is starvation mode real?
Options
Replies
-
Take it slow and steady. Don't try to drop much very fast. You are making a change in your lifestyle not going on a diet. Good luck0
-
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Not weighing it, but measuring. 1 cup etc. Mostly no meat, no canned foods.
0 -
Why no meat? Are you a vegetarian? Are you getting enough protein? (I realize you can as a vegetarian or without eating meat, but on low calories it's something to watch out for.)0
-
"No meat" could be your problem. A lot of people cannot lose on a low-protein diet, and it's hard to get enough protein if you don't eat meat. Start eating a lot of broiled fish, roast chicken, and minimize bread, potatoes, rice, and sweets. Eggs are also a good protein source. Boil up several at a time and keep them handy in the fridge.
Load up on vegetables. Fresh is better than canned, but I've never heard anywhere that canned was *bad*.
0 -
must_deflate wrote: »"No meat" could be your problem. A lot of people cannot lose on a low-protein diet, and it's hard to get enough protein if you don't eat meat. Start eating a lot of broiled fish, roast chicken, and minimize bread, potatoes, rice, and sweets. Eggs are also a good protein source. Boil up several at a time and keep them handy in the fridge.
Load up on vegetables. Fresh is better than canned, but I've never heard anywhere that canned was *bad*.
No meat does not auromatically mean low protein.
Which is specifically why I also said: "It's hard to get enough protein if you don't eat meat". I did not say "impossible". It takes a lot of careful food choices. Plus you can eat nuts or beans or whatever to get your protein but they are not nearly as low-calorie as fish or chicken or eggs.
0 -
brianpperkins 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.brianpperkins 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.
And the whole article is based off a response to an anecdotal story of a menopausal woman. Not really something to relate to the general population.
It is a blog, written by Lyle McDonald.
His credentials listed here, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_McDonald
kinesiologist, CSCS (Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist), high degree of certification issued by the NSCA for personal trainers..
His references as you put it are Alan Arganon, and James Krieger from weightology as well as a few others, simply put these are some of the top minds in fitness and nutrition.
Does the fact the information is in a blog make it any less true?
http://evidencemag.com/the-10-most-credible-health-and-fitness-bloggers-you-can-trust/
My original comment was describing a scenario that "was possible" but not likely in this case with the OP. Instead of attempting to discredit and "be right" which both of you are not, stick to the topic.
0 -
brianpperkins 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.brianpperkins 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.
And the whole article is based off a response to an anecdotal story of a menopausal woman. Not really something to relate to the general population.
It is a blog, written by Lyle McDonald.
His credentials listed here, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_McDonald
kinesiologist, CSCS (Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist), high degree of certification issued by the NSCA for personal trainers..
His references as you put it are Alan Arganon, and James Krieger from weightology as well as a few others, simply put these are some of the top minds in fitness and nutrition.
Does the fact the information is in a blog make it any less true?
http://evidencemag.com/the-10-most-credible-health-and-fitness-bloggers-you-can-trust/
My original comment was describing a scenario that "was possible" but not likely in this case with the OP. Instead of attempting to discredit and "be right" which both of you are not, stick to the topic.
Your hypocrisy is astounding in telling others to "stick to the topic" while discussing them rather than the topic ... while trying to defend your injection of a blog that you concede doesn't apply to the OP.
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 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »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 is great! Ok so the scale, weighing my portions until I figure out what works for my body.0
-
How short are you, that you (or MFP) thought "under 1200" was a healthy calorie level?sweetpea 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.
How do you know how many calories you're eating? Are you weighing & measuring everything, logging accurately?
Why did you cut out sugar? And is that all sugars (so no fruits), or just white sugar, added sugars, corn syrup, etc.?
How did you determine your goal weight? Is it somewhere in the healthy range on a BMI chart? Or did your doctor OK it?
0 -
Im 5'5" 48 yrs old. Muscular. I measure according to servings. No I don't weight but will be starting this week. No sugar. White or other processed. That was a personal choice. I do eat fruits and vegetables, fresh and frozen nothing canned. Just recently cut back on breads because they convert into sugar.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Why no meat? Are you a vegetarian? Are you getting enough protein? (I realize you can as a vegetarian or without eating meat, but on low calories it's something to watch out for.)
0 -
I just don't eat a lot of meat. I eat lots of vegetables. No I don't get enough protein. I'm anemic, although I have been anemic most of my life. My thyroid is slightly hyper, everything runs low on me, blood pressure, blood sugar, iron.
Facing a hysterectomy, gallbladder issues.0 -
must_deflate wrote: »"No meat" could be your problem. A lot of people cannot lose on a low-protein diet, and it's hard to get enough protein if you don't eat meat. Start eating a lot of broiled fish, roast chicken, and minimize bread, potatoes, rice, and sweets. Eggs are also a good protein source. Boil up several at a time and keep them handy in the fridge.
Load up on vegetables. Fresh is better than canned, but I've never heard anywhere that canned was *bad*.
I would think not getting enough protein could cause other problems, but I don't think it will keep someone from losing weight if they are at a deficit.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.
No. No. and No.
0 -
Personally anemia has a major effect on everything I do. When my iron is low I'm tired, unable to work out due to low energy, I get headaches, and overall just feel like crap, which for me leads to unwise eating. I'd assume that the other lows you are talking about also have some of the same effects or worse. I can control my iron through my diet, but for me it requires eating a lot of meat as I don't like a lot of the non meat sources of iron. I agree with what others are saying in regards to weighing instead of measuring and logging correctly, if those don't work I'd take the evidence of what you have been doing to your physician. Good luck!0
-
I have to take pills for my anemia (and a shot for the other type I have!), and I know I feel tired when I'm running low on hemoglobin and haven't taken my pills like I should for a while (they hurt my stomach). I'm totally just guessing, but I bet that lowers metabolism itself. Being that tired would have to relate to a lower metabolism, I'd think. It certainly doesn't make me move peppily around like when I'm doing better, so it at least lowers how vigorously I move all day.
Anemia needs to be controlled anyway. Make sure they know what's causing yours. My hair was getting bald spots before I got the tests to see if I was bleeding internally (nope, just diet and periods causing it) and got on big iron pills. My hemoglobin went way up after a few months of iron, so it was easy enough to fix!
If you are talking macrocyctic anemia (my other type), that's B-12 and/or folate. Your doc should know that, but they are often really, really bad at checking levels related to those. I can't digest B-12 it turns out, so it got to be a huge problem and I got very ill (and nerve damage!) before a doc finally figured out what that was. It just needs a shot a month! So simple to treat. That one is called pernicious because it used to be uniformly fatal until they figured out it was a B-12 problem.
So anemias can be very big deals. Make sure your doc is on top of that, really. And you'll have more energy, so that's always nice with weight loss
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