"Starvation Mode" and How to Fix
Replies
-
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I'm sorry, but one article on t-nation.com by someone with "Dr." before their name doesn't make something real.
Dr. Jade Teta is a naturapath who makes a living selling books, workout programs, and training through his weight loss company whose primary message is "fixing" metabolic problems. In other words, he is far from an unbiased author.
Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing, but it's not something the average dieter needs to worry about. If you severely restrict calories over a very long period of time, your metabolism will slow down over time. But we are talking about a large deficit over a long period of time with no breaks. That's why if you have a lot of weight to lose that will take years to complete, it is recommended that you take a couple of weeks every 3 or 4 months and eat at maintenance. But even though it's a real thing, it won't stop you from losing weight, it just slows it down a little. Otherwise anorexics, people who go on hunger fasts, starving people in war-torn countries wouldn't get to the point where they were skin and bones, they would just get sluggish wouldn't they?
That's the point of the article. I think people automatically get defensive because of the words "starvation mode" when in fact the article is talking about the different levels of metabolic damage and if you do have metabolic damage there's ways to fix it depending on what level you are in. Obviously, this article doesn't apply to everyone. Everyone knows you can still lose weight if you are on a really low calorie diet. It may not be healthy, but it's still possible. You can't argue the fact people do hit plateaus. What cause their plateau could be a variety of reasons. What is the number on stated phrase on here? Weight loss is not linear. For most people it's likely they are eating too many calories. The metabolic rate will slow down as you lose weight and will take much more to continue losing at the same rate because the body does not burn as many calories as it did when at a much higher weight. The smaller the body, the less energy it takes to operate. There are people out there that do have metabolic damage, but may not know it. I personally did experience something like this. I don't know if it was actually metabolic damage, but when I stopped losing weight I took a break because I was actually hungrier than before I started losing weight. Then I got back on to my routine and weight loss jump started again. This was way before I came across this article. For me it explained something that I couldn't explain. I thought it was an interesting read. People can do with it what they want.
As far as the biased author, I personally don't feel selling other products for income devalues his opinion. Personal trainers, nutritionists, and even medical doctors do it. It doesn't mean his opinion is worthless. If he did not have the references he stated in the article then I would question it. I personally thought it was a valid article. He is a integrative physician. This is what he does: he practices healing oriented medicine that includes both alternative as well as conventional medicine.
I would respectfully disagree, that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is to convince anyone who's having trouble losing weight that they have experienced metabolic damage so they will then buy his book. When the real problem is something much more simple, like they are eating too much.
Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
Sure. But what does that have to do with this thread?
There are plenty of reasons why people are eating too much, and plenty of reasons why the standard formula might not give them a number that works for them. But for I'm guessing 99% of people who aren't losing weight, "starvation mode" is not the reason, because they have not been aggressively undereating for years. That's all I was saying.
I agree. I don't think that "starvation mode" is the reason for most people's weight gain either. But on the other hand, I think metabolic damage is real and can be corrected.
but metabolic damage is not common.
I used the wrong word. I should have written "metabolic adjustment" not metabolic damage. The former can be corrected. I think a lot of the misunderstandings on MFP center around semantics.0 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I'm sorry, but one article on t-nation.com by someone with "Dr." before their name doesn't make something real.
Dr. Jade Teta is a naturapath who makes a living selling books, workout programs, and training through his weight loss company whose primary message is "fixing" metabolic problems. In other words, he is far from an unbiased author.
Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing, but it's not something the average dieter needs to worry about. If you severely restrict calories over a very long period of time, your metabolism will slow down over time. But we are talking about a large deficit over a long period of time with no breaks. That's why if you have a lot of weight to lose that will take years to complete, it is recommended that you take a couple of weeks every 3 or 4 months and eat at maintenance. But even though it's a real thing, it won't stop you from losing weight, it just slows it down a little. Otherwise anorexics, people who go on hunger fasts, starving people in war-torn countries wouldn't get to the point where they were skin and bones, they would just get sluggish wouldn't they?
That's the point of the article. I think people automatically get defensive because of the words "starvation mode" when in fact the article is talking about the different levels of metabolic damage and if you do have metabolic damage there's ways to fix it depending on what level you are in. Obviously, this article doesn't apply to everyone. Everyone knows you can still lose weight if you are on a really low calorie diet. It may not be healthy, but it's still possible. You can't argue the fact people do hit plateaus. What cause their plateau could be a variety of reasons. What is the number on stated phrase on here? Weight loss is not linear. For most people it's likely they are eating too many calories. The metabolic rate will slow down as you lose weight and will take much more to continue losing at the same rate because the body does not burn as many calories as it did when at a much higher weight. The smaller the body, the less energy it takes to operate. There are people out there that do have metabolic damage, but may not know it. I personally did experience something like this. I don't know if it was actually metabolic damage, but when I stopped losing weight I took a break because I was actually hungrier than before I started losing weight. Then I got back on to my routine and weight loss jump started again. This was way before I came across this article. For me it explained something that I couldn't explain. I thought it was an interesting read. People can do with it what they want.
As far as the biased author, I personally don't feel selling other products for income devalues his opinion. Personal trainers, nutritionists, and even medical doctors do it. It doesn't mean his opinion is worthless. If he did not have the references he stated in the article then I would question it. I personally thought it was a valid article. He is a integrative physician. This is what he does: he practices healing oriented medicine that includes both alternative as well as conventional medicine.
I would respectfully disagree, that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is to convince anyone who's having trouble losing weight that they have experienced metabolic damage so they will then buy his book. When the real problem is something much more simple, like they are eating too much.
Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
Sure. But what does that have to do with this thread?
There are plenty of reasons why people are eating too much, and plenty of reasons why the standard formula might not give them a number that works for them. But for I'm guessing 99% of people who aren't losing weight, "starvation mode" is not the reason, because they have not been aggressively undereating for years. That's all I was saying.
I agree. I don't think that "starvation mode" is the reason for most people's weight gain either. But on the other hand, I think metabolic damage is real and can be corrected.
but metabolic damage is not common.
I used the wrong word. I should have written "metabolic adjustment" not metabolic damage. The former can be corrected. I think a lot of the misunderstandings on MFP center around semantics.
this particular post is not semantics tho. Metabolic damage is real and happens...
metabolic adjustment...sounds like adaptive thermogenesis which happens when you lose weight...but can be easily over come with exercise and keeping muscle mass.3 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I'm sorry, but one article on t-nation.com by someone with "Dr." before their name doesn't make something real.
Dr. Jade Teta is a naturapath who makes a living selling books, workout programs, and training through his weight loss company whose primary message is "fixing" metabolic problems. In other words, he is far from an unbiased author.
Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing, but it's not something the average dieter needs to worry about. If you severely restrict calories over a very long period of time, your metabolism will slow down over time. But we are talking about a large deficit over a long period of time with no breaks. That's why if you have a lot of weight to lose that will take years to complete, it is recommended that you take a couple of weeks every 3 or 4 months and eat at maintenance. But even though it's a real thing, it won't stop you from losing weight, it just slows it down a little. Otherwise anorexics, people who go on hunger fasts, starving people in war-torn countries wouldn't get to the point where they were skin and bones, they would just get sluggish wouldn't they?
That's the point of the article. I think people automatically get defensive because of the words "starvation mode" when in fact the article is talking about the different levels of metabolic damage and if you do have metabolic damage there's ways to fix it depending on what level you are in. Obviously, this article doesn't apply to everyone. Everyone knows you can still lose weight if you are on a really low calorie diet. It may not be healthy, but it's still possible. You can't argue the fact people do hit plateaus. What cause their plateau could be a variety of reasons. What is the number on stated phrase on here? Weight loss is not linear. For most people it's likely they are eating too many calories. The metabolic rate will slow down as you lose weight and will take much more to continue losing at the same rate because the body does not burn as many calories as it did when at a much higher weight. The smaller the body, the less energy it takes to operate. There are people out there that do have metabolic damage, but may not know it. I personally did experience something like this. I don't know if it was actually metabolic damage, but when I stopped losing weight I took a break because I was actually hungrier than before I started losing weight. Then I got back on to my routine and weight loss jump started again. This was way before I came across this article. For me it explained something that I couldn't explain. I thought it was an interesting read. People can do with it what they want.
As far as the biased author, I personally don't feel selling other products for income devalues his opinion. Personal trainers, nutritionists, and even medical doctors do it. It doesn't mean his opinion is worthless. If he did not have the references he stated in the article then I would question it. I personally thought it was a valid article. He is a integrative physician. This is what he does: he practices healing oriented medicine that includes both alternative as well as conventional medicine.
I would respectfully disagree, that's not the point of the article. The point of the article is to convince anyone who's having trouble losing weight that they have experienced metabolic damage so they will then buy his book. When the real problem is something much more simple, like they are eating too much.
Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
Sure. But what does that have to do with this thread?
There are plenty of reasons why people are eating too much, and plenty of reasons why the standard formula might not give them a number that works for them. But for I'm guessing 99% of people who aren't losing weight, "starvation mode" is not the reason, because they have not been aggressively undereating for years. That's all I was saying.
I agree. I don't think that "starvation mode" is the reason for most people's weight gain either. But on the other hand, I think metabolic damage is real and can be corrected.
but metabolic damage is not common.
I used the wrong word. I should have written "metabolic adjustment" not metabolic damage. The former can be corrected. I think a lot of the misunderstandings on MFP center around semantics.
Adjustment to an extent where it inhibits further weight losss in a way that "starvation mode" posts imply is also not common, to not say the only place where I've ever seen a metabolic adjustment that's more than a handful was the biggest loser thing, where literally everyone agrees that's the dumbest way to lose weight you can think of apart from just permanently fasting until you collapse.
To not sound like a broken record, but 96% of the whole population is within +-300~ calories of the average, and that's not even the average that a calculator would give them for their specific stats, but the population average. People's metabolisms are very close to each other.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »miconsumafuoco wrote: »Being new to MFP I didn't realize how touchy the community can be about the term "starvation mode. " A large man (350 lbs) that was also new here, as well as new to dieting and nutrition in general, asked for help as a beginner and said he was trying to start off doing 1200 calories a day. (From drinking 3 liters of soda a day as one example.) He said he was not feeling well and was having problems with balance. I warned him that 1200 would prob not be sustainable for him, could cause him to give up, and that even if he did lose weight, if he eventually went back to old eating habits, he could be doing damage to his metabolism in the meantime eating 1200 calories. I used the words "starvation mode" to explain that his metabolism would eventually slow down, and if metabolic damage was done over a period of losing weight, and he went back to eating the same calories as befote, eventually the same calories could make him gain more than he weighed before instead of going back to 350. I was thinking of the longterm for him and my own struggles of losing a lot of weight at once and in the next year or so gaining it all back and more. I don't feel that each time my eating habits got worse, I feel I damaged my natural metabolism. Anyway, I was immediately jumped on for referring to "starvation mode" and this thread has helped me understand why. I guess some people in the community are tired of hearing it used improperly as an excuse when someone hits a plateau.
You got this hon! It's rare that someone gets over the hurt and understands posters that have been around awhile. "Starvation mode" is a catchy phrase--it sounds good when you're not losing, frustrated, and trying to figure out why. Alot of newbies are innocent, in they have no idea how it grates on the nerves. People will jump on that, as well as "detox", "cleanses", and a real biggie "Dr. Oz". Sorry you were caught in the crossfire. There's alot to learn on MFP.
It DID hurt bc I am new and everyone else has been so nice, positive, helpful. And I was worried that the OP got a bad first impression of MFP. To boot "someone" flagged my comment as abuse the next day and I was even more hurt, and angry. I saw on here you can try to take it off, but can't on my phone so will have to try on my computer. I hope some of the veterans here remember to take it easy sometimes with their posts. Some people may just be hanging by a thread motivation-wise. Luckily I'm still pumped! Today was my first full week weigh-in using MFP and I lost 2.4 pounds!
6 -
miconsumafuoco wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »miconsumafuoco wrote: »Being new to MFP I didn't realize how touchy the community can be about the term "starvation mode. " A large man (350 lbs) that was also new here, as well as new to dieting and nutrition in general, asked for help as a beginner and said he was trying to start off doing 1200 calories a day. (From drinking 3 liters of soda a day as one example.) He said he was not feeling well and was having problems with balance. I warned him that 1200 would prob not be sustainable for him, could cause him to give up, and that even if he did lose weight, if he eventually went back to old eating habits, he could be doing damage to his metabolism in the meantime eating 1200 calories. I used the words "starvation mode" to explain that his metabolism would eventually slow down, and if metabolic damage was done over a period of losing weight, and he went back to eating the same calories as befote, eventually the same calories could make him gain more than he weighed before instead of going back to 350. I was thinking of the longterm for him and my own struggles of losing a lot of weight at once and in the next year or so gaining it all back and more. I don't feel that each time my eating habits got worse, I feel I damaged my natural metabolism. Anyway, I was immediately jumped on for referring to "starvation mode" and this thread has helped me understand why. I guess some people in the community are tired of hearing it used improperly as an excuse when someone hits a plateau.
You got this hon! It's rare that someone gets over the hurt and understands posters that have been around awhile. "Starvation mode" is a catchy phrase--it sounds good when you're not losing, frustrated, and trying to figure out why. Alot of newbies are innocent, in they have no idea how it grates on the nerves. People will jump on that, as well as "detox", "cleanses", and a real biggie "Dr. Oz". Sorry you were caught in the crossfire. There's alot to learn on MFP.
It DID hurt bc I am new and everyone else has been so nice, positive, helpful. And I was worried that the OP got a bad first impression of MFP. To boot "someone" flagged my comment as abuse the next day and I was even more hurt, and angry. I saw on here you can try to take it off, but can't on my phone so will have to try on my computer. I hope some of the veterans here remember to take it easy sometimes with their posts. Some people may just be hanging by a thread motivation-wise. Luckily I'm still pumped! Today was my first full week weigh-in using MFP and I lost 2.4 pounds!
It really helps to have a thick skin if you are going to be posting on these forums. Please don't let people get under your skin, you are here for YOU!
There really are a lot of helpful and experienced members here, you will learn so much if you stick around.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions