Help...my weight Plateaued
Options
Replies
-
not eating enough...jmo0
-
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.3 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.
What's your deal I have explained myself twice , and corrected my mistakes and your point was she was overeating not the "starvation mode" comment like synacious did.
Many have agreed the general consensus is going off of what she says she should eat more. And you are talking about " assuming" when that's what you did about her eating.
1 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
I'm not the one who knocked her education, but my knowledge has nothing to do with Google. Adaptive thermogenesis is a thing, but starvation mode is not.
People who post here think starvation mode is when they eat 1200 calories and don't lose weight. Their "proof" is that they lose weight when they increase calories. The reality is that weight loss is not linear and the loss was delayed due to water weight or some other circumstance. Other reasons for the loss include not going through restrict and binge cycles due to a slightly higher calorie allowance and even being more accurate with logging due to the breathing room of increased calories.
On the flip side, most people who eat 1200 and "can't lose" are actually eating a lot more than they think. Starvation mode is referred to time and time again by people who are new to weight loss and I can't blame them because it's one of the most perpetuated weight loss myths out there.
Think about it logically for a minute; people are dying from starvation and they look like nothing but skin and bones. Starving children are not obese. What about people who are anorexic and what their bodies turn into after constant restriction? But no, starvation mode exists for the everyday person. Eat one calorie below what you think your allowance is and your body goes "Oh no, 1200 calories? I must be starving! Let's hold onto fat." 1200 calories is hardly starving. It's an easy myth to believe because people would rather buy into that than "You haven't lost weight in two months because you're eating more calories than you're burning."
Okay I cleared up what I meant when I said "starvation mode" and you really did correct me in a constructive manner I wasn't coming at you at all you are fine. I get your point.
And like I said earlier it's easier to use terms that people can get the gist of rather then throw around confusing nomenclature and concepts that are harder to grasp when new to fitness and health. Yes lesser of two evils and probably lazy but at least the general concept is gotten across you know? No going under 1200 calories by 1 or even 100 daily makes a person who is eating regularly and in proper amounts for their goals starve to death but there will be changes and adaptions made by the body when you consistently underestimate your calories to try to sustain you for as long as possible.
Like I told the other woman yes it is likely she might be overeating but I can't speculate that w/o knowing indefinitely so based off of what was given I responded. But I do agree with your point in general. And you were not rude in the least bit
To hit my point home it's like when someone new says they want to "tone up" anyone who know muscle knows that means building muscle but since that might scare or confuse someone I can say" tone" but have them get the same takeaway message. People jumping down my throat when I'm just tryna keep it simple
Actually.....it (tone) means they want to lower their BF% so the underlying muscle they have can be more visible...aka toned.0 -
People have a huge problem with the term 'starvation mode', and will instantly scream about how ignorant it is to use the term. The fact is that it was a recognized term for homeostasis in dieters throughout the medical and nutritional community until about a decade ago, when people took issue with the term because it implied actual starvation, which is a different thing. We all know "starvation mode" isn't really starvation, and we understand what homeostasis and thermogenesis is, but by starting arguments about a term that was used regularly in ways that led to much misunderstanding of what it is for DECADES, and attacking each other over it, no one is helping anything.
I'm with Tanisha- the person said they're eating 900 calories. We don't have any proof or evidence that they aren't eating 900 calories. It's entirely possible they're in homeostasis as was mentioned above. It's also entirely possible that they're eating more than they think. It's also possible that they aren't logging correctly, or using the wrong database entries, or a thousand other possibilities.
To the original poster- Are you weighing everything you eat? Are you eating back half your exercise calories? Try eating more for a week and change up your exercise program- It might help shake things up and get you out of your stall.3 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.
What's your deal I have explained myself twice , and corrected my mistakes and your point was she was overeating not the "starvation mode" comment like synacious did.
Many have agreed the general consensus is going off of what she says she should eat more. And you are talking about " assuming" when that's what you did about her eating.
was I replying to you?
