is starvation mode real?
Replies
-
-
hissweetpea461 wrote: »
0 -
Believe it or not sometimes eating more calories for a period promotes weight loss.0
-
Maybe my information is messed up I'm not 130 overweight. Thank God. Im 40 still NOT great.0
-
Only use measuring cups/spoons with liquids. Solids need to be weighed on a food scale in order to be accurate.
I'm not exercising but I'm still losing weight. Exercise is good for health but it's not required for weight loss.
I'm weighing my solid food with a food scale and that's the number one thing that's helped me keep track of my calorie intake accurately.
0 -
Okay so i need to get a food scale. I definitely will. Thank you.0
-
Weighing your food is probably the first step you need to take. In terms of weight loss, it doesn't matter what you eat but how much, so weighing is key. I'll guarantee you'll be surprised at the difference between measuring with a cup and actually weighing out exact portions.0
-
sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Right. What that guy said is malarkey. Doesn't exist. I stupidly did a VLCD program many years ago. They set you at 800 calories a day. They had rules at what you could eat and when....yadda yadda. I worked out quite a bit as well. I lost a crap ton of weight. I never had a weigh in that I didn't. I also wasn't healthy. I'd never do that again, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that my body didn't go into starvation mode or flip out....mainly because both do not exist.sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Since my response was deleted i will simply post this link.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
So NO my example is spot on and not "malarky" as you so eloquently put0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal
definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.0 -
angelexperiment wrote: »hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.
In response to this, let me just hang this here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Faithful_Chosen/view/why-you-should-eat-to-your-mfp-goal-including-true-exercise-calories-7639820 -
If your nutritionist told you that you might be in starvation mode, you need a new one. Preferably a registered dietitian. Many nutritionists can get certified with little more than a weekend course.hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
I concur with others, a food scale is what you need along with diligently tracking everything you eat. Sounds like you are just starting on MFP, welcome. Read the helpful links provided above, especially the sexy pants thread.
Good luck!
0 -
angelexperiment wrote: »hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.
"Nutritionist" and "nutritionalists" are titles with no defined qualifications, required education or certification, etc. There are groupons for non-vetted, non-accredited courses that will give you a certificate. It isn't much different than becoming "ordained" via an online site that requires nothing more than simply providing your name and receiving a print it yourself certificate.
"Killing your metabolism" is a time consuming process that results from loss of lean mass and damage to organs ... not something that happens because you ate too little for a few days. What really happens is adaptive thermogenesis ... not starvation mode or killed metabolism ... the actual reduced calories out due to the loss of the body's capability to burn calories at rest compared to a normal human being.
The one thing your example and the OP have in common is admitted inaccurate logging. In fact, a quick glimpse at your diary shows you still don't accurately log for precise caloric counts.0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Right. What that guy said is malarkey. Doesn't exist. I stupidly did a VLCD program many years ago. They set you at 800 calories a day. They had rules at what you could eat and when....yadda yadda. I worked out quite a bit as well. I lost a crap ton of weight. I never had a weigh in that I didn't. I also wasn't healthy. I'd never do that again, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that my body didn't go into starvation mode or flip out....mainly because both do not exist.sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Since my response was deleted i will simply post this link.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
So NO my example is spot on and not "malarky" as you so eloquently put
Your example is a blog, without a listed author, that links to other blogs on the site for references (not even a true citation), and tells people to buy a book off of Amazon.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JustAnotherThursday wrote: »angelexperiment wrote: »hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.
Just because someone went to school for something doesn't mean they are good at it. You say that person shouldn't listen to strangers on the Internet but they should listen to you because you believe the same thing the nutritionist does? Because you feel for the same false information? Sorry, doesn't work that way.
There is an assumption that a "nutritionist" actually went to school. In many cases that "school" is nothing more than a couple hour seminar or online slideshow.0 -
I'm my experience yes
I am very active and was gaining weight.
At that time do to how busy my days were I was only eating dinner which was around 600 calories give or take.
I didn't start loseing weight till I started eating the right amount of calories.
Joke in my house is I have to eat like a pig to lose weight0 -
This content has been removed.
-
angelexperiment wrote: »hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.
