In Response to Starvation is a Myth Thread
Replies
-
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.
I like you.
A lot.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.)
I said weigh your food not measure and I did look at your diary before saying it...you have a mish mash of cups/tsp, half a sandwich, counts and some weights...by no means are you weighing all your food...
10 grapes=/=weighing
9 mussels=/= weighing
1 chicken thigh bone in=/= weighing
4oz dark chicken meat = weighing
125 g of cottage cheese = weighing
and if you are not weighing all your food then and you are not loosing weight you are esitmating wrong.
I know that from personal experience. Even my takeout (ie tonight with chinese) I weighed it before I put it in my mouth.
I continue to loose.
ETA: so I gave up the advice.0 -
“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?
+1
I know, I know, that's not what this thread is about any more... But any of you who see the OP's post as supporting what you believe shoudl stop and think. The reported experience is losing 3 pounds after getting sick and stopping working out and losing all the water/glycogen weight. How does that support starvation mode?0 -
OP...Your temporarily struggle sounds like some water retention going on and your description of how you lost weight does little if anything to actually prove/disprove anything written in the article, which you admitted to not even reading the whole way through.0
-
“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?
+1
I know, I know, that's not what this thread is about any more... But any of you who see the OP's post as supporting what you believe shoudl stop and think. The reported experience is losing 3 pounds after getting sick and stopping working out and losing all the water/glycogen weight. How does that support starvation mode?
Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD. You lay an excuse you can use out there, people are going to latch on. Doesn't matter if it's legit or not.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?
You're ok with being condescending and rude, but you're going to call out others for being condescending and rude? Yeah, sure, okay... that makes TOTAL sense....0 -
Thank you so much. I will take this advice and stop being so hard on myself.0
-
Thank you so much. I will take this advice and stop being so hard on myself.
Meaning contact a nutritionist instead of cutting out food groups.0 -
No need for such rude generalizations. Pretty sure the idiocy surrounding ADD is not localized to my country alone.Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD.0 -
“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.
Oh a special snowflake!0 -
OP, read the article again carefully. I think you're missing some significant points that are made there.
This is another discussion of adaptive thermogenesis, and maybe it will make the points to you a little more clearly.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
ETA: This is a complex subject and I think the poster who addressed the issue in the thread I reference here did a better job with his approach. The OP of the other thread not so much.0 -
@ Greentart, if you felt I was being condescending and rude to you personally, I apologize. It was not my intention.0
-
Yeah, we got fat in the first place because we ingested too many calories. I see the slippery slope, but I'm assuming that people are smart enough not to pull all the stops just because somebody says 'eat a little bit more'. This is not rocket science, but it's not a completely mindless pursuit. Companies make tons of money by selling weight loss shakes to those who can't or won't learn.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.
I believe in experimenting. As I mentioned earlier, if you feel that you eat too little and not losing weight, then try eating 100 cals more for a couple of weeks. If the loss continues, then you have found the sweet spot. If people understand BMR and TDEE, they would know that obviously they should not keep adding 100 cals every two weeks until they hit TDEE and beyond. If somebody is eating at close to TDEE and not losing, then the obvious experiment to try is eating 100 calories less for a couple of weeks, and continue subtracting until he finds the sweet spot.
At one point I was on 1600 calories a day based on MFP's recommendation, which in practice meant eating 1500 cals a day to avoid going over. I stalled after a couple of weeks of loss, so I upped it to 2100 (my maintenance). It held steady, and I began to lose when I dropped it to 2000, then 1900. I know that one person is a rather small sample size, but I can't turn my back on my own personal experience.
I can make it simple by eating 1400 cals a day, as I don't believe my body can adjust that far down so I'm guaranteed to lose weight. But, I don't want to eat a puny 1400 cals a day, because I'll be hangry half the time and zoned out for the other half.0 -
Yeah, we got fat in the first place because we ingested too many calories. I see the slippery slope, but I'm assuming that people are smart enough not to pull all the stops just because somebody says 'eat a little bit more'. This is not rocket science, but it's not a completely mindless pursuit. Companies make tons of money by selling weight loss shakes to those who can't or won't learn.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.