No I was not I replied to the assumption that "google knowledge qualifications" were what people use here.
But since you felt the need to reply to something not directed at you let me correct you again.
I don't assume I take the facts given ie "logging 900 calories and not losing" and take the educated guess that the OP is eating more than they think because even a child will lose weight eating 900 calories let alone an adult.
And I don't care what the "general consensus" is....eat more is wrong..
Try logging consistently and accurately using a food scale.1 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
I'm not the one who knocked her education, but my knowledge has nothing to do with Google. Adaptive thermogenesis is a thing, but starvation mode is not.
People who post here think starvation mode is when they eat 1200 calories and don't lose weight. Their "proof" is that they lose weight when they increase calories. The reality is that weight loss is not linear and the loss was delayed due to water weight or some other circumstance. Other reasons for the loss include not going through restrict and binge cycles due to a slightly higher calorie allowance and even being more accurate with logging due to the breathing room of increased calories.
On the flip side, most people who eat 1200 and "can't lose" are actually eating a lot more than they think. Starvation mode is referred to time and time again by people who are new to weight loss and I can't blame them because it's one of the most perpetuated weight loss myths out there.
Think about it logically for a minute; people are dying from starvation and they look like nothing but skin and bones. Starving children are not obese. What about people who are anorexic and what their bodies turn into after constant restriction? But no, starvation mode exists for the everyday person. Eat one calorie below what you think your allowance is and your body goes "Oh no, 1200 calories? I must be starving! Let's hold onto fat." 1200 calories is hardly starving. It's an easy myth to believe because people would rather buy into that than "You haven't lost weight in two months because you're eating more calories than you're burning."
Okay I cleared up what I meant when I said "starvation mode" and you really did correct me in a constructive manner I wasn't coming at you at all you are fine. I get your point.
And like I said earlier it's easier to use terms that people can get the gist of rather then throw around confusing nomenclature and concepts that are harder to grasp when new to fitness and health. Yes lesser of two evils and probably lazy but at least the general concept is gotten across you know? No going under 1200 calories by 1 or even 100 daily makes a person who is eating regularly and in proper amounts for their goals starve to death but there will be changes and adaptions made by the body when you consistently underestimate your calories to try to sustain you for as long as possible.
Like I told the other woman yes it is likely she might be overeating but I can't speculate that w/o knowing indefinitely so based off of what was given I responded. But I do agree with your point in general. And you were not rude in the least bit
To hit my point home it's like when someone new says they want to "tone up" anyone who know muscle knows that means building muscle but since that might scare or confuse someone I can say" tone" but have them get the same takeaway message. People jumping down my throat when I'm just tryna keep it simple
Actually.....it (tone) means they want to lower their BF% so the underlying muscle they have can be more visible...aka toned.
No lowering your body fat reveals whatever muscle you have underneath , regardless of what condition they are in and if they haven't been stimulated for growth you won't be "toned", like a distance runner low body fat but not "toned" because not significant lean mass either . Building muscle is key.
Y'all are killing me ,I know what Im saying and mean- thank you those that understand me or who gave CONSTRUCTIVE Criticism. I can't win on here picking apart everything I say- I'm not crazy and trying to sabotage people but I will use this as a lesson. I'm going back to liking and lurking.1 -
wow...gonna back away slowly...but before I do let me leave this here.
"There is no type of weight training workout or method that in and of itself allows you to tone up a specific area of your body or your entire body as a whole. Tone is just a matter of having some amount of muscle and then having a low enough body fat percentage so that muscle can be seen."1 -
Starvation mode? It's not a thing. Please explain how people can starve to death if the body hangs on to everything on too little calories? If 'starvation mode' was a thing, no one would die from starvation.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
And, do you have sources to support the claim?
Ugh.
So yes, smh... You haven't supported your claims...
2 -
cerise_noir wrote: »
Starvation mode? It's not a thing. Please explain how people can starve to death of the body hangs on to everything on too little calories? If 'starvation mode' was a thing, no one would die from starvation.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
And, do you have sources to support the claim?
Ugh.
So yes, smh... You haven't supported your claims...
Please read my other posts and the whole thread before responding to the message that started this0 -
You were replying based on my original statement we can disagree all day but your rude point blank period. It's uncalled for. And the comments about toning which we established wasn't true was for concept but someone with your mindset tried to fact check me again.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.
What's your deal I have explained myself twice , and corrected my mistakes and your point was she was overeating not the "starvation mode" comment like synacious did.
Many have agreed the general consensus is going off of what she says she should eat more. And you are talking about " assuming" when that's what you did about her eating.
was I replying to you?
No I was not I replied to the assumption that "google knowledge qualifications" were what people use here.
But since you felt the need to reply to something not directed at you let me correct you again.
I don't assume I take the facts given ie "logging 900 calories and not losing" and take the educated guess that the OP is eating more than they think because even a child will lose weight eating 900 calories let alone an adult.
And I don't care what the "general consensus" is....eat more is wrong..
Try logging consistently and accurately using a food scale.
Since you on your way out one more thought to leave you with, and educated guess IS still an assumption. Carry on
0 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »
You were replying based on my original statement we can disagree all day but your rude point blank period. It's uncalled for. And the comments about toning which we established wasn't true was for concept but someone with your mindset tried to fact check me again.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.
What's your deal I have explained myself twice , and corrected my mistakes and your point was she was overeating not the "starvation mode" comment like synacious did.
Many have agreed the general consensus is going off of what she says she should eat more. And you are talking about " assuming" when that's what you did about her eating.
was I replying to you?
No I was not I replied to the assumption that "google knowledge qualifications" were what people use here.
But since you felt the need to reply to something not directed at you let me correct you again.
I don't assume I take the facts given ie "logging 900 calories and not losing" and take the educated guess that the OP is eating more than they think because even a child will lose weight eating 900 calories let alone an adult.
And I don't care what the "general consensus" is....eat more is wrong..
Try logging consistently and accurately using a food scale.
Since you on your way out one more thought to leave you with, and educated guess IS still an assumption. Carry on
so what if I was replying...get off your high horse of "education"
If I see BS in the forums directing someone to do something counter to their goals I am going to call said person out that happens to be anyone who mentions starvation mode and "tone"
I don't have to try and "fact check" there are no facts in your posts only "bro science"
and by definition "educated guess=a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct."
Not an assumption..that is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
I've been on MFP long enough to have the experience and I have the knowledge therefore...carry on.2 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »
You were replying based on my original statement we can disagree all day but your rude point blank period. It's uncalled for. And the comments about toning which we established wasn't true was for concept but someone with your mindset tried to fact check me again.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.
What's your deal I have explained myself twice , and corrected my mistakes and your point was she was overeating not the "starvation mode" comment like synacious did.
Many have agreed the general consensus is going off of what she says she should eat more. And you are talking about " assuming" when that's what you did about her eating.
was I replying to you?
No I was not I replied to the assumption that "google knowledge qualifications" were what people use here.
But since you felt the need to reply to something not directed at you let me correct you again.
I don't assume I take the facts given ie "logging 900 calories and not losing" and take the educated guess that the OP is eating more than they think because even a child will lose weight eating 900 calories let alone an adult.
And I don't care what the "general consensus" is....eat more is wrong..
Try logging consistently and accurately using a food scale.
Since you on your way out one more thought to leave you with, and educated guess IS still an assumption. Carry on
so what if I was replying...get off your high horse of "education"
If I see BS in the forums directing someone to do something counter to their goals I am going to call said person out that happens to be anyone who mentions starvation mode and "tone"
I don't have to try and "fact check" there are no facts in your posts only "bro science"
and by definition "educated guess=a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct."
Not an assumption..that is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
I've been on MFP long enough to have the experience and I have the knowledge therefore...carry on.