0 -
Yes, I'm llistening to my nutritionist first, just wanted more input. He suggested to divide up my caloric intake into six meals a day. I'm having difficulties doing this. I'm not use to eating more often anymore.0
-
hissweetpea461 wrote: »I've been eating under 1200 calories for over a year and no weight has come off. So now two months no sugar still no weight coming off. I seem to be stuck and want to get to a healthy size for me.
0 -
I'm not saying that I'm in starvation mode. I asked if it's real. I'm having difficulties losing weight. I weigh 183 and have lots of muscle mass med bone structure height 5"5" going through menopause (48) facing hysterectomy and gallbladder problems...0
-
hissweetpea461 wrote: »I've been eating under 1200 calories for over a year and no weight has come off. So now two months no sugar still no weight coming off. I seem to be stuck and want to get to a healthy size for me.
Chances are you are eating more than you realize, otherwise you would have lost weight on so few calories.
Do you weigh your food? Log everything you eat? Log exercise calories and eat them back?
Open your diary if you want specific information.0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Starvation mode is a myth. In order to have it, you have to be emaciated and have lost a certain amount of body weight, including lean muscle mass. You're not in starvation mode (thank goodness, because I don't think you want that).
Anybody can call themselves a nutritionist, and they are often wrong (in this case, yours is wrong in saying you are killing your metabolism), but dietitians have a formal education and many states have licensing requirements. Chuck the nutritionist and get a dietitian instead.0 -
sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
Nope (as to the bold).
0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Yes, I'm llistening to my nutritionist first, just wanted more input. He suggested to divide up my caloric intake into six meals a day. I'm having difficulties doing this. I'm not use to eating more often anymore.
This is where the "nutritionist" is wrong. You can eat whenever you want in the day as long as you're still creating a caloric defecit. You don't need to divide it up into six meals. Yes, there are some people that this work for them and that's great, but there are many people who do not do this (myself included) and still lose the weight because they're eating the correct amount of calories.0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »I'm not saying that I'm in starvation mode. I asked if it's real. I'm having difficulties losing weight. I weigh 183 and have lots of muscle mass med bone structure height 5"5" going through menopause (48) facing hysterectomy and gallbladder problems...
Ok... so how many calories does MFP say you should be eating? when you put your stats in, it should spit out a number of what you SHOULD be NETTING?? what is that number?
Are you logging EVERYTHING you are eating?
Weighing and Measuring foods is very important... (weighing solids, measuring liquids)
Eating back exercise calories: There is some debate over this... but i suggest eating back 1/2 of your cals.
you say you are eating well under 1200 calories a day? this is 1. not healthy (minimum recommended is 1200 for women)
You have some medical issues going on that might also be causing some of this....0 -
A. Lyle McDonald is a legit expert on sports nutrition. He summarizes plenty of relevant researchbrianpperkins wrote: »sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Right. What that guy said is malarkey. Doesn't exist. I stupidly did a VLCD program many years ago. They set you at 800 calories a day. They had rules at what you could eat and when....yadda yadda. I worked out quite a bit as well. I lost a crap ton of weight. I never had a weigh in that I didn't. I also wasn't healthy. I'd never do that again, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that my body didn't go into starvation mode or flip out....mainly because both do not exist.sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Since my response was deleted i will simply post this link.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
So NO my example is spot on and not "malarky" as you so eloquently put
Your example is a blog, without a listed author, that links to other blogs on the site for references (not even a true citation), and tells people to buy a book off of Amazon.
B. His recommendation for Sapolosky's book (which is a good book BTW) was an off-hand reference to where you could in depth learn about cortisol and the problems that happen when human stress is habitually active instead of running intermittently.
C. Arb0037 wording is, I think, part of the issue. What Lyle is talking about as most of the issue is water retention. He in his article he linked back to, there is also possible fat loss in a nondeficit for physique competitors who, ended their competition diet, have their body in state to store carbs as glycogen rather than use them, so that fat continues to burn from the system.0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Yes, I'm llistening to my nutritionist first, just wanted more input. He suggested to divide up my caloric intake into six meals a day. I'm having difficulties doing this. I'm not use to eating more often anymore.
