is starvation mode real?
Replies
-
Maybe open your diary?0
-
@hissweetpea461 im sorry you are going through this. The same happened to me. I'm not sure if starvation mode is real...although I've been told it is but I do know you can get an active and resting metabolic test that will tell you exactly how many calories you need to eat to lose. If after the test you don't get the results you want with those numbers go to your doctor. Get tested for insulin resistance and PCOS. That will really help.0
-
@hissweetpea461 im sorry you are going through this. The same happened to me. I'm not sure if starvation mode is real...although I've been told it is but I do know you can get an active and resting metabolic test that will tell you exactly how many calories you need to eat to lose. If after the test you don't get the results you want with those numbers go to your doctor. Get tested for insulin resistance and PCOS. That will really help.
0 -
What is PCOS? Either this app or my phone isn't letting my dairy keep past a few days then delete. Like today I ate well, nothing for breakfast 3 cups of coffee, sugar free creamer, no lunch, early dinner grilled lean sirloin patty on light bread, teaspoon of vegetable garden cream cheese, five slices of jalapenos. 5bottles of water throughout the day. Just wasn't interested in eating today.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)0
-
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
0 -
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
0 -
From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
You're right - basically adaptive thermogenesis - a greater fall in RMR than is predicted through the loss of body weight alone.
The problem is in the context of these forums it is used to describe the situation were eating too few calories (lower than maintenance calories in reality) leads to fat loss stopping altogether which is evidently nonsense.
0 -
There is mild evidence that if you've lost over 10% of your body weight, without any resistance training, your body becomes around 20% more efficient for very low level walking calorie burn.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
There are huge caveats to note in that that though
1. A subject must have not done resistance training, possibly even high impact aerobics negates this.
2. It reduces only the calories burned from activity, and only low level activity (the method measured was pedaling at 25 watts or less)
3. It is 20% of those calories
4. It has not been observed how long this effect lasts
5. It has not been observed if resistance training after the fact negates this
The hypothesis is that during the change, the body adjusts to have a difference in muscle fibers in the legs to be more slow twitch fibers. Simply doing any kind of resistance training during weight loss seems to prevent this adaptation (this is why it is is hypothesized as a fiber type change).
I've heard a few diet and weight loss experts, actual medical doctors, go on to refer to this is a 20% decrease in calories period, which is false. It also makes zero sense in terms of evolution. We started walking with an upright gate because at the time, it save a measly 4 kCal / kilometer. If our body had a 20% efficiency saving mode, we'd have turned it on permanently long ago to have more kids, particularly when you consider prior to 10,000 years ago, almost every single human would experience a famine condition in their life - why wait for it to turn that switch on?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
0 -
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
Right.
I don't know why people don't work on eliminating the most obvious causes first rather than jumping face first into the less likely explanations.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
I'm looking at it more from the maintenance or only a few pounds left to lose perspective. When you realize your buddy is happily chowing down on a couple hundred more calories a day than you are, it does hit home that the price you pay for becoming very overweight could last a lifetime.
0 -
It isn't a couple hundred more calories a day.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
I'm looking at it more from the maintenance or only a few pounds left to lose perspective. When you realize your buddy is happily chowing down on a couple hundred more calories a day than you are, it does hit home that the price you pay for becoming very overweight could last a lifetime.
0 -
I'm in maintenance after losing 122 pounds. I'm maintaining on 3700 calories a day. It's not like I don't have experience with that perspective.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
I'm looking at it more from the maintenance or only a few pounds left to lose perspective. When you realize your buddy is happily chowing down on a couple hundred more calories a day than you are, it does hit home that the price you pay for becoming very overweight could last a lifetime.
The 3700 is higher than predicted by online calculators for my age, size, and level of activity, so whatever mode I'm in, it doesn't appear to be starvation.
0 -
It isn't a couple hundred more calories a day.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
I'm looking at it more from the maintenance or only a few pounds left to lose perspective. When you realize your buddy is happily chowing down on a couple hundred more calories a day than you are, it does hit home that the price you pay for becoming very overweight could last a lifetime.
