Weight gain and starvation myth

justinejacksonm
justinejacksonm Posts: 75 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hey, just putting it out there because I know this is a frequently debated topic. The common known principal right now is that eating too little puts people into "starvation mode". I have hesitated to take this principle on face value on a number of reasons. 1: most everyone says this because that's what they read somewhere. Where was that info obtained? Is it just another bit of info regurgitated time and again without any true scientific basis? You can explain something using lingo so that it sounds legit but not necessarily true.
2: Your body is generally the one who knows. Unless you have a disorder or take something they suppresses appetite... Usually when your body is hungry, it wants food. If you're not hungry, don't eat. The opposite may be true also, if you have an issue or eat alot but eat alot with little nutritional value leaving your body in need.
3: No one seems to know where the magic "1200" minimum came from. Everyone varies in their needs. I work at Amazon, so compared to when I worked a desk job where I sat for 8.5 hrs plus 45 each way commuting, my caloric needs have changed substantially! And the same is true of anyone else. Some people are larger than others. Varying metabolism, etc.
4: if it's true that you gain weight by eating too little, then all the girls who habitually eat very little and are slim and petite should theoretically be huge! I looked at POWs and people in impoverished nations. Skinny! Same for vegans or those you see on hard core healthy diets, whether vegan, vegetarian, "clean" etc. Pretty much all of those people I watch on YouTube who share their eating habits definitely eat very little. And they're skinny.
That is, unless they're so incredibly hungry for such extended periods their stomachs become distended. That's starvation. They have no food.

The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!

I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse.

All the promise of the theory that eating small healthy meals "revving up my metabolism" and doing strength training will tone me to and burn more fat was a lie.

For me, I don't believe that 1200 is, in fact, a magic number at all. Maybe a guide. What you eat is HUGE because we eat for nutrients after all.

Even on a limited calorie diet of 800-1000 calories, atleast in America if you're getting those calories from nutrient dense foods- you're eating way more and getting more nutrition than a prisoner of war or Ethiopian (just to use a cliche).

Replies

  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
  • vanpienaar
    vanpienaar Posts: 5 Member
    I believe there was a study that found by restricting calories the body slowly adjusted buy lower body temp, decreased blood pressure and caused lethargy or slow mental responses. Causing weight loss to hit a plateau. When the calories were restricted more, the same thing occurred. After the study, they all gained the weight back and then some. Its your body adjusting to the reduction of caloric expenditure to math the intake.

    Working out and doing strength exercises actually caused me to be less hungry and had to force myself to get in protein. Makes me wonder how The Rock or Schwarzenegger are able to eat the meals they eat. I also found that the metabolism increase from more muscle is insignificant, even if you are able to add on 20 pounds of pure muscle, the adjustment to the metabolic rate is minimum.
  • justinejacksonm
    justinejacksonm Posts: 75 Member
    duskyjewel wrote: »
    Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!



    Hey, I don't mind muscle but I don't want to appear muscular. I want slim feminine legs, not quads like I'm an athlete. Personal preference I guess. I also tried the whole lifting heavier, eating more protein, etc once under the advice it's nearly impossible for a female to bulk up unless doing a ton of strength training and you'll just burn more calories. I did that for about 6 months and now I have developed traps I can't get rid of.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    justinejacksonm wrote: »
    duskyjewel wrote: »
    Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!



    Hey, I don't mind muscle but I don't want to appear muscular. I want slim feminine legs, not quads like I'm an athlete. Personal preference I guess. I also tried the whole lifting heavier, eating more protein, etc once under the advice it's nearly impossible for a female to bulk up unless doing a ton of strength training and you'll just burn more calories. I did that for about 6 months and now I have developed traps I can't get rid of.

    You very easily achieve not looking bulking if you just don't get too lean and don't take anabolic steroids. There is also a bit of person perception. I suspect you got a little too lean which increased definition which make you believe you were bulky.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,040 Member
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
    Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
    Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    This is an often touted reason for persons not being able to lose weight. A little science is a dangerous thing for people with enormous amounts of denial and aversion.

    The tiny adjustments the body can make in metabolic rate has about nothing to do with weight loss by persons with large amounts of body fat. They would like to blame metabolic rate "I hardly eat anything and one chocolate chip cookie goes right to my hips" but the truth is that keeping a 250 lb bag of water, fat, and bones at 98.7 degrees in an environment where the ambient temperature is a lot lower is what takes calories. Try to keep a 5 gallon bottle of water at about 100 F outside all day and see how much energy it takes. And, that is pure physics. Nothing to do with metabolism. Sorry.
  • NVintage
    NVintage Posts: 1,463 Member
    edited March 2021
    "The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!

    I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse."



    I was thinking along these lines this morning, that maybe I've been able to maintain my weight for the better part of my life because of not being tied to mealtimes and typically eating when I get hungry. As a kid, my mom (bless her heart:D) was a terrible cook and worked full time. I'd just grab something easy for dinner to microwave when hungry, and if I had a big lunch, I'd forget about dinner all together. I had a good friend that I worked with for a few years in my 20s. We'd go out to lunch together and eat pretty much the same types of food. She was confused to why I stayed thin, and she was maybe 30-40 pounds overweight. We figured out that I'd usually just eat a snack after a big lunch, while she always cooked a big dinner and ate with her family....so pretty much twice the calories. If I ate a light lunch, I'd eat a big dinner...I'm sure some days I'd eat less than 1200, but then other days maybe a lot more. I'm thinking having a mom who couldn't cook versus one who fixed delicious sit down dinners every night could be a blessing in disguise! The only time I've gained a little weight is when my activity decreased a lot, after having my daughter and this year after quitting my job, AND I kept eating the same amount of food as I did when I would run around all day.



    justinejacksonm wrote: »
    Hey, just putting it out there because I know this is a frequently debated topic. The common known principal right now is that eating too little puts people into "starvation mode". I have hesitated to take this principle on face value on a number of reasons. 1: most everyone says this because that's what they read somewhere. Where was that info obtained? Is it just another bit of info regurgitated time and again without any true scientific basis? You can explain something using lingo so that it sounds legit but not necessarily true.
    2: Your body is generally the one who knows. Unless you have a disorder or take something they suppresses appetite... Usually when your body is hungry, it wants food. If you're not hungry, don't eat. The opposite may be true also, if you have an issue or eat alot but eat alot with little nutritional value leaving your body in need.
    3: No one seems to know where the magic "1200" minimum came from. Everyone varies in their needs. I work at Amazon, so compared to when I worked a desk job where I sat for 8.5 hrs plus 45 each way commuting, my caloric needs have changed substantially! And the same is true of anyone else. Some people are larger than others. Varying metabolism, etc.
    4: if it's true that you gain weight by eating too little, then all the girls who habitually eat very little and are slim and petite should theoretically be huge! I looked at POWs and people in impoverished nations. Skinny! Same for vegans or those you see on hard core healthy diets, whether vegan, vegetarian, "clean" etc. Pretty much all of those people I watch on YouTube who share their eating habits definitely eat very little. And they're skinny.
    That is, unless they're so incredibly hungry for such extended periods their stomachs become distended. That's starvation. They have no food.

    The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!

    I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse.

    All the promise of the theory that eating small healthy meals "revving up my metabolism" and doing strength training will tone me to and burn more fat was a lie.

    For me, I don't believe that 1200 is, in fact, a magic number at all. Maybe a guide. What you eat is HUGE because we eat for nutrients after all.

    Even on a limited calorie diet of 800-1000 calories, atleast in America if you're getting those calories from nutrient dense foods- you're eating way more and getting more nutrition than a prisoner of war or Ethiopian (just to use a cliche).

  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    edited March 2021
    metabolism DOESN'T matter

    Did I say that? I think I said adaptation of metabolic rate due to dieting made a tiny adjustment and did not significantly affect weight loss for persons who are well over weight. If I didn't say that, I am now.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,040 Member
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    metabolism DOESN'T matter

    Did I say that? I think I said adaptation of metabolic rate due to dieting made a tiny adjustment and did not significantly affect weight loss for persons who are well over weight. If I didn't say that, I am now.
    Got it.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    edited March 2021
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
    Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    This is an often touted reason for persons not being able to lose weight. A little science is a dangerous thing for people with enormous amounts of denial and aversion.

    The tiny adjustments the body can make in metabolic rate has about nothing to do with weight loss by persons with large amounts of body fat. They would like to blame metabolic rate "I hardly eat anything and one chocolate chip cookie goes right to my hips" but the truth is that keeping a 250 lb bag of water, fat, and bones at 98.7 degrees in an environment where the ambient temperature is a lot lower is what takes calories. Try to keep a 5 gallon bottle of water at about 100 F outside all day and see how much energy it takes. And, that is pure physics. Nothing to do with metabolism. Sorry.
    Well there's denial and actual science. Hormones also do make a difference and things like rest and sleep do too. So to say that metabolism DOESN'T matter would be disingenous. Going from sedentary to one that requires more calories to sustain a higher metabolic rate due to increased activity is pretty obvious. And are you saying that as one loses weight their metabolic rate doesn't drop?
    There are a lot of snake oil salemen out there that "create" pseudoscience and somehow they have the solution.............which means money in their pocket. It's why forums like this exist. To refute some of the BS the diet and fitness industry promote just to make a buck.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    Physics, yes CICO, but I have been saying for a while, what controls CO is just as complex as CI. How familiar are you with the energy constraint model hypothesi?. It predicts that the at first, when starting a higher energy output trough activity, you will have a transient increase in CO, but after a time, the body will compensate by burning less calories elsewhere. Thus Keeping TDEE within a narrow window. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00027.2018
  • jjalbertt
    jjalbertt Posts: 98 Member
    I think its important to understand time frame and how often one is eating at an unsafe caloric intake. There's also the whole "you're probably not getting enough nutrients to sustain your body" aspect of this. Eventually your organs just stop working or your hair falls out.
    The body does try to hold onto energy when it realizes its not getting as much, although obviously this doesn't last forever and you're probably not going to notice it happening. Unless you're obsessively weighing yourself and even then, hard to tell.
    As for your body just knowing, yes... sometimes this works but for a lot of people the hormone that release that trigger just doesn't work. Especially in the modern world when food is everywhere all the time. It's definitely not as reliable.

    1200 calories is for a woman at average height I believe or the range of average height. It's lower if you're shorter or higher is you're tall and also depends on how active your daily life is. Generally the 1200 it is just a guideline till you know your specifics.

    I'd also Iike to point out that just because people survived off little or still survive off very little, doesn't mean they're healthy...it merely meant they're alive, they could be very malnourished.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    An average woman will require around 800 calories per day just to maintain 98.6 F body temperature in a temperate climate with ambient temperature around 65F. That is before locomotion, cell repair, digestion, and cognition (yes, the brain does something with all that blood circulating into the cranium). Colder temperatures, larger body weight, poor digestion, all increase that baseline. That is not a metabolic rate, it is pure physics on the amount of energy needed to raise a body of mostly water 30 degrees for 24 hours.

Categories