Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is starvation mode a myth?
Replies
-
I had weight loss surgery a year ago (I am not here to be judged, please). In this past year I have lost 135 lbs (Yes, I am healthy). The surgery claims patients lose about 60% of their excess weight. I have surpassed that with taking on running and working out regularly. Anyway, what I can contribute to this conversation is my own personal experience which, to some extent, involves a level of starvation, especially right after the surgery. I have learned that weight is one hell of a “thing.” Throughout this process, each step of the way involved increasing calories to reach a new normal calorie level for myself. How did my body signal to me that more calories were needed? My weight stalled.....
So yes, I do believe if someone who is overweight follows a strict/honest diet, their body will throw them an extremely discouraging curve ball at a time when discouragement is the last thing they need.
First, congratulations on the weight loss.
Regarding starvation though - have you ever read up on the Minnesota Starvation Experiment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
6 months at 1560 kcals a day. I'm asking because hunger pangs (I'm starving!) and starvation aren't the same thing. May I ask what your caloric intake was during your recovery?
Thanks
edit: The 1560 is per wiki - I had thought it was less than that...input appreciated.
I was just reading about the experiment the other day, and was wondering if it would come up on this thread. I also thought they were allowed fewer calories.
Ah heck I forgot to look that up @rosiorama ...thank you!
Per this, that figure is accurate. I could have sworn I saw under 1k somewhere..
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/10/hungerThe research protocol called for the men to lose 25 percent of their normal body weight. They spent the first three months of the study eating a normal diet of 3,200 calories a day, followed by six months of semi-starvation at 1,570 calories a day (divided between breakfast and lunch), then a restricted rehabilitation period of three months eating 2,000 to 3,200 calories a day, and finally an eight-week unrestricted rehabilitation period during which there were no limits on caloric intake. Their diet consisted of foods widely available in Europe during the war, mostly potatoes, root vegetables, bread and macaroni. The men were required to work 15 hours per week in the lab, walk 22 miles per week and participate in a variety of educational activities for 25 hours a week. Throughout the experiment, the researchers measured the physiological and psychological changes brought on by near starvation.
During the semi-starvation phase the changes were dramatic. Beyond the gaunt appearance of the men, there were significant decreases in their strength and stamina, body temperature, heart rate and sex drive. The psychological effects were significant as well. Hunger made the men obsessed with food. They would dream and fantasize about food, read and talk about food and savor the two meals a day they were given. They reported fatigue, irritability, depression and apathy. Interestingly, the men also reported decreases in mental ability, although mental testing of the men did not support this belief.
Thanks for bringing that back to my attention.1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »It’s by Fung...nuff said
It might be popular to say this, but I would bet money that you never read any of his books. While other doctors ruminate about what to do about the American obesity epidemic, he is actually helping people and doing things. He is a well-respected nephrologist (think that's an easy field). And he has saved 1000's of people. Maybe even myself. Anytime someone scoff's Dr. Fung I know they don't know anything about him.
I’ve read enough of his ‘science’ to know he’s full of horse-pucky - I prefer to get my nutritional advice from ppl who study metabolism and nutrition and not kidneys...(since last I checked that is what nephrology is)...9 -
Not really relevant. I'm talking about the change in BMR that happens while in a sustained calorie deficit. You seemed to be claiming this does not happen if one uses periodic fasting. Every study I've seen about using calorie cycling does not find any change to the inevitable adaptive thermogensis when dieting. Every study I've seen period shows nothing to stop the adaptive genesis besidesBeing a maverick is great.
You all need to up your research games. Simply googling Metabolic changes in fasting there are many hits that confirm what I said about BMR increasing the first few days. So, if you do what I do. Feast and Famine. You trick your body into shedding pounds, eating fewer calories and NOT going into starvation mode. So like I said. Is starvation mode a myth? Yes and no.
1. Breaking the diet for a prolonged period - at least a week.
2. Injecting Leptin - not really available to the home audience.
Frankly, I think people that believe they're going to fool their body are correct only in the fact that I view the mind as part of the body.
13 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Either he is misunderstanding how the endocrine system works, or he is purposefully misleading people to increase his following.
This is just not true. He is not alone. There are many doctors that are following this exact path. It is a revolution fat loss and curing people. If you can show me one thing in any of his books that is not true, I'd like to see what you are talking about. I'd like to verify so provide the book and page number.
Also, I never said you didn't read his books. That was for the other person.
Wait so being a maverick is good or bad? I can't follow which you're claiming Fung is at this point.
I've yet to see a study showing anything but a sustained diet break stops adaptive thermogenesis. Does Fung cite a specific study showing some fasting window stops adaptive thermogenesis?
I'm not going to go search the books. If you have something that is a lie, I'll check it out. There is too much incorrect generalizing here already. That's where people make mistakes.
Saying this with love.
You're the one using Amazon and Google search results as proof here and then talking about incorrect generalizing. You're not quoting The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, or any other peer reviewed source, but the internet. I could also search Amazon for Bigfoot erotica. The number of results is not proof that Bigfoot exists and is getting down with random hikers.
Regarding people like Fung. If someone has publicly taken a position, monetized it by selling books or public speaking, that person is going to a) start seeing all problems as solvable by their preferred "hammer" and b) be highly resistant to anything that shows the limitations or disproves their original position. Your best bet is to read peer-reviewed scientific studies where the reviewers don't have a pony in the race. People selling similar books? They have a pony in the race.
31 -
I doubt anyone here is starving themselves, so for 99% of people dieting and having reduced calories, it is inappropriately used.0
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »Either he is misunderstanding how the endocrine system works, or he is purposefully misleading people to increase his following.
This is just not true. He is not alone. There are many doctors that are following this exact path. It is a revolution fat loss and curing people. If you can show me one thing in any of his books that is not true, I'd like to see what you are talking about. I'd like to verify so provide the book and page number.
Also, I never said you didn't read his books. That was for the other person.
Wait so being a maverick is good or bad? I can't follow which you're claiming Fung is at this point.
I've yet to see a study showing anything but a sustained diet break stops adaptive thermogenesis. Does Fung cite a specific study showing some fasting window stops adaptive thermogenesis?
I'm not going to go search the books. If you have something that is a lie, I'll check it out. There is too much incorrect generalizing here already. That's where people make mistakes.
Cognitive dissonance on display.3 -
If you dont eat, you'll die due.to starvation. Depends on amt of body fat present and other factors just.when that will occur.
May also include weakness, delusions, disorientation, organ failure, brain damage ... in various conbinations.
A 'mode' has been hyped to no end. The fact is that.malnitrition and.starvation are.real.1 -
na1maharb4 wrote: »The reason why you store fat in the first place is to have energy reserves your body can use when there's too little food available = weight loss. If overweight people reached "starvation mode" after like a month or so (which many claim to have reached), how do you explain anorexia and actual starvation (=think of extremely thin people in Africa etc.)?
Most people use the starvation mode myth as an excuse for not counting calories correctly or yo-yo-ing back because they CONSUMED MORE CALORIES THAN THEY BURN. You do not suddenly gain back the weight when you eat within your (new) maintenance TDEE.
(I can recommend a REALLY good book on this topic but it's in German and I don't think there's a translation in English available yet)
Would you be able to give me the title of the book, bitte?1 -
I love the ones who say “you’re eating too little to lose weight”. If that was said anyplace other this this site you would be checked for signs of a brain. But on here with the professional arguers. It’s a normal statement. Only on a weight loss site.8
-
Ok so I will open myself for mocking. I like Fung. I have no idea if he thinks what he says is science. Nor do I care. I was 234 on Jan 2nd. I have incorporated many of his thoughts. Today was 214. I am not starving. My workouts are best in 5 years. I don’t need “peer reviewed studies” to tell me it works. It’s like saying you need peer reviewed paper to tell you it’s raining outside. Something either works or it doesn’t. I find most Anti-Fung types rarely discuss if what he says works. I have tried most of his ideas 3 times in my life (really started with Atkins). It worked each time in the same manner. The loss was fast and sustained until that point I went back to excess junk food and over eating. Also found I was not super hungry when I ate low carbs. Mind you not no carbs. I have also lost tons of pounds reducing calories. It worked. But after the initial few pounds I found the next 40 required a lot of effort that involved hunger a good deal of the time. So again. For me I don’t need peer reviewed anything to tell which eating plan works best. To me it’s not even close. Oh and because of some hlth issues I deal with my blood is drawn every four weeks. Never fails. When I go low carb high fat. All my bloodwork improves. So people have to do what they want. But please don’t blast Fung without proof that what he says doesn’t work. And you can’t provide that proof because too many people have lost weight and kept it off following what he prescribes. Sorry CICO people. It is a bit more complex than simple calories. More and more people are coming to that conclusion. Calories play a large role but they don’t tell the whole story.19
-
Lots of things work. I lost 30 lbs between the end of Jan and end of March in 2014, but don't claim I'm a diet guru or have some magic weight loss technique, and I didn't keto or fast.4
-
There's an analogy problem right there - that it is raining is an observable, experiential event - no one that understands sciences would need a study that they're experiencing one.Ok so I will open myself for mocking. I like Fung. I have no idea if he thinks what he says is science. Nor do I care. I was 234 on Jan 2nd. I have incorporated many of his thoughts. Today was 214. I am not starving. My workouts are best in 5 years. I don’t need “peer reviewed studies” to tell me it works. It’s like saying you need peer reviewed paper to tell you it’s raining outside. Something either works or it doesn’t. I find most Anti-Fung types rarely discuss if what he says works.