That's something that's completely unnecessary. Let me ask, did you lose weight on 1200 calories for some period of time before the weight loss stopped? If yes, then yeah, at this point you might want to try reverse dieting. But if you have been thinking you're eating 1200 from day one, and haven't lost anything since day one, then you're not eating 1200.0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »I'm not saying that I'm in starvation mode. I asked if it's real. I'm having difficulties losing weight. I weigh 183 and have lots of muscle mass med bone structure height 5"5" going through menopause (48) facing hysterectomy and gallbladder problems...
Run MFP to get an estimate of what you should eat to lose 1 lb/week. That will be a good calorie goal. If you do a good bit of exercise eat back at least half the calories.
You want an accurate estimate of what you are really eating, so it's best to weigh foods and if you open your diary people can look over it to see if you are choosing accurate entries.
There are reasons not to eat too low, definitely, and I'd not recommend eating below 1200, but it's really unusual for someone to not lose eating below 1200 so if someone isn't losing it's important to rule out logging issues first. There are tons of studies about how off the average effort to track calories is, even when done by nutritionists.
If you are eating below 1200 and not losing, that's information to take to a doctor. With the nutritionist being so sure that's going on and wanting you to eat more, I wonder (although this may be entirely off base) if you have had issues with eating disorders in the past?
Strategies like "eat 6 meals per day" are often used to help people eat less (by not getting as hungry) or--as it sounds like the goal is here--to help people eat more. (I always eat more if I eat more often.) It won't affect whether you lose or not beyond that. If the nutritionist explains this, that's great. I think too often nutritionists either buy into the kinds of unscientific ideas about losing weight that one will pick up from women's magazines or, as is probably often the case, fail to explain to people why they are trying these things and suggest things like "if you eat too little your body holds onto fat" or "if you eat more often your metabolism will speed up." If I heard either of those things (not suggesting you have), I'd immediately fire the person, as whether they actually believe it or are saying it because they think I need that kind of explanation, I wouldn't find it acceptable.0 -
Ok, so here's my two cents.
1. Check what your daily calorie intake should be. I would recommend using another online calculator (maybe two or three) and check the results. The reason is that calculators have different ideas of what 'sedentary' and 'active' actually are. You'll probably find that MFP is going to be in the same range as those, and that's fine. But always good to double check.
2. Get a digital scale. I understand weighing EVERYTHING is a pain the *kitten*!! I hated doing it, and there were times I didn't. But my weight loss was more consistent when I was weighing. Now, three years later, I don't break out the scale that much since I've started learning what a proper portion actually is (and my body is willing to accept that proper portion as enough instead of wanting more), but I do still weigh from time to time and I do log everything, even if it's estimates. But it's best to do it starting out because what you're trying to do isn't just lose weight. You're retraining your brain and body into better eating habits and what a proper portion size is so you don't end up eating a lot extra down the road. It's slow, but effective.
3. Exercise isn't necessary for weight loss. It's good for other things, but if you're not exercising, don't stress it. If feel you need to start, it's ok to start slow and build. If you are exercising, be aware that MFP is notorious for over-estimating your calorie burn! Again, it uses a general set of stats to calculate, and there are a LOT of variables involved. This is why it's recommended to only eat back about half of what MFP tells you that you burned. If you want to be more accurate, get a heart rate monitor and calculate it yourself.
4. Time of day you eat doesn't matter. You can eat three meals, six meals, 10 meals, 2 meals, whatever you want. As long as the sum total of those meals is at your daily calorie goal, you're fine. If you want to know what works best for you, you can either try several methods, or what I would suggest is log everything for a week or two while eating like normal. Log times you eat and when you get hungry. Then, split up your calories accordingly. You might be someone that does best on six meals a day. You might be someone that is fine skipping breakfast, having a light lunch, a heavy dinner and leaving room for late night snacking. Everyone's different, so you need to work out what works best for you.
5. If after all that, with weighing and logging accurately for at least a month, you're still having issues with not losing, take it to your doctor. They are going to be the best person to work this out with, and they can recommend a proper licensed dietitian if you want to work with one. You may just have the wrong target, or there may be an underling medical issue. Either way, we're internet strangers. We can give advice on what we've done to lose weight, but only your doctor can give you proper medical advice.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
- 426 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