, easily-available carbs),
then it prefers to use glycogen (slightly more complex carbs stored in liver & muscles),
then it prefers to use fat,
and as a distant 4th it uses protein (muscles).
{Yes, we're all burning some of those all the time, but that's generally the order they're used.}

Burning muscle is starvation.
Part of the reason it's 4th is that it's an inefficient conversion. The body gets more energy per gram of
tissue from the other sources.
Also, it's a hail mary, hoping you will find (and EAT!) food before you lose so much muscle tissue that
you can't move, or can't eat, or can't breathe, or your heart stops.
It takes a long time of eating way below your healthy range to get there.

The body WILL NOT "hold onto" _any_ calories (fat) if you're eating below maintenance.
(Use a little common sense.)
If it did, anorexia wouldn't be deadly.
Neither would famine.
POW's would be robust, not walking skeletons.

MKEgal

BTW, weight loss is almost entirely due to controlling the CI, not increasing the CO.


"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake.
However, evidence shows the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html

MKEgal

pennell wrote:

I feel the same way. I am not losig much, if anything, and its been a bit more than a month here at about 1400 calories per day and 50-60 carbs per day. I have added exercise but not every day. Woonderingif I am eating too much or too little or not exercising enough or what? Suggestions?

Read these.
Especially read sexypants.


http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819925/the-basics-dont-complicate-it/p1

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/872212/youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p1

sheldonklein

nicediva007 wrote: »

Okay fine. Facts aren't facts until you back them up, right? I didn't provide the references because most people don't really understand the language in these journals; but since you asked I have listed several citations. You have now been given the additional knowledge, now it's up to you to interpret and apply. And I have more if you all actually go through these and read them! These are peer reviewed; meaning not any Joe Schmo offering an opinion can write in these journals, you need data and credentials. And again, I never said this is one size fits all. I offered one scenario for the OP. Not a life lesson for everyone. Sheesh.

CICO works but there is a minimum threshold for caloric intake that differs for everyone. 1200 cals a day is a general guideline not a static rule.


Major, et. al.Clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis. International Journal of Obesity. 2007 Feb;31(2):204-12.

Jason, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome versus neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome:differential attributions. Journal of Health & Social Policy 2003;18(1):43-55.

Muller, et. al. Adaptive thermogenesis with weight loss in humans. Obesity. Feb;21(2):218-228.

Rosenbaum, et. al. Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008;88(4): 906-912. nutrition.org

Camps, et. al. Weight loss, weight maintenance, and adaptive thermogenesis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2013;97(5):990-994.

Tremblay, et. al Adaptive reduction in thermogenesis and resistance to lose fat in obese men. British Journal of Nutrition. 2009;102(4):488-492.

Labayen, et. al. Role of baseline leptin and ghrelin levels on body weight and fat mass changes after an energy-restricted diet intervention in obese women: effects on energy metabolism. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2011;96(6):E996-1000.

I don't have time to read all of these, but I did read the Muller article and it doesn't remotely support your argument. No has argued that Adaptive Thermogenesis doesn't exist. But it does not mean that you'll gain weight if you eat to little and it doesn't mean you can eat more to lose more.

Contrary03

I agree with nicediva007, it's possible you're eating too few calories. I've gotten down to my goal weight before eating 1200 cal's without any exercise. I gained 15 lb back by falling off the counting cal's wagon and eating junk a few years ago. Now i went back to that drill but added LOTS of exercise and guess what? NO LOSS. Upped my cal's and BINGO! Scale went down. You're body needs fuel. 1200 cal's aren't for everyone. I hope to see the 130's by next week and i'll adjust my cal's down a little at a time from there. Good luck!

MKEgal

nicediva wrote:

Starvation mode is a real phenomenon, one that doesn't present itself in every case of under eating, but it is real. Especially at the onset when the body is confused and trying to conserve energy.
Starvation mode is also symptomatic of no weight loss whatsoever because the body is STORING fat and glycogen.

The body is not 'confused', and it will not store energy (fat & glycogen) if there is not enough energy
to run the body. It will use what is available, both from food & from body tissues.
.

It has been shown in peer reviewed journals that increasing caloric intake can "convince" the body that it can safely expend energy which causes the metabolism to increase.

Then she suggests these as examples of studies to back her opinion.
(While implying that people won't understand it. Hint: that's the duty of the person making the argument,
to support her/his claims & make people understand why they are correct.)
I've supplied links to the abstracts, some of which have links to the free articles, or you can use
google scholar to see if the whole text is available.


Major, et. al.Clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis. International Journal of Obesity. 2007 Feb;31(2):204-12.
Does not appear to support her opinions, only says that sometimes the body burns less than expected.
(Therefore the CO part of the CICO equation is lower than expected, so the person needs to eat less.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
"studies that have shown in obese individuals adhering to a weight reduction program a greater than predicted decrease in energy expenditure, which in some cases was quantitatively sufficient to overcome the prescribed energy restriction, suggesting a role for adaptive thermogenesis in unsuccessful weight loss interventions and reduced body weight maintenance"



Muller, et. al. Adaptive thermogenesis with weight loss in humans. Obesity. Feb;21(2):218-228.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404923
Says that adaptive thermogenesis doesn't appear to be a thing, hasn't been proven.
"Adaptive thermogenesis (AT) with weight loss refers to underfeeding-associated fall in resting and non-resting energy expenditure, independent of body weight and body composition.
In humans, the existence of AT was inconsistently shown and its clinical significance has been questioned.
The biological basis of AT as well as the influences of age, sex, obesity, stress, and inflammation remain to be established in humans."



Rosenbaum, et. al. Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008;88(4): 906-912. nutrition.org
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775
"Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss."
So these people think that AT is a thing, and can affect weight regain.
But still, it's just CICO, only the CO is lower than expected.



Camps, et. al. Weight loss, weight maintenance, and adaptive thermogenesis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2013;97(5):990-994.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23535105
"The aim of this study was to investigate whether adaptive thermogenesis is sustained during weight maintenance after weight loss.
Weight loss results in adaptive thermogenesis, and there is no indication for a change in adaptive thermogenesis up to 1 year, when weight loss is maintained."
Again, if you lose weight, your RMR goes down, so this is not a surprise.



Tremblay, et. al Adaptive reduction in thermogenesis and resistance to lose fat in obese men. British Journal of Nutrition. 2009;102(4):488-492.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
Says AT is a thing.
"The adaptive reduction in thermogenesis at plateau was substantial and represented 30.9% of the compensation in energy balance that led to resistance to further lose body weight. In conclusion, these results show that adaptive reduction in thermogenesis may contribute to the occurrence of resistance to lose fat in obese men subjected to a weight-reducing programme."



These last 2 appear to have nothing to do with the topic under discussion here.

Labayen, et. al. Role of baseline leptin and ghrelin levels on body weight and fat mass changes after an energy-restricted diet intervention in obese women: effects on energy metabolism. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2011;96(6):E996-1000.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21470990
"Obese women with higher leptin and lower ghrelin levels at baseline seem to be more resistant to fat mass loss."


Jason, et al. Chronic fatigue syndrome versus neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome:differential attributions. Journal of Health & Social Policy 2003;18(1):43-55.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15189800
"Nurses and physician assistants (PAs) were presented a case study ... They were told that the patient had either "chronic fatigue syndrome," "chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome," or "chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome, which had formerly been called chronic fatigue syndrome."
The different terms led to different attributions, with PA respondents rating the "CNDS" label as more severe.
Results suggest that a more medical sounding term (CNDS) may lead to attributions that this syndrome is a more serious, disabling illness.
The policy implications of these findings are discussed."

MKEgal

nicediva wrote:

Okay fine. Facts aren't facts until you back them up, right? I didn't provide the references because most people don't really understand the language in these journals

Science works whether or not a person knows why or believes in it, because it's science, not religion.

But if you want to persuade people to your point of view, you have to explain why they should.
Argument to authority (I have a degree, so believe what I say; here are some studies I say back my opinion,
so believe me) doesn't fly. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Neither do insults.

What does work is what I did in my post just above.
Show what the experts say, explain language that is probably above the level of most people, give a link so they
can read it themselves, explain why what they say supports your opinion... when it does.

.

sheldonklein wrote:

Nobody has argued that Adaptive Thermogenesis doesn't exist.
But it does not mean that you'll gain weight if you eat too little and it doesn't mean you can eat more to lose more.

Yes. This.

nicediva007

I was responding to the tenor of everyone else, however, if I offended or insulted, I do apologize. I will make effort to work on my delivery.

With that said, I'm done with the discussion.

Have a great Sunday!

TiaGia101

kshama2001 wrote: »

Traveler120 wrote: »

If you're losing 0.5 lb/week, it means you're creating a 250 calorie deficit/day. That's the reality. The advice to eat more food (while keeping everything else constant) is bad advice that will only reduce your deficit and leave you losing even less. [snip]

Not saying it's the case for this OP, but often when people say they aren't losing weight while eating X, they are in fact underestimating what they eat. Because their goal is too aggressive, they are cheating, and not logging the cheats. When they heed the advice to set more realistic goals, such as to lose 0.5 pounds for every 25 pounds they want to lose, they then start to accurately log the amount of calories they are eating, and have better weight loss results. While on paper it appears they they are eating more, they are in fact eating less, and so losing more.

If @TiaGia101 is positive she is accurately logging her CI and CO, she could ask her doctor to be tested for issues like PCOS and thyroid that make it more difficult to lose weight.

Thanks. I've had a full physical and have no thyroid or any such issues including PCOS, fortunately.

TiaGia101

Maybe I should have mentioned that I'm 38 years old. Maybe this has something to do with my metabolism slowing down? As I said, the hardest thing is for me to add activity to offset all the hours I spend on my butt at work or in my car commuting. I enjoy my long aftetnoon walks because it clears my head. I used to run but after I broke my foot a few years back I struggled to get back into it. I also do Pilates once or twice a week. Not a big calorie burner, I know, but it helps the tension I build up in my back. I'm really committed to MFP because I could easily overeat it I weren't counting calories. Also, workingn out more makes me famished with hunger and then I'm more likely to overeat my exercise calories. Catch 22...

Blueseraphchaos

kshama2001 wrote: »

Blueseraphchaos wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

At 1200 calories per day you should be losing two pounds per week not the half pound you're losing.
- You say you don't eat back all of your exercise calories. What percentage of them are you eating back?
- Are you sure you're logging all the food you eat? I have to be scrupulous to log anything I eat after I leave the computer for the night - I make sure I leave notes or dishes to remind me.

1200 doesn't mean you should be losing 2 lbs a week. it just means that mfp bottomed out when she selected her weight loss goal per week vs her height and weight and age.

if i ate 1200 calories a day, i'd only lose 1.5 lbs per week. if i wanted to lose 2 lbs per week, i'd have to eat 560 calories a day.....

She's 5'10" so I didn't think MFP would bottom out for her. What's another calculator that won't bottom out?

I haven't been able to read her profile and don't know her stats (although someone mentioned she didn't have much to lose), but height doesn't so much as everything put together. Mfp will bottom out for anyone.

I had an app on my phone that did not bottom out, but i can't remember what it was now...but it was funny putting stats in and watching it tell me this person would have to eat 355 calories a day, that person 1256, me 560...lol

Blueseraphchaos

MKEgal wrote: »

nicediva wrote:

I've been successful losing 15-20 lbs in about 10 weeks total with 5-6 days a week cardio/strength and a healthy diet within a specific calorie range of 1400-1600 cals per day.

If a person starts out morbidly obese, that's possible to do & could even be healthy.
I've done it.
Heck, there were several weeks last year that I lost 5 lb, and my doctors were perfectly pleased with my health.
But OP is at a healthy weight, trying to lose just a little more, so even losing 1 lb a month is good.

.

(physiologically, at least) there isn't anything wrong with losing it fast

Except gallstones.

.

I think you might be eating too few calories. If you have a lot of muscle mass already then your metabolic needs are likely higher and you could be in starvation mode, especially putting in 4 miles a day... If you restrict too much for your caloric needs it can often backfire.

She's _walking_ only 4 miles a day. That's maybe 300 calories.
And no, she's not in 'starvation mode'.
And no, she won't lose weight by eating more.
And no, starvation mode is not what you think it is.
And no, she's not likely put on (or retained) enough muscle mass from simply walking or running to
make a difference in metabolism.

http://www.ncsf.org/enew/articles/articles-poundofmuscle.aspx
"Sedentary muscles burns about 6 kcals per pound/day ...
Fat about 2 kcals per pound [per day]."

So if someone loses 20 lb of fat, they're down 40 cal/day.
If they also work very hard & put on 5 lb of muscle, they've added 30 cal/day.
So overall they're down 10 cal/day.
They do not need to eat more, they need to eat less.

If they work longer & harder, adding a total of 10 lb of muscle, they've added 60 cal/day,
so they'd only need 20 cal more than in the beginning. Have an ounce of apple.

.

Calories in/Calories out is a general rule that works 99.5% of the time... I've advised several women (those who are postpartum, nursing, and also trying to lose on a severely restricted diet), and when they are only eating 1200 calories and still working out consistently with NO snacking, and STILL not losing, you can best believe they are in starvation mode.

I hope they checked your advice with a doctor (MD), and did not follow it.
CICO works 100% of the time, because science.
If you are gaining weight, you're eating more than your body burns.
If you are losing weight, you're eating less than your body burns.
Period.
There are no exceptions.
If there is, and you've discovered it, you'll be getting the Nobel prize.
But how about you do a little humanitarian work first, teaching your trick to famine victims, so they don't DIE?

Read this. Then read it again.
Bookmark it so you can use it to explain to other newbies what "starvation mode" is and is not.
What you're thinking it is, it's not.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

The body needs energy (calories) to run.
It prefers to use glucose (blood sugar, easily-available carbs),
then it prefers to use glycogen (slightly more complex carbs stored in liver & muscles),
then it prefers to use fat,
and as a distant 4th it uses protein (muscles).
{Yes, we're all burning some of those all the time, but that's generally the order they're used.}

Burning muscle is starvation.
Part of the reason it's 4th is that it's an inefficient conversion. The body gets more energy per gram of
tissue from the other sources.
Also, it's a hail mary, hoping you will find (and EAT!) food before you lose so much muscle tissue that
you can't move, or can't eat, or can't breathe, or your heart stops.
It takes a long time of eating way below your healthy range to get there.

The body WILL NOT "hold onto" _any_ calories (fat) if you're eating below maintenance.
(Use a little common sense.)
If it did, anorexia wouldn't be deadly.
Neither would famine.
POW's would be robust, not walking skeletons.

+1, i would have been this thorough before but i am on painkillers.

Also, i just KNEW that all the "starvation mode" links were going to be about adaptive thermogenesis. But none of us are smart enough to comprehend, let alone actually take a correct guess as to what will happen next

Blueseraphchaos

Also, OP, .5 lbs a week is my goal at the moment...so i'd say you're doing well. Keep at it!