Lol okay mfp experience
0 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
I'm not the one who knocked her education, but my knowledge has nothing to do with Google. Adaptive thermogenesis is a thing, but starvation mode is not.
People who post here think starvation mode is when they eat 1200 calories and don't lose weight. Their "proof" is that they lose weight when they increase calories. The reality is that weight loss is not linear and the loss was delayed due to water weight or some other circumstance. Other reasons for the loss include not going through restrict and binge cycles due to a slightly higher calorie allowance and even being more accurate with logging due to the breathing room of increased calories.
On the flip side, most people who eat 1200 and "can't lose" are actually eating a lot more than they think. Starvation mode is referred to time and time again by people who are new to weight loss and I can't blame them because it's one of the most perpetuated weight loss myths out there.
Think about it logically for a minute; people are dying from starvation and they look like nothing but skin and bones. Starving children are not obese. What about people who are anorexic and what their bodies turn into after constant restriction? But no, starvation mode exists for the everyday person. Eat one calorie below what you think your allowance is and your body goes "Oh no, 1200 calories? I must be starving! Let's hold onto fat." 1200 calories is hardly starving. It's an easy myth to believe because people would rather buy into that than "You haven't lost weight in two months because you're eating more calories than you're burning."
Okay I cleared up what I meant when I said "starvation mode" and you really did correct me in a constructive manner I wasn't coming at you at all you are fine. I get your point.
And like I said earlier it's easier to use terms that people can get the gist of rather then throw around confusing nomenclature and concepts that are harder to grasp when new to fitness and health. Yes lesser of two evils and probably lazy but at least the general concept is gotten across you know? No going under 1200 calories by 1 or even 100 daily makes a person who is eating regularly and in proper amounts for their goals starve to death but there will be changes and adaptions made by the body when you consistently underestimate your calories to try to sustain you for as long as possible.
Like I told the other woman yes it is likely she might be overeating but I can't speculate that w/o knowing indefinitely so based off of what was given I responded. But I do agree with your point in general. And you were not rude in the least bit
To hit my point home it's like when someone new says they want to "tone up" anyone who know muscle knows that means building muscle but since that might scare or confuse someone I can say" tone" but have them get the same takeaway message. People jumping down my throat when I'm just tryna keep it simple
Actually.....it (tone) means they want to lower their BF% so the underlying muscle they have can be more visible...aka toned.
No lowering your body fat reveals whatever muscle you have underneath , regardless of what condition they are in and if they haven't been stimulated for growth you won't be "toned", like a distance runner low body fat but not "toned" because not significant lean mass either . Building muscle is key.
Y'all are killing me ,I know what Im saying and mean- thank you those that understand me or who gave CONSTRUCTIVE Criticism. I can't win on here picking apart everything I say- I'm not crazy and trying to sabotage people but I will use this as a lesson. I'm going back to liking and lurking.
Exactly, lowering your BF% reveals the muscle you have, making them more visible so you have "tone" or better definition.
In order to "stimulate growth" or build new muscle the person needs to eat at a surplus to grow the muscle, so in essence they would be adding fat as well (a bulk) and not necessarily be lowering their BF%, so they are no more "tone" than before.
Now, when we eat at a deficit we lose water, fat, and muscle. In that deficit we can perform a progressive overload resistance program to Maintain (notice I didn't say build...we're in a deficit) the muscle we have in order to more efficiently lower our BF% to uncover the muscle we're Maintaining to give us better definition, or as others would call it...tone.
A person can also do a recomp where they eat within a razer thin margin of a deficit to a surplus and over a long time can do both add a little muscle as well as lowering their BF%.
1 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »
You were replying based on my original statement we can disagree all day but your rude point blank period. It's uncalled for. And the comments about toning which we established wasn't true was for concept but someone with your mindset tried to fact check me again.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
get a refund for the lack of education then...
our bodies go through adaptive thermogenisis as we lose weight aka need less to maintain our weight but our bodies do not "hold on to fat" if we are eating too little....otherwise starvation wouldn't be a real threat during famine.TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
Then you should know that starvation mode does not exist in this way.