Similarly, that a person has lost weight is an observation. No one doubts that people claim to have lost weight.
Rather, the import of science is that it produces explanations and thus make accurate predictions. Does meteorology let us know it will rain tomorrow? Fairly well.
Does Fung produce explanations and thus make accurate predictions? No. Fung's models would predict that a high carb but low calorie diet won't produce weight loss, but it does. Fung's model will predict that a high calorie, low carb diet will produce weight loss, but it won't.
Now can he sometimes produce results? Sure. But if I tell 24 people the next three coin flips they make will all be heads, are my proven results for 3 people useful? No. I have nothing to help any of those 3 people when the next flip isn't heads.
Okay, so show me the one controlled study where it happened. I know you've just said you don't operate on studies, but I don't operate with claims that can't show that the account for errors and coincidence. I'm perfectly willing to have my mind changed - the brilliance of science is that it is falsifiable. I have yet to see people in an environment where the calories were controlled by researchers that failed to follow CICO.Sorry CICO people. It is a bit more complex than simple calories. More and more people are coming to that conclusion. Calories play a large role but they don’t tell the whole story.15 -
Ok so I will open myself for mocking. I like Fung. I have no idea if he thinks what he says is science. Nor do I care. I was 234 on Jan 2nd. I have incorporated many of his thoughts. Today was 214. I am not starving. My workouts are best in 5 years. I don’t need “peer reviewed studies” to tell me it works. It’s like saying you need peer reviewed paper to tell you it’s raining outside. Something either works or it doesn’t. I find most Anti-Fung types rarely discuss if what he says works. I have tried most of his ideas 3 times in my life (really started with Atkins). It worked each time in the same manner. The loss was fast and sustained until that point I went back to excess junk food and over eating. Also found I was not super hungry when I ate low carbs. Mind you not no carbs. I have also lost tons of pounds reducing calories. It worked. But after the initial few pounds I found the next 40 required a lot of effort that involved hunger a good deal of the time. So again. For me I don’t need peer reviewed anything to tell which eating plan works best. To me it’s not even close. Oh and because of some hlth issues I deal with my blood is drawn every four weeks. Never fails. When I go low carb high fat. All my bloodwork improves. So people have to do what they want. But please don’t blast Fung without proof that what he says doesn’t work. And you can’t provide that proof because too many people have lost weight and kept it off following what he prescribes. Sorry CICO people. It is a bit more complex than simple calories. More and more people are coming to that conclusion. Calories play a large role but they don’t tell the whole story.
You seem to have problems keeping the weight off--maintaining. So, my observation is that Fung doesn't work that well for you. Time to try something sustainable and longterm--that's the success that counts, and many of the "experts" on here have done it. CICO is NOT a weight loss program--calorie counting is. Best of luck for your weight loss.14 -
Ok so I will open myself for mocking. I like Fung. I have no idea if he thinks what he says is science. Nor do I care. I was 234 on Jan 2nd. I have incorporated many of his thoughts. Today was 214. I am not starving. My workouts are best in 5 years. I don’t need “peer reviewed studies” to tell me it works. It’s like saying you need peer reviewed paper to tell you it’s raining outside. Something either works or it doesn’t. I find most Anti-Fung types rarely discuss if what he says works. I have tried most of his ideas 3 times in my life (really started with Atkins). It worked each time in the same manner. The loss was fast and sustained until that point I went back to excess junk food and over eating. Also found I was not super hungry when I ate low carbs. Mind you not no carbs. I have also lost tons of pounds reducing calories. It worked. But after the initial few pounds I found the next 40 required a lot of effort that involved hunger a good deal of the time. So again. For me I don’t need peer reviewed anything to tell which eating plan works best. To me it’s not even close. Oh and because of some hlth issues I deal with my blood is drawn every four weeks. Never fails. When I go low carb high fat. All my bloodwork improves. So people have to do what they want. But please don’t blast Fung without proof that what he says doesn’t work. And you can’t provide that proof because too many people have lost weight and kept it off following what he prescribes. Sorry CICO people. It is a bit more complex than simple calories. More and more people are coming to that conclusion. Calories play a large role but they don’t tell the whole story.
Well, I'm not going to mock you and I don't believe anyone else here will either. You are posting in a debate forum though. So people are naturally going to debate what others post.
I initially lost the majority of my weight doing lower carb, higher fat as well. I was concerned that I was eating too much and began to track calories, and it turned out I was at about a 500 calorie deficit. That alone proves nothing as it's anecdotal at best. I just wanted you to know I get where you're coming from.
Regarding Fung, he stated the first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant.
https://idmprogram.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Either your body is consuming calories or it isn't. If it isn't, this debate is quite literally the least of your concerns 😉
Our bodies consume calories. That's a constant we all share. If we consume more calories than we use, we gain. Less and we lose.
What Fung is doing is taking a variable and attempting to apply it to everyone by claiming that law doesn't apply. The variables change to a degree, not the law.
Cico doesn't change because it's an equation, not some nebulous idea.
Calories don't change, because a calorie is a unit of potential energy, not just a tiny bit of food that occupies a certain amount of space.
Numbers are constants and can be reliably applied when used in conjunction with the applicable formula.
So rather than we needing to disprove Fung's theories, I believe he first needs to provide empirical evidence that a universal law of our existence doesn't matter per his claim.
Mock you? No sir. Debate your assertions? Yes. I am glad you're finding something that works for you and truly hope you keep progressing 👍11 -
Ok so I will open myself for mocking. I like Fung. I have no idea if he thinks what he says is science. Nor do I care. I was 234 on Jan 2nd. I have incorporated many of his thoughts. Today was 214. I am not starving. My workouts are best in 5 years. I don’t need “peer reviewed studies” to tell me it works. It’s like saying you need peer reviewed paper to tell you it’s raining outside. Something either works or it doesn’t. I find most Anti-Fung types rarely discuss if what he says works. I have tried most of his ideas 3 times in my life (really started with Atkins). It worked each time in the same manner. The loss was fast and sustained until that point I went back to excess junk food and over eating. Also found I was not super hungry when I ate low carbs. Mind you not no carbs. I have also lost tons of pounds reducing calories. It worked. But after the initial few pounds I found the next 40 required a lot of effort that involved hunger a good deal of the time. So again. For me I don’t need peer reviewed anything to tell which eating plan works best. To me it’s not even close. Oh and because of some hlth issues I deal with my blood is drawn every four weeks. Never fails. When I go low carb high fat. All my bloodwork improves. So people have to do what they want. But please don’t blast Fung without proof that what he says doesn’t work. And you can’t provide that proof because too many people have lost weight and kept it off following what he prescribes. Sorry CICO people. It is a bit more complex than simple calories. More and more people are coming to that conclusion. Calories play a large role but they don’t tell the whole story.
If I'm reading your post correctly you haven't been successfully maintaining your weight loss with low carb, long term? If that's correct, then how can you claim that low carb is successful for you?
You say that many people have kept weight off using Fung's plan-do you have any studies that show the long term adherence rates for this? I'm especially interested in the success rates beyond 5 years, which is the point when most people have failed at weight loss management and regain, regardless of what plan they're following.
Weight loss is the easy part and is for a few months-couple of years usually. After the honeymoon phase wears off though the reality is that maintenance is for 20, 30, 40+ years. It always fascinates me when someone claims a certain way works, but isn't actually succeeding at long term weight management using the plan. If someone can't stick with something long term, then it's not actually working.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions