Not eating enough, lesson learned

1235»

Replies

  • thatdesertgirl777
    thatdesertgirl777 Posts: 269 Member
    Congrats on the fact that you started losing again! All this fighting is silly to me. Regardless of how it happened, or how you believe it happened, I'm happy for you. Keep doing what works for you! :)
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,717 Member
    Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.

    Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.

    I'm part of the "anti starvation mode crowd" and absolutely believe that adaptive thermogenesis is a real phenomenon (but not the same thing as what's commonly meant by "starvation mode"). I also understand the point about hormones & diet breaks.

    I also acknowledge that I've never seen anyone say that literally starving people don't lose weight, in so many words. However, I have seen people say here on occasion (not rare) assert that they've cut calories to an ultra low level, and have stopped losing weight, or are starting to gain, because they're in "starvation mode" and their body is "holding onto fat". The logical implication of this is that starving people won't lose weight. Chronically underfed people starve, eventually, at any significant calorie deficit that lasts long enough. They need not be eating zero.

    Yes, as calories are reduced to an extreme, weight loss at X extremely low calories may slow, but it isn't going to stop.

    Most of the "anti starvation mode crowd", IME, will advocate that someone who believes they're in "starvation mode" should adopt a nutritious way of eating that gives them sufficient calories for moderate, sustainable weight loss, and keeps their day to day energy at a reasonable level, plus fuels a reasonable amount of healthy exercise (if theyre able to exercise) . . . possibly after taking a diet break.
  • SadDolt
    SadDolt Posts: 173 Member
    huh?? you don't gain / stay at the same weight from eating too little. plus you were probably eating more than you think
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    mishy866 wrote: »
    All this crap about 'science' guess what- nutritional science is a load of crap too, 20 years ago we were all eating margarine and going on low fat diets. They still don't know what genetic factors are in play here, listen to your body.

    Basically no one went on low fat diets. Not any more people than go on low carb diets today.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.

    Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.

    It's the logical conclusion of "I'm eating too little so I can't lose weight".
  • xchocolategirl
    xchocolategirl Posts: 186 Member
    Honestly if you were really eating 1,000 calories you would be losing weight. Oftentimes people underestimate the calories they eat if they're going off of food labels which can underestimate by 20% possibly even more.

    The best way to track intake is by using a food scale. Telling yourself oh I'm not losing weight on 1,000 Calories so I'll eat more to lose weight doesn't make sense. If you're really eating 1,000 calories you would've been at a high deficit.

    I'm glad you're increasing your calories but I think you were most likely eating more calories than you though. And perhaps you started to track it better when you increased your calories thus causing you to lose weight just a guess.

    But anyway good luck!
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    Parts of this argument seem very silly to me - the anti starvation mode crowd is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that concentration camp victims or anorexics - people who are literally starving - don't lose weight. Literally no one has ever said that, so arguing against it is pointless. What has been said is that calorie restriction triggers the body to use the remaining calories more efficiently, which is not only true but well proven by hundreds of well conducted studies over decades in dozens of different countries. No, I will not look them up for you, do it yourself. You know how to use Google. Try googling the recent follow up study on the people who were on the Biggest Loser.

    Approximately 75% of daily energy expenditure comes from non-exercise related activity and from resting metabolic rate. Both of these are reduced over the long term by calorie restriction. Not reduced to zero, people - if you eat little enough you will continue to lose weight - but nevertheless reduced. The TDEE for someone who has a reduced metabolism and reduced non-exercise activity is lower than that of someone who does not, therefore that person needs fewer calories to maintain weight.

    It's the logical conclusion of "I'm eating too little so I can't lose weight".

    No, it's really not. Bodily functions don't plot nicely in straight lines. Eating vitamin A is necessary for health, so eating ten thousand percent of the daily allowance of vitamin A will make me immortal! Not a true statement, nor a statement logically implied by the first statement. Restricting calories severely does reduce metabolism, which makes it harder to lose weight eating the same amount of calories. There are two ways to balance the CICO equation - change the calories in, or change the calories out.