Damn no need to try to come at my education and both of you notice I said in simple terms to make it easier concept to grasp. My term "starvation mode" I used instead of saying the natural mechanism to protect from your body the metabolic damage weight loss incurs the, body trying to conserve energy by reducing the calories you burn. so I am aware of adaptive thermogenesis responding to reduced caloric intake by reducing expenditure bro maintain energy balance.
I tried using just basic easy to understand language and simplify but I learned my lesson and will keep my comments and my background to myself. Thanks for the lesson
LOL....There are sooo many people on MFP with "google knowledge qualifications" - and apparently that tops all real qualifications like yours!
Agree with you Tanisha!
and what makes you think that the knowledge here is "google" based...and not actually qualificiations?
shouldn't assume anything....and since you agree with "starvation mode" that's all that needs to be said.
What's your deal I have explained myself twice , and corrected my mistakes and your point was she was overeating not the "starvation mode" comment like synacious did.
Many have agreed the general consensus is going off of what she says she should eat more. And you are talking about " assuming" when that's what you did about her eating.
was I replying to you?
No I was not I replied to the assumption that "google knowledge qualifications" were what people use here.
But since you felt the need to reply to something not directed at you let me correct you again.
I don't assume I take the facts given ie "logging 900 calories and not losing" and take the educated guess that the OP is eating more than they think because even a child will lose weight eating 900 calories let alone an adult.
And I don't care what the "general consensus" is....eat more is wrong..
Try logging consistently and accurately using a food scale.
Since you on your way out one more thought to leave you with, and educated guess IS still an assumption. Carry on
so what if I was replying...get off your high horse of "education"
If I see BS in the forums directing someone to do something counter to their goals I am going to call said person out that happens to be anyone who mentions starvation mode and "tone"
I don't have to try and "fact check" there are no facts in your posts only "bro science"
and by definition "educated guess=a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct."
Not an assumption..that is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
I've been on MFP long enough to have the experience and I have the knowledge therefore...carry on.
Lol okay mfp experience
Yah to know people on MFP forums or anywhere else, who claim to eat 900 calories a day and not losing are probably not logging consistently and accurately and enough maturity and experience and education not to recommend that they eat more...smh.
but not to derail this thread any longer with nonsense such as what you and others are suggesting...I do hope that the OP can discern the BS from the good, healthy, logical suggestions.
2 -
wow...gonna back away slowly...but before I do let me leave this here.
"There is no type of weight training workout or method that in and of itself allows you to tone up a specific area of your body or your entire body as a whole. Tone is just a matter of having some amount of muscle and then having a low enough body fat percentage so that muscle can be seen."
^^^Yep.0 -
TanishaMoore613 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »@stephchadz - the answer is going to seem counterintuitive, but EAT MORE
smh.....if they aren't losing weight eating the amount they are eating how is eating more going to make them lose weight?
CICO
Not smh, he is right. Because they aren't sustaining or nourishing their body. In simple terms you have to eat to lose weight, biologically your body wants to preserve all fat and when you put it in severe starvation mode( i.e. 900 calories) you are signaling to your brain that your body won't get any nutrients so it will cling on to everything little thing you feed it and slow down your metabolism in order to keep you going. Now I am am not a fitness expert but I am I bio-chemist who minored in nutrition so I know a little bit from the biological side.
This is nonsense and a myth that needs to die.
Metabolic adaptation is real (over very long periods of time at very little caloric intake), but it will never adapt enough to over compensate for a large enough caloric deficit. If it did, the body would violate energy conservation and it would be basically impossible to starve to death. Not to mention, why do actual starving people (ie: anorexics) struggle to put weight back on? They should be in full on balloon mode if what you say is true.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions