In Response to Starvation is a Myth Thread

Doodlewhopper

“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth

I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.

The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined.

Im not in argument with the “less calories equal weight loss”, for the normal person having normal health and metabolism. I am taking exception to the smug and condescending clowns who regurgitate the latest article they have just read that have little basis in science. I am saying that there are dynamics that change the equation such as thyroid problems, and medications.

I have an under active thyroid but never the less, I dropped an average of around 2lbs per week and went from 260 to 222 quick and easy. Then I cut my calories again per MFP and increased my running distance - and quit losing. I was patient, but after 3 1/2 months my weight creeped up so I went to the local bariatric center and consulted with the RD and she tested my RMR.

I am 6' tall and at the time weighed 230 and my RMR was 1600 kcals - normal RMR for someone like me should be in the range of 1792 - 2389kcals / day

The conclusion was that I was eating so little that I had stalled my metabolism and that my weight gain was a result of me increasing my running distance; which increased my glycogen stores. (1 gram of glycogen binds with 2.7 grams of water.)

I was advised to increase my calorie intake by 560 calories, start HIIT or lifting, and be patient. I also decided to adopt the TDEE method per heybales spreadsheet. After a few weeks I got sick and cut my running almost in half, and dropped 3 pounds in about 1 1/2 - 2 weeks.

If you are having problems dropping weight contact your local bariatric/health center, doctor, college and find out where you can have your RMR tested. I paid $60 and the test took about 10 minutes and then the RD worked with me for 50 minutes. Well worth the price.

Im not claiming victory, the jury is still out - but I have seen and learned enough to know that there is no one answer fits all.

harleygroomer

Well said !!!!!!!!!!

pennysteed

Great post.

TheSlorax

this will be good

so glad I wasn't planning on getting any work done today

hookilau

Where's a slow clap gif when you need one? :ohwell:
I wish you well on your journey & look forward to updates on how this works out for you.

I too got sucked in to a down ward spiral of ridiculous back & forth, from healthy individuals who know the score, but choose to get their jollies from trolling threads, to bait unsuspecting people into arguments for the sake of their own entertainment. :yawn:

Good for you for getting your RMR tested, I might have to do that myself
:drinker:

edited for punctuation

moss11

Good Post!
We are all doing our best that is why we're here logging on!

jlapey

“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth

I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.

The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined...

Had you finished the article, perhaps you would understand.

BrainyBurro

“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth

I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.

The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined.

Im not in argument with the “less calories equal weight loss”, for the normal person having normal health and metabolism. I am taking exception to the smug and condescending clowns who regurgitate the latest article they have just read that have little basis in science. I am saying that there are dynamics that change the equation such as thyroid problems, and medications.

I have an under active thyroid but never the less, I dropped an average of around 2lbs per week and went from 260 to 222 quick and easy. Then I cut my calories again per MFP and increased my running distance - and quit losing. I was patient, but after 3 1/2 months my weight creeped up so I went to the local bariatric center and consulted with the RD and she tested my RMR.

I am 6' tall and at the time weighed 230 and my RMR was 1600 kcals - normal RMR for someone like me should be in the range of 1792 - 2389kcals / day

The conclusion was that I was eating so little that I had stalled my metabolism and that my weight gain was a result of me increasing my running distance; which increased my glycogen stores. (1 gram of glycogen binds with 2.7 grams of water.)

I was advised to increase my calorie intake by 560 calories, start HIIT or lifting, and be patient. I also decided to adopt the TDEE method per heybales spreadsheet. After a few weeks I got sick and cut my running almost in half, and dropped 3 pounds in about 1 1/2 - 2 weeks.

If you are having problems dropping weight contact your local bariatric/health center, doctor, college and find out where you can have your RMR tested. I paid $60 and the test took about 10 minutes and then the RD worked with me for 50 minutes. Well worth the price.

Im not claiming victory, the jury is still out - but I have seen and learned enough to know that there is no one answer fits all.

thread fail.

there is a law governing weight loss. it's the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

the fact that you don't understand this law or that others misstate it, doesn't make it untrue.

it's immutable.

no matter how much of a special snowflake you may think yourself to be, this law applies to you too.

cleback

One thing to add: be wary of RMR tests. Not all are created equal, some are just plain wrong. I had mine tested at a university and it gave me a ridiculously low number (600kcal). Do your research and ask them lots of questions before giving them your money!

tonynguyen75

The reason for your metabolic rate change was likely due to eating 1. Too few calories for too long or 2. Insufficient amount of fats in your diet.

For those that follow recommended at least 0.4g of fat per lb of body weight and TDEE - 10-20%, metabolic changes should not occur.

Stay within those guidelines and healthy individuals should not become unhealthy individuals.

Yes it exists, but it doesn't occur after 20 hours of not eating, it doesn't occur if you're getting your fats and only cutting your calories down by 10%. Most of the time it occurs because people go too extreme with their diets thinking that they can live with 500 calorie diets.

If you suspect metabolic damage/thyroid changes/"starvation mode" you can simply get tested.

The general population, however, follows the same caloric intake and exercise level after losing 30 lbs and expects weight loss to continue. Well surprise surprise, when you're 30 lbs lighter, the exercise you do will not burn the same amount of calories and your BMR will not be the same anymore, so you'll have to reduce intake and increase exercise slightly. No biggie.

Sarauk2sf

I thought the article excellent.

2aycocks

Why is what you have to say so special that it deserves it's own thread?

Because it was factual, made sense, well stated, and was not snarkey. It would have been lost in the pages of other posts on this subject.

I appreciate this new thread and what you said!!

BrainyBurro

I thought the article excellent.

it is excellent.

the OP of this thread is starting from a false premise and wallowing in the minutiae.

you can adjust the boundary of a "system" such that all inputs and outputs are accounted for and then treat the system itself as a "black box". in that case, how fast or slow somebody's metabolism operates is irrelevant. on the boundary of that black box, the laws of physics can be applied and surprise, surprise... weight loss truly does boil down to an energy balance equation.

this is what engineers and physicists do all the time. this is how we "simplify" the analysis of complex systems. the human body is just another complex system.

Chief_Rocka

Why do you feel it your responsibility to inform me of this? Do you have an interest in MFP? Are you the MFP quality assurance kahuna? Or, do you suffer from low t and just trying to take out your frustration?

BTW if you read the responses to my op you will see that you hold the minority opinion. Now bump it on down the road slick.

Because I'm free to express my opinion here, so long as I follow the forum guidelines. Speaking of the forum guidelines, I could report you for a personal attack, if I was so inclined.

As far as holding the minority opinion, if I listened to the majority I would be avoiding sugar to stay lean and "flushing" my sodium out with water. Thank God I have more sense than that.

hookilau

Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:

Hexahedra

I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.

People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.

Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.

If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.

michail71

I think glycogen and water balance can throw some people off if they get too fixated on the scale. But those parameters should be in balance with a consistent diet and activity level. Just like when people think they gained a pound or two of fat overnight. It's just not possible (or very unlikely).

2aycocks

Why do you feel it your responsibility to inform me of this? Do you have an interest in MFP? Are you the MFP quality assurance kahuna? Or, do you suffer from low t and just trying to take out your frustration?

BTW if you read the responses to my op you will see that you hold the minority opinion. Now bump it on down the road slick.

Because I'm free to express my opinion here, so long as I follow the forum guidelines. Speaking of the forum guidelines, I could report you for a personal attack, if I was so inclined.

As far as holding the minority opinion, if I listened to the majority I would be avoiding sugar to stay lean and "flushing" my sodium out with water. Thank God I have more sense than that.

YOU are free to express YOUR opinion?? So why doesn't that go for the OP as well??? You started this bantering so don't act like the playground bully, then go run tell the teacher when someone banters back!

PikaKnight

Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:

And exactly how are you defining healthy?

2aycocks

Hexahedra said, 'I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption. '

I've also heard it called "hybernation" mode. A state of inactivity and metabolic depression.

soldier4242

Everyone is overlooking the most important thing in this thread. The OP is using a photo from the movie master of disguise as an avatar photo.

That movie is a crime against humanity. It killed Dana Carvey's career.

soldier4242

Why is what you have to say so special that it deserves it's own thread?

I deemed it so. Why is it so important that you felt the need to ask me?

I wasn't asking you anything, the question was rhetorical.

I meant to directly state that your thoughts don't deserve their own thread, and would have best been left buried on page 5 of the other thread.

Why do you feel it your responsibility to inform me of this? Do you have an interest in MFP? Are you the MFP quality assurance kahuna? Or, do you suffer from low t and just trying to take out your frustration?

BTW if you read the responses to my op you will see that you hold the minority opinion. Now bump it on down the road slick.

And we all know that if your views differ from the majority it must mean you are wrong. I often think back to when Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun. The majority of people disagreed with him. So he was proven to be wrong based on that line of thinking and to this day we now know that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.

stefjc

Thank goodness it is the weekend.

I can hang around and read more about the hibernating sweet spot that orbits the Sun

Sarauk2sf

“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth

I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.

The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined...

Had you finished the article, perhaps you would understand.

Yep. If you are going to make a thread about an article, at least read it.

9jenn9

I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.

People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.

Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.

If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.

Thanks for this and the op. A well written, reasoned response that avoids emotion. I have no problem with people having their own opinions, but snark does not equal wit. When I see hyperbole and snark, it turns me off to the content of the post.

ereck44

I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.

People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.

Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.

If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.

Yeah, weight loss has a lot to do with metabolism and biofeedback mechanisms as well as calories in and energy out.. 800 cals per day IS a miserable existence. I see a lot of people who eat 800 cals one day and then 1500 the next. No wonder the body gets confused. Even if they succeed at first, they fail later on. The fatigue factors in, because how can a body do the work of the day with no energy (supplied by food)?

As for me, my metabolism had to be low. I hadn't heard my stomach rumble in years. Partly due to working the off shift, getting older, and being mildly hypothyroid, along with some poor eating habits, the weight gain occurred and was really difficult to lose. I started eating a little bit of protein after awakening (hungry or no), measuring my food, and exercising hard on the days that I wasn't at work. I tried to eat the same number of cals per day. I lost almost 30 pounds since then, and wake up with a growling stomach ( music to my ears)!

Otterluv

“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth

I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.

The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined.

Im not in argument with the “less calories equal weight loss”, for the normal person having normal health and metabolism. I am taking exception to the smug and condescending clowns who regurgitate the latest article they have just read that have little basis in science. I am saying that there are dynamics that change the equation such as thyroid problems, and medications.

I have an under active thyroid but never the less, I dropped an average of around 2lbs per week and went from 260 to 222 quick and easy. Then I cut my calories again per MFP and increased my running distance - and quit losing. I was patient, but after 3 1/2 months my weight creeped up so I went to the local bariatric center and consulted with the RD and she tested my RMR.

I am 6' tall and at the time weighed 230 and my RMR was 1600 kcals - normal RMR for someone like me should be in the range of 1792 - 2389kcals / day

The conclusion was that I was eating so little that I had stalled my metabolism and that my weight gain was a result of me increasing my running distance; which increased my glycogen stores. (1 gram of glycogen binds with 2.7 grams of water.)

I was advised to increase my calorie intake by 560 calories, start HIIT or lifting, and be patient. I also decided to adopt the TDEE method per heybales spreadsheet. After a few weeks I got sick and cut my running almost in half, and dropped 3 pounds in about 1 1/2 - 2 weeks.

If you are having problems dropping weight contact your local bariatric/health center, doctor, college and find out where you can have your RMR tested. I paid $60 and the test took about 10 minutes and then the RD worked with me for 50 minutes. Well worth the price.

Im not claiming victory, the jury is still out - but I have seen and learned enough to know that there is no one answer fits all.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that your losing 3lbs in a couple of weeks due to illness is proof positive that you weren't eating enough prior? Didn't you just the paragraph before state that excess water is stored w/glycogen when increasing activity? So, would it not stand to reason that when you were ill, and not exercising as much, that you dropped water along with glycogen? To the tune of, I dunno', about 3lbs. in a couple of weeks?

hookilau

I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.

People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.

Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.

If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.

Thanks for this and the op. A well written, reasoned response that avoids emotion. I have no problem with people having their own opinions, but snark does not equal wit. When I see hyperbole and snark, it turns me off to the content of the post.

I agree on both accounts :drinker:
Definitely something I can use in the future if I get jammed up and while the jury is still out as to whether or not I'll be able to meet my goals on this current path, it's nice to know there are other options rather than going back to the brick wall I'd been banging my head against :ohwell:

tonynguyen75

I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.

People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.

Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.

If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.

Yeah, weight loss has a lot to do with metabolism and biofeedback mechanisms as well as calories in and energy out.. 800 cals per day IS a miserable existence. I see a lot of people who eat 800 cals one day and then 1500 the next. No wonder the body gets confused. Even if they succeed at first, they fail later on. The fatigue factors in, because how can a body do the work of the day with no energy (supplied by food)?

As for me, my metabolism had to be low. I hadn't heard my stomach rumble in years. Partly due to working the off shift, getting older, and being mildly hypothyroid, along with some poor eating habits, the weight gain occurred and was really difficult to lose. I started eating a little bit of protein after awakening (hungry or no), measuring my food, and exercising hard on the days that I wasn't at work. I tried to eat the same number of cals per day. I lost almost 30 pounds since then, and wake up with a growling stomach ( music to my ears)!

Bold: By using fat stores as energy.

55in13

There is some science behind a slowdown in metabolic rate; there have been a couple of really good recent threads on adaptive thermogenesis with links to abundant studies and articles in peer reviewed medical journals. Some people do have their rate slow as much as 15% after long periods of significant deficit and it can take a while for it to return to normal. Most people will have a slowdown of less than 15%, possibly even 0. I think I may have slowed mine a little, because while the math worked early on and I lost 2 pounds a week for months, when I got close to goal and adjusted to a smaller deficit, the weight was coming off a little slower than calculated. But it did come off and I am at goal now. And now it does seem like my maintenance level is slightly below what the calculators say it should be.

It did not cause me to plateau. It did not keep me from losing. If I were told up front that I could lose the weight but I would have a slightly slowed MR as a side effect, I would still do it. It does not make me slower or less energetic (I have run 106 miles so far in August) and it is likely to return to normal. It does not validate the idea that you will come to a halt in loss. It just might make your progress a little slower than you hoped and experienced early on. If slow and steady works for you, then do that. But the sky is not falling; just my weight is (actually was; I ignored the hulabaloo and stayed on the high deficit to lose 45 pounds and then lost the last 10 at a slower pace).

ETA - here is a really good thread on AT:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

Unknown

This content has been removed.