In Response to Starvation is a Myth Thread
Replies
-
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.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).0 -
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.
Um are you jealous because you weren't allowed in the Turtle Club? For some reason I thought this movie was ridiculously hilarious.0 -
I thought the article excellent.
Agreed and I also agree with you should have at least finished it.
Because the article basically states you can starve but the words "starvation mode" are thrown around too much and used when people aren't loosing weight and swear they are doing everything right when in fact if you dig deeper they aren't, ie underestimating the calorie intake becausethey don't even measure food let alone weigh it and over estimating calorie burn by oh let's say adding in getting groceries as an activity...or using a HRM for exercises you can't.0 -
So because someones opinion "sucks" he should not voice it? Give me a break... He had every right to post this just as you did to say it sucked.0
-
I've seen folks post that they had their RMR tested and it was lower than average as evidence that some people really truly need to eat less than 1200 calories. And now I've seen low tested RMR used as evidence that eating "too little" can cause damage and people absolutely need to eat way more than 1200 calories. So I guess finding out your RMR tells you exactly nada.
Of course, it seems from the OP that the "evidence" here is a very slightly lower than average RMR and typical weight fluctuation over a few weeks. Le sigh.
Girl walks into the bariatric center....0 -
First of all I paid my dues and I brought a cake. The uptight smug *kitten* wouldn't even validate my parking.
Um are you jealous because you weren't allowed in the Turtle Club? For some reason I thought this movie was ridiculously hilarious.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.0 -
Well to be fair I don't think his position was the the OP did not have a right to post it. He just did not feel his post was deserving of its own thread. If he was saying that his post should be reported then I would agree that he would be overstepping his bounds.So because someones opinion "sucks" he should not voice it? Give me a break... He had every right to post this just as you did to say it sucked.0 -
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.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).
If somebody sticks with a certain caloric goal a day and that number happens to be the lowered caloric expenditure due to adaptive thermogenesis, then his weight loss will stall. In other word, he's in a lower state of maintenance and can't lose weight until he either cuts calories even further or increases it a little to prod his metabolism up.
Let's say my maintenance is 2100, and if I eat too little AT is capable of lowering it to 1600. I call these upper maintenance and lower maintenance points. If I eat 1600 a day I would not lose weight at all once AT ramps down my metabolism. A month without any movement of the dial seems like forever for most folks. At this point I have two choices to lose weight: either cut deeper beyond the ability of my body to adapt (severe starvation), or eat a little more to trick my body into burning close to 2100 cals a day again (mild starvation).
In short: the so-called starvation mode is real, but only within a certain range of calories.0 -
I think the OP just wanted to start a thread expressing the opposing view.
In the other thread, several people were rude and condescending to those of us experiencing plateaus. Sure, weight loss is an input/output thing, but there are other factors happening that don't always make it easy to know exactly what that input and output should be. The attitude of many who supported the article seemed to be, "Oh, you're not losing weight? Well then you're obviously lying about the calories you eat or you're tracking it incorrectly."
I am logging correctly and have no desire to cheat/lie, because who is that actually cheating? Me. But when I said this, I was met with, "Well, you need to weigh your food, not measure it." ... after I said TWICE that I weigh my food with a digital scale. I mean, c'mon, either give people advice or don't, but if you're going to give them advice at least READ what they wrote! Lol.
Some people were very helpful and gave me encouragement ... but I just can't stand that attitude of, "You're struggling right now and I'm not, so I'm an expert and you're an idiot."
We've all had success and we've all had failure ... but I think some people get to where they want to be and forget all the struggle it took to get them there. (This goes for many things in life; not just weight loss.)0 -
The range found in the studies on AT topped out at 15%, which would not reduce 2100 to 1600. Most people get less than a 15% reduction. On top of that, reducing that little is not likely to trigger AT at all from the studies I have seen. It is more likely to happen if you were burning 2100 and start limiting consumption to 1200 or so. Then with worst case numbers your burn might drop to 1785 and you would lose slower than you might be expecting to.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.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).
If somebody sticks with a certain caloric goal a day and that number happens to be the lowered caloric expenditure due to adaptive thermogenesis, then his weight loss will stall. In other word, he's in a lower state of maintenance and can't lose weight until he either cuts calories even further or increases it a little to prod his metabolism up.
Let's say my maintenance is 2100, and if I eat too little AT is capable of lowering it to 1600. I call these upper maintenance and lower maintenance points. If I eat 1600 a day I would not lose weight at all once AT ramps down my metabolism. A month without any movement of the dial seems like forever for most folks. At this point I have two choices to lose weight: either cut deeper beyond the ability of my body to adapt (severe starvation), or eat a little more to trick my body into burning close to 2100 cals a day again (mild starvation).
In short: the so-called starvation mode is real, but only within a certain range of calories.0 -
Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:
Yes! And when you click on their profile and see their diary and pictures, it's even more obvious.
Imho, if you were very heavy most of your life, but recently lost about 50lbs (even though you still have a ton more to lose), you didn't become a nutritional expert overnight.
Note: I'm not claiming to be a nutritional expert either. But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.0 -
Why is what you have to say so special that it deserves it's own thread?
Anyone has the option to start a new thread. He doesn't have to be special. He had something to say and wanted to be heard. If it's not relevant to you, that's okay. It doesn't cost anything to be kind.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:
Yes! And when you click on their profile and see their diary and pictures, it's even more obvious.
Imho, if you were very heavy most of your life, but recently lost about 50lbs (even though you still have a ton more to lose), you didn't become a nutritional expert overnight.
Note: I'm not claiming to be a nutritional expert either. But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.
Ouch. Someone's angry.
Lol....or sick of sugar coating it. Speaking of sugar......
0 -
I think the OP just wanted to start a thread expressing the opposing view.
In the other thread, several people were rude and condescending to those of us experiencing plateaus. Sure, weight loss is an input/output thing, but there are other factors happening that don't always make it easy to know exactly what that input and output should be. The attitude of many who supported the article seemed to be, "Oh, you're not losing weight? Well then you're obviously lying about the calories you eat or you're tracking it incorrectly."
I am logging correctly and have no desire to cheat/lie, because who is that actually cheating? Me. But when I said this, I was met with, "Well, you need to weigh your food, not measure it." ... after I said TWICE that I weigh my food with a digital scale. I mean, c'mon, either give people advice or don't, but if you're going to give them advice at least READ what they wrote! Lol.
Some people were very helpful and gave me encouragement ... but I just can't stand that attitude of, "You're struggling right now and I'm not, so I'm an expert and you're an idiot."
We've all had success and we've all had failure ... but I think some people get to where they want to be and forget all the struggle it took to get them there. (This goes for many things in life; not just weight loss.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSiioBQ5ho4
Sometimes it's all just psychological.
You can take a diet break to reduce the psychological stress.0 -
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
There is a huge difference between a modest, temporary slowdown in metabolic rate that can be related to starting a weight loss program and "starvation mode" or "metabolic damage".
They aren't even part of the same conversation.0 -
So, this is a quibble, but.......
while, technically, gaining 3 lbs of fat-free mass (in this case supposedly glycogen and water) is "gaining weight" -- i.e. scale weight does increase--it's not the same as gaining 3 lbs of fat. In fact, it's no more significant that putting a rock in your pants pocket before stepping on the scale.0 -
what? so people who have never fought to lose weight are more "expert" than those who do tons of research on how to lose weight, then successfully put it into practice? Are people born into money also more expert at saving and proper investment than those who came from nothing and built something for themselves? I wasn't going to comment on this ridiculous thread, but the quote above kinda pissed me off.Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:
Yes! And when you click on their profile and see their diary and pictures, it's even more obvious.
Imho, if you were very heavy most of your life, but recently lost about 50lbs (even though you still have a ton more to lose), you didn't become a nutritional expert overnight.
Note: I'm not claiming to be a nutritional expert either. But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.
As you were.0 -
what? so people who have never fought to lose weight are more "expert" than those who do tons of research on how to lose weight, then successfully put it into practice? Are people born into money also more expert at saving and proper investment than those who came from nothing and built something for themselves? I wasn't going to comment on this ridiculous thread, but the quote above kinda pissed me off.Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:
Yes! And when you click on their profile and see their diary and pictures, it's even more obvious.
Imho, if you were very heavy most of your life, but recently lost about 50lbs (even though you still have a ton more to lose), you didn't become a nutritional expert overnight.
Note: I'm not claiming to be a nutritional expert either. But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.
As you were.
hey sweetie, i don't blame you based on what you think I said. But my point is not that I am an expert. It's the opposite. And it was trying to point out that neither being thin all your life, nor losing weight for the first time qualifies you as one.
I personally try not to offer advice to people in these forums, and certainly not unless asked. But I see a lot of people truly shoving their opinions down peoples throats in a very condescending manner and it's kind of sickening.0 -
what? so people who have never fought to lose weight are more "expert" than those who do tons of research on how to lose weight, then successfully put it into practice? Are people born into money also more expert at saving and proper investment than those who came from nothing and built something for themselves? I wasn't going to comment on this ridiculous thread, but the quote above kinda pissed me off.Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:
Yes! And when you click on their profile and see their diary and pictures, it's even more obvious.
Imho, if you were very heavy most of your life, but recently lost about 50lbs (even though you still have a ton more to lose), you didn't become a nutritional expert overnight.
Note: I'm not claiming to be a nutritional expert either. But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.
As you were.
hey sweetie, i don't blame you based on what you think I said. But my point is not that I am an expert. It's the opposite. And it was trying to point out that neither being thin all your life, nor losing weight for the first time qualifies you as one.
I personally try not to offer advice to people in these forums, and certainly not unless asked. But I see a lot of people truly shoving their opinions down peoples throats in a very condescending manner and it's kind of sickening.
Says the woman who was being condescending and rude. LOL.0 -
When you read everything that comes after what you put in bold, you will understand what got my ire up.
If you weren't saying that you are somehow more knowledgeable re: fitness, then what did you mean by all of this:But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.
people here are mostly sharing their experiences, the results of their own research, and what has worked for them. There are exceptions, sure... but whether you were always thin or not, disparaging the hard work and good advice of others can only really serve one purpose. Insulting the (as you put it) "new thin them" is just icing on the "I'm better than you" cake.0 -
@ greentart, I'm ok with that at the moment.
@ josh, tried to explain it the best I could to my ability. As far as being better than someone else, IF I'm better than any other registed user at this forum, it has absolutely nothing to do with my weight. That I 100% guarantee you. People's actions and intentions are what count, and what is in their heart. On an internet forum, that extends to why they are posting what they post. Is it with the intent to help others? Or is it for other reasons?0 -
The range found in the studies on AT topped out at 15%, which would not reduce 2100 to 1600. Most people get less than a 15% reduction. On top of that, reducing that little is not likely to trigger AT at all from the studies I have seen. It is more likely to happen if you were burning 2100 and start limiting consumption to 1200 or so. Then with worst case numbers your burn might drop to 1785 and you would lose slower than you might be expecting to.
Have you ever noticed on those studies they generally comment their participants all had no diet or weight changes for previous 3-6 months to start of study, and outside of some level of overweight, decent health (unless diabetes study) for the state there were in?
And that the prescribed diet and exercise regimen are closely monitored to confirm the deficit is some exact amount?
I'm always curious, what if the body was under a lot more stress outside of lab controlled or monitored study conditions, like crazy amount of exercise for what used to be done, or never taking enough rest days from intense exercise, or dealing with food sensitivities or allergies yet undiscovered, or sickness or disease, or life in general?
Would the reduction only be possible 15% to RMR then?
Would the deficit have to be that large to elicit a response?
What would be the total reduction in TDEE from potential to AT level if the decreased NEAT was factored in too, that other studies have shown decreases with severe deficit?
I've always wondered about the daily stress level of the study participants that can join in. Are they out of work, so stress there? Or trying to fit this study in with an already busy schedule so stress there? Or not much of anything so pretty stress-free except wanting to lose weight and catching a late night commercial on joining?
As to even the example figures you mention, daily burn being 2100 and dropping to eating 1200.
I think you just described a whole lot of ladies who probably had maintenance eating up around 2000-2500 prior to starting diet, and with little to no exercise. And then dropped to 1200, and started exercising hard and frequent, and misunderstand about exercise calories so create bigger deficit yet.
Difference is they don't keep the 1 lb loss weekly as you suggest the math should indeed cause.0 -
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?
Good question. So if we disagree with the OP, are we healthy or unhealthy? And what do you categorize as a "healthy" person?
The 2 groups I notice: Those with excuses & those overcoming the excuses that have enabled us to gain weight & stay over weight.0 -
Heybales,
You are just asking blue sky questions; pure conjecture. You don't say it is anything else, but I don't see much point in debating actual observations versus conjecture.
As to your last point, I do believe that some small fraction of those people do have some medical condition contributing to their problem losing weight. The majority of them are not giving accurate information, knowingly or not.0 -
First of all I paid my dues and I brought a cake. The uptight smug *kitten* wouldn't even validate my parking.
Um are you jealous because you weren't allowed in the Turtle Club? For some reason I thought this movie was ridiculously hilarious.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.
0 -
You're right; they just appear similar but it's like horses and unicorns. AT, the modest temporary slowdown, actually exists.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
There is a huge difference between a modest, temporary slowdown in metabolic rate that can be related to starting a weight loss program and "starvation mode" or "metabolic damage".
They aren't even part of the same conversation.0 -
But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.
Wow.
My aunt is stick thin and has been her entire life. She also knows almost nothing about nutrition or fitness, never exercises, and regularly eats junk food as part of her normal diet. There's nothing wrong with any of that. But am I going to ask her for health advice? No. I'm going to ask the people who have successfully lost 70, 150, or 300 pounds and kept it off, because they've obviously put a lot of work into it and done something right.IF I'm better than any other registed user at this forum, it has absolutely nothing to do with my weight. That I 100% guarantee you. People's actions and intentions are what count, and what is in their heart. On an internet forum, that extends to why they are posting what they post. Is it with the intent to help others? Or is it for other reasons?
Just curious how any of that first bit up at the top there was said with a pure heart or an intent to help.
Totally off topic from the OP, I know, but I couldn't help myself.0 -
@ bajoyba, you can and should ask whoever you respect and whose advice you trust. And I hope they reply to you in a kind and helpful manner. I hope that for all posters at this forum. Unfortunately, there are a few that do not employ those means.
Were my words with good intentions? They were directed at those (a very few members) I've seen repeatedly in certain threads that imo don't appear to have the best intentions. And it's ok, I don't mind you asking. You don't know me, so how would you know.0 -
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.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).
If somebody sticks with a certain caloric goal a day and that number happens to be the lowered caloric expenditure due to adaptive thermogenesis, then his weight loss will stall. In other word, he's in a lower state of maintenance and can't lose weight until he either cuts calories even further or increases it a little to prod his metabolism up.
Let's say my maintenance is 2100, and if I eat too little AT is capable of lowering it to 1600. I call these upper maintenance and lower maintenance points. If I eat 1600 a day I would not lose weight at all once AT ramps down my metabolism. A month without any movement of the dial seems like forever for most folks. At this point I have two choices to lose weight: either cut deeper beyond the ability of my body to adapt (severe starvation), or eat a little more to trick my body into burning close to 2100 cals a day again (mild starvation).
In short: the so-called starvation mode is real, but only within a certain range of calories.
You need to look at the bigger picture of what happens when you up calories.0
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