I believe in experimenting. As I mentioned earlier, if you feel that you eat too little and not losing weight, then try eating 100 cals more for a couple of weeks. If the loss continues, then you have found the sweet spot. If people understand BMR and TDEE, they would know that obviously they should not keep adding 100 cals every two weeks until they hit TDEE and beyond. If somebody is eating at close to TDEE and not losing, then the obvious experiment to try is eating 100 calories less for a couple of weeks, and continue subtracting until he finds the sweet spot.
At one point I was on 1600 calories a day based on MFP's recommendation, which in practice meant eating 1500 cals a day to avoid going over. I stalled after a couple of weeks of loss, so I upped it to 2100 (my maintenance). It held steady, and I began to lose when I dropped it to 2000, then 1900. I know that one person is a rather small sample size, but I can't turn my back on my own personal experience.
I can make it simple by eating 1400 cals a day, as I don't believe my body can adjust that far down so I'm guaranteed to lose weight. But, I don't want to eat a puny 1400 cals a day, because I'll be hangry half the time and zoned out for the other half.
I think there is a big hormonal impact that impacts water weight - people think they are stalled but stress that dieting (and exercising) can cause on the body can have a big impact on fluid retention (as does exercise in itself). People often jump the gun on upping calories or think that upping them leads to more fat loss, when it is really fluid loss.
I also believe that individuals vary quite a bit (unfortunately the studies just show averages) as to the hormonal impact and their 'swinginess' re metabolism and water retention. <-- that btw is conjecture from what I have seen and not based on specific 'empirical evidence'.0 -
No need for such rude generalizations. Pretty sure the idiocy surrounding ADD is not localized to my country alone.Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD.
You're right, my generalization was uncalled for and I stand corrected.0 -
people lose weight, they don't loose it.
if folks are going to nitpick about 10 friggin' grapes, then said folks should at least be spelling correctly.
Oh, and OP, I love your post. :bigsmile:
If it was 10 grapes I wouldn't be nit picking she asked why she plateaued I looked at her diary and saw mostly measuring solids with cups and spoons or fast food etc
....and yah they loose it...you just did over an innocent spelling mistake that is one of the most common one's in the US and Canada...oh and you forgot estimating I think I forgot an eye...oh wait...I..."rolls eyes" there we go...
And if someone is going to question spelling errors (and only hone in on the "obvious" one then remeber sentences start with a capital..not lower case, and friggin' is not really a word..see that's nit picking...:flowerforyou:0 -
Uhm... This goes against everything I know about the internet... slow clap well deserved.
No need for such rude generalizations. Pretty sure the idiocy surrounding ADD is not localized to my country alone.Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD.
You're right, my generalization was uncalled for and I stand corrected.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.
Also to be fair though, I personally think that the amount of "the person above you" threads are ridiculous, but I don't go into every one asking the OP why they thought it was necessary. This the internet. Anything posted anywhere is going to have SOMEONE that says it's a waste of time, and message boards are no exception (in fact, in most cases they are probably the rule!).
Point being, there are literally hundreds of posts on MFP that are, subjectively, "not deserving" of their own posts, so why take the time to come in and finger this one in particular? Whether you agree with the content or not, it certainly has as much of a right to be its own post as anything. The option is always there to not read it.
As a side note...... 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."
YES. Not pointing to anyone in particular, but that runs RAMPANT on these forums, and say what you want, NOT everyone is "trying to help." Some people are just being straight up d*cks, and they know it.0 -
I think there is a big hormonal impact that impacts water weight - people think they are stalled but stress that dieting (and exercising) can cause on the body can have a big impact on fluid retention (as does exercise in itself). People often jump the gun on upping calories or think that upping them leads to more fat loss, when it is really fluid loss.
I also believe that individuals vary quite a bit (unfortunately the studies just show averages) as to the hormonal impact and their 'swinginess' re metabolism and water retention. <-- that btw is conjecture from what I have seen and not based on specific 'empirical evidence'.
Whenever I start a new exercise I always get really sore (as expected) and gain a couple of pounds. However, I saw the plateau about a couple of months after I started my exercise, way after all the soreness and water weight have subsided. My weight can fluctuate by as much as 5 lbs between morning and midnight, so I have taken that into account as well.
In any case I don't see why I have to stick with 1600 limit that hardly works if I can do 1900 and lose weight (albeit slowly).0 -
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.)
Very well said!!
I read the article, and it WAS good. I can't believe someone wanted to start a completely new thread ABOUT AN ARTICLE THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ.:huh:0 -
I read the article, and it WAS good. I can't believe someone wanted to start a completely new thread ABOUT AN ARTICLE THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ.:huh:
welcome to MFP. you must be new here.
0 -
I read the article, and it WAS good. I can't believe someone wanted to start a completely new thread ABOUT AN ARTICLE THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ.:huh:
welcome to MFP. you must be new here.
Well yes, as a matter of fact I am. :ohwell:0 -
Well said!0
-
I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.
I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.0 -
I think there is a big hormonal impact that impacts water weight - people think they are stalled but stress that dieting (and exercising) can cause on the body can have a big impact on fluid retention (as does exercise in itself). People often jump the gun on upping calories or think that upping them leads to more fat loss, when it is really fluid loss.
I also believe that individuals vary quite a bit (unfortunately the studies just show averages) as to the hormonal impact and their 'swinginess' re metabolism and water retention. <-- that btw is conjecture from what I have seen and not based on specific 'empirical evidence'.
Whenever I start a new exercise I always get really sore (as expected) and gain a couple of pounds. However, I saw the plateau about a couple of months after I started my exercise, way after all the soreness and water weight have subsided. My weight can fluctuate by as much as 5 lbs between morning and midnight, so I have taken that into account as well.
In any case I don't see why I have to stick with 1600 limit that hardly works if I can do 1900 and lose weight (albeit slowly).
I am not saying you should stick to 1,600. I would not want to either.
I was talking about more than glycogen/water retention in the muscle from exercise. You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Possibly I did not explain it well.0 -
You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in this thread:I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.
I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.0 -
You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.
I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.
I am also not sure how the article skimmed over it - there was a section dedicated to discussing it:Adaptive Thermogenesis
The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this.0 -
You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.
I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.
I am also not sure how the article skimmed over it - there was a section dedicated to discussing it:Adaptive Thermogenesis
The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this.
I added a link to the thread I mean. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, but since you are quoting a different one, I added the link to:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
for clarity.0 -
You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.
I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.
I read your post. You said my example doesn't apply because of this 15%, but my example is just an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.
Let's use your 15% then. If maintenance is 2000 then at 15% AT reduction it would be at 1700. If I eat at 1700 according to my calculation I would have no deficit, and therefore a plateau.
Can the number be lower than 1700? Absolutely, I have read here of people who have taken actual RMR tests and got numbers as low as around 900. The OP's own number is about 1600. These are results of an actual physical test, not some theoretical number. I will take a personal RMR test result over BMR/TDEE calculation any day.
What I put out there is that people need to experiment. As Einstein said it: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you stall and it seems too low, up it by 100 for two weeks and see what happens, and if it's seems too high (close to or at TDEE) then lower it by 100 for two weeks and evaluate. Of course if you have $60 to burn and a facility that offers RMR test, that would be the quicker way. You just gotta take the test again every time you hit a plateau.0 -
You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.
I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.
I am also not sure how the article skimmed over it - there was a section dedicated to discussing it:Adaptive Thermogenesis
The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this.
By "glossed over" I mean minimize. He has a little section about AT. I said little compared to the length of his rant, I mean article.
If I'm eating at 1200 for sure AT is not gonna cope, it would simply slow down my weight loss because it makes my deficit smaller, so he is right as long as I have a large enough deficit. AT only stops your weight loss if your calorie intake happens to match the lowered EE. If you hit a plateau and cut deeper, I'm quite sure eventually your body will start losing again.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