It can be higher or lower than that. The article I'm thinking of (and can't find again, darn it!) said 200 or 250, can't remember which, but it was just an example.
Then there is the research on hunger increase in those who have lost weight. Another not so fun adaptation.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.0 -
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.0 -
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that athletes at that level of exertion and performance probably aren't turning to MFP in droves for their training and weight loss advice.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Starvation mode as you present it in this thread is as real as Elvis and Bigfoot riding a unicorn together over a rainbow.
Whoa! That is an image to behold!
But, it's so true. Starvation mode is a myth when it comes to ordinary weight loss methods. You can't just be underweight, right weight, or overweight and have starvation mode.
Starvation mode is very real to those who are actually starving, as in little to no food, and emaciated and have lost a high percentage of body fat and lean muscle mass0 -
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.
Your nutritionist has provided incorrect information. Try a dietitian, they are registered. Anybody can call themselves a nutritionist.
If you are not losing weight, you are likely eating too many calories. It is so easy to underestimate calories in and overestimate calories out.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that athletes at that level of exertion and performance probably aren't turning to MFP in droves for their training and weight loss advice.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.
I've seen plenty of people training for marathons and triathlons on here. Some are competitive. I can only stand in awe. And cherish my short little bicycle rides.
0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Not weighing it, but measuring. 1 cup etc. Mostly no meat, no canned foods.
Measuring by volume is woefully inaccurate. Weigh all solids, measure liquids. There's a video that gets posted in these threads all the time. I would look for it, but someone will post it soon enough.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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
Could you post the link please as I don't think I have seen it?
However, if it is "The Last Nail In the Cardio Coffin" then, much as I generally like Rachel Cosgrove, there are a number of problems with that article.
0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »What is PCOS? Either this app or my phone isn't letting my dairy keep past a few days then delete. Like today I ate well, nothing for breakfast 3 cups of coffee, sugar free creamer, no lunch, early dinner grilled lean sirloin patty on light bread, teaspoon of vegetable garden cream cheese, five slices of jalapenos. 5bottles of water throughout the day. Just wasn't interested in eating today.
Here is a link: http://www.pcosfoundation.org/?gclid=CNXA9Nr1j8gCFQWSfgodmvgIog.
If you believe you have this or any other medical condition, go and see the doctor. But, 99 percent of the time lack of weight loss has to do with eating too much food. If you are not losing weight, I'll bet you 100% that something is wrong with your numbers- either you're overestimating calories in and/or calories burned, your logging is not accurate (if you log), perhaps you're not weighing your food, could be a whole list of things. However, I guarantee you if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.
Do you weigh food? Log everything you eat?
Open your diary if you want specific feedback. 0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm in maintenance after losing 122 pounds. I'm maintaining on 3700 calories a day. It's not like I don't have experience with that perspective.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
I'm looking at it more from the maintenance or only a few pounds left to lose perspective. When you realize your buddy is happily chowing down on a couple hundred more calories a day than you are, it does hit home that the price you pay for becoming very overweight could last a lifetime.
The 3700 is higher than predicted by online calculators for my age, size, and level of activity, so whatever mode I'm in, it doesn't appear to be starvation.
While I don't have nearly as high maintenance as you, I too am still pretty much on point or even a bit higher than calculators tell me, after 50 pounds lost. As seem to be many, many more people on here.
Yet there's always people mentioning that one study saying there's an up to 20% decrease when people lose more than I think it was 10% of their initial bodyweight, completely disregarding the many examples of the opposite.
I've seen the main author of that study talking about it on a video, and while I don't want to accuse him of being wrong, the many people who do not experience this effect make me think there was a problem in his study or people are generally misinterpreting his results all over the place.0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Not weighing it, but measuring. 1 cup etc. Mostly no meat, no canned foods.
Measuring by volume is woefully inaccurate. Weigh all solids, measure liquids. There's a video that gets posted in these threads all the time. I would look for it, but someone will post it soon enough.
So true! I could go on and on about this based on my own experience of comparing the weighed food to measured food. BIG difference in most things.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions