Hunger Strike, Starvation Mode and Sugar Toxicity
Acg67
Posts: 12,142 Member
This would be an interesting case study if they took all sorts of measurements (bf, wt, metabolic markers etc) prior to them going on a hunger strike. What's currently going on seems to be at odds with some common wisdom among these parts.
1) They are clearly consuming less than their BMR and half of the magical 1200 cals, yet they appear to still be losing weight (2 prisoners have lost at least 15% of their bodyweight in under 2 months. Do the 1200 cal/VLCD zealots believe they would be losing more if they were eating more?
2) The cals they are consuming are entirely from gatorade, the cals from gatorade all come from evil refined sugar, isn't that supposed to stop weight loss in it's track or cause all sorts of other evils? 54 days of just sugar and not the "good" fruit sugar either, if sugar was toxic you'd think some serious issues would have arisen
None of this of course is saying they are aren't doing some sort of damage to themselves but for the fear mongering that goes on about low cal diets and sugar around here, you'd expect these folks to be dead
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/08/30/prison-hunger-strikers-getting-by-on-gatorade-vitamins/
1) They are clearly consuming less than their BMR and half of the magical 1200 cals, yet they appear to still be losing weight (2 prisoners have lost at least 15% of their bodyweight in under 2 months. Do the 1200 cal/VLCD zealots believe they would be losing more if they were eating more?
2) The cals they are consuming are entirely from gatorade, the cals from gatorade all come from evil refined sugar, isn't that supposed to stop weight loss in it's track or cause all sorts of other evils? 54 days of just sugar and not the "good" fruit sugar either, if sugar was toxic you'd think some serious issues would have arisen
None of this of course is saying they are aren't doing some sort of damage to themselves but for the fear mongering that goes on about low cal diets and sugar around here, you'd expect these folks to be dead
With an inmate hunger strike over conditions at California’s highest security lockups now at day 54, it seems remarkable that none of the 41 prisoners refusing food since July 8 has experienced serious or life-threatening medical problems.
Officials monitoring the protest report that, as of Wednesday, the men had body mass indexes in the 20s, well above a danger zone established by the court-appointed receiver overseeing prison medical care. Only two of the prisoners had lost more than 15 percent of their body weight, another critical measure.
While the inmates are clearly suffering as a result of the extended fast, and report bouts of extreme nausea and dizziness, there are “no imminent health emergencies and no prisoners in critical condition,” said Joyce Hayhoe, a spokesperson for receiver Clark Kelso.
So what’s keeping the hunger strikers from more severe starvation? The answer, it turns out, could be mass quantities of Gatorade, the ubiquitous sports drink.
Under state rules, inmates are considered on hunger strike if they refuse all state meals for more than three days and have no other food items in their cells, such as snacks from the prison commissary.
However, Hayhoe said each day the hunger strikers are receiving five powder packets of Gatorade that deliver a total of 600-625 calories. That’s in addition to supplies of vitamins.
Hayhoe said the electrolytes in Gatorade are not considered “nutrition,” which would otherwise cancel inmates’ participation in a hunger strike.
“The amount of calories and the type of calories (from Gatorade) will not keep them from getting malnourished and could lead to heart, liver and muscle damage,” she said. “But it helps sustain them longer.”
The aim of providing electrolytes is to prevent severe dehydration, Hayhoe said.
Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”
Garber further notes that body mass index is a blunt measure and must be looked at individually. “We see patients starved and at high risk and they still have normal BMIs,” Garber noted. So hunger striking prisoners with BMIs in the 20s may not indicate much about their medical condition.
The fact that two of the prisoners have lost 15 percent of their body weight is a more accurate measure, she says, because it takes into account their starting point. Garber said a loss of 15 percent of body weight is a criteria for hospital admission in adolescents she treats.
As of Thursday, none of the strikers had been moved to an outside hospital, according to Hayhoe.
On August 19, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson issued an order allowing force-feeding (or involuntary re-feeding) of any inmate near death. While the order prompted angry responses from prisoner advocacy groups, officials said such measures are not needed, at least for now.
In fact, visitors who spoke with strike leaders this week reported the men were chipper and energetic, thanks in part to the daily supply of Gatorade.
Anne Weills, an Oakland attorney representing several of the strikers in a federal lawsuit over conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, said the prisoners were “vibrant and intellectually sharp” when she met with them on Wednesday.
“They are fiercely committed to this struggle,” she said. “They still want to negotiate with the state.”
However, corrections officials have refused to negotiate with the hunger strikers and this week released a document claiming to have addressed (thought not agreed to) all their key demands.
Officials maintain the current protest is the work of violent gang leaders seeking to reassert control over criminal networks in prison system and on the streets.
Hayhoe said that while several inmates are under medical observation, the biggest concern right now is a sudden heart attack.
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/08/30/prison-hunger-strikers-getting-by-on-gatorade-vitamins/
0
Replies
-
Starvation mode as it is tossed around is a myth. I have never seen a fat anorexic. (not trying to be funny because that is very serious). You will lose your body fat as part of the starvation process and muscle mass but if you protect your muscle mass a LCD will also work.0
-
In on this.0
-
Tagging to keep up.0
-
Starvation mode as it is tossed around is a myth. I have never seen a fat anorexic. (not trying to be funny because that is very serious). You will lose your body fat as part of the starvation process and muscle mass but if you protect your muscle mass a LCD will also work.
Clearly you have not heard that weight loss just stops once you go below the arbitrary 1200 cal mark and you must eat more to lose more. No mind if the person is morbidly obese and on a doctor prescribed PSMF, you must tell the person their doc is a quack and they will stop losing weight0 -
So this is sort of like holding your breath as a kid so you get your way, while secretly breathing out of your nose and claiming that you're not cheating?
Excellent post though. Very interested in following this one.0 -
Thats funny. I wonder the difference if they were put on low cal gatorade!
0 -
in0
-
I believe you missed a key quote in the article. "Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”
While starvation mode in terms of how it is used is a myth, starvation in and of itself is not. The reality is that if you restrict the bodies intake of nutrition and calories severely enough for long enough it will fist drop weight quickly, then slow the metabolism to a crawl and finally pillage itself in an attempt to survive. Don't believe it, watch someone who is not getting enough calories over a lengthy time, it is an obvious and gruesome thing to watch. The more they have in reserves the longer it takes to reach each phase.0 -
I believe you missed a key quote in the article. "Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”
While starvation mode in terms of how it is used is a myth, starvation in and of itself is not. The reality is that if you restrict the bodies intake of nutrition and calories severely enough for long enough it will fist drop weight quickly, then slow the metabolism to a crawl and finally pillage itself in an attempt to survive. Don't believe it, watch someone who is not getting enough calories over a lengthy time, it is an obvious and gruesome thing to watch. The more they have in reserves the longer it takes to reach each phase.
No doubt starvation is real, how much adaptive thermogenesis kicks in above and beyond what one would expect from the lower bodyweight and loss of muscle (this is clearly a muscle wasting diet), is what would be interesting. From various things I've read I haven't seen any sort of consensus on how much additional down regulation to the metabolism there is.0 -
Oh and I totally forgot a question for my Taubes fans
This was the question he posed in Scientific American
"What Makes You Fat: Too Many Calories, or the Wrong Carbohydrates?"
Can we now rule out glucose, fructose and dextrose (the sugars in gatorade), as the evil sugars that make you fat?0 -
In0
-
Tagging to follow0
-
I'm with you on the over exaggeration around here about the 1200 threshold (have read 1500 for men in some parts). I've always thought that to follow a SLCD diet one would need to be very judicious in selecting the foods one ate (i.e. high volume-low calorie foods) to still get decent nutrition and not severely lose muscle (maybe even be medically supervised). And how ever few calories they ate would be determined on their factors/measurements/health instead of a "one-number-fits-all".
As for the prisoners, though, their aren't doing it for vanity/health reasons, so they may be ok with the malnourishment, muscle loss, etc that comes with this type of protest (whereas I, looking to lose fat/weight would probably break down and eat quite a bit after going that low for a week or two). I mean their in prison, it's not like their getting tempted with fast food or visiting relatives who are trying to stuff fattening food down them (....well I suppose the prison officials have or will, but that's not my point).
Also, agree that I'd like to have seen other measurements/data for the course of their strike.0 -
Thats funny. I wonder the difference if they were put on low cal gatorade!
That is what I was thinking. I'm thinking THAT could definitely bring up some health issues a lot quicker.
How do they complete their prison yard resistance training sessions on 600 cals is what I want to know
685@175!0 -
In0
-
Tagging0
-
I don't even understand OP's point in linking to this. Its warped to compare a hunger strike to people dieting to lose weight.
1) They are clearly consuming less than their BMR and half of the magical 1200 cals, yet they appear to still be losing weight (2 prisoners have lost at least 15% of their bodyweight in under 2 months. Do the 1200 cal/VLCD zealots believe they would be losing more if they were eating more?
-- 2 out of 41 people have lost a significant amount of weight. Just two people. So yeah it makes me think starvation mode is real. Your last question is stupid because these prisoners are not trying to lose weight, they are on a hunger strike.
2) The cals they are consuming are entirely from gatorade, the cals from gatorade all come from evil refined sugar, isn't that supposed to stop weight loss in it's track or cause all sorts of other evils? 54 days of just sugar and not the "good" fruit sugar either, if sugar was toxic you'd think some serious issues would have arisen
-- again, a mere TWO people out of 41 (or under 5%, if you want to look at it that way) have had significant weight loss. I really doubt any of the guys are healthy right now. They'd be malnourished and losing muscle mass, though. which I guess in your twisted opinion means YAY weightloss! Why promote dumb ideas like nutrition, eating more than 1200 cals etc when 5% of people can lose weight surviving solely on Gatorade?? You should make a revolutionary new diet book out of everything this has taught you0 -
I believe you missed a key quote in the article. "Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”
While starvation mode in terms of how it is used is a myth, starvation in and of itself is not. The reality is that if you restrict the bodies intake of nutrition and calories severely enough for long enough it will fist drop weight quickly, then slow the metabolism to a crawl and finally pillage itself in an attempt to survive. Don't believe it, watch someone who is not getting enough calories over a lengthy time, it is an obvious and gruesome thing to watch. The more they have in reserves the longer it takes to reach each phase.
No doubt starvation is real, how much adaptive thermogenesis kicks in above and beyond what one would expect from the lower bodyweight and loss of muscle (this is clearly a muscle wasting diet), is what would be interesting. From various things I've read I haven't seen any sort of consensus on how much additional down regulation to the metabolism there is.
The Minnesota Starvation experiment (while done a long time ago and as such the measurements are probably less accurate than nowadays) was for 6 months and they still continued to lose weight (which would be fat and muscle) until about 5% BF. The AT part of the drop in TDEE was relatively small on average - most was accounted for in the drop in body weight.
Not saying its a good idea as they has a slew of physical and psychological issues, even after the experiment ended - but their metabolism did not slow down enough not to lose weight (they were on 1,560 cals).
Edited for typo.0 -
tagging0
-
Interesting stuff. In to follow.0
-
I don't think you can take the most extreme of cases, such as anorexia or hunger strikes, to prove the point you're trying to prove.
I'm really not all that invested the OP's debate about whether starvation mode is real, or what kinds of sugar are worst... I kinda don't care. I'm just saying, sometimes extremes are helpful, but sometimes they're really not. The OP's argument is akin to deciding that Tylenol is dangerous because when you swallow two bottles at a time it can be deadly. It's flawed logic.0 -
I don't think you can take the most extreme of cases, such as anorexia or hunger strikes, to prove the point you're trying to prove.
I'm really not all that invested the OP's debate about whether starvation mode is real, or what kinds of sugar are worst... I kinda don't care. I'm just saying, sometimes extremes are helpful, but sometimes they're really not. The OP's argument is akin to deciding that Tylenol is dangerous because when you swallow two bottles at a time it can be deadly. It's flawed logic.
How is the logic flawed?0 -
The whole going below 1200 calories argument seems a little moot anyways.
Seriously, how many people keep that sort of diet up for long to begin with?
It works if you dip below 1200, and it will take time to cause damage, but chances are, you are going to eat something long before you ever get to the point it damages your body.
And what is magical about 1200 anyways? 1200 calories to a 200 ib man would feel a lot different than 1200 calories to a 115ib woman. One could probably keep it up easily, while the other would be constantly hungry. So why is their magical minimum the same? Their caloric needs are in no way similar... Where did 1200 come from anyways?0 -
INteresting.0
-
Each human body is one in itself. Reactions to sugar / calorie intake / carbohydrates / etc. all have variable outcomes.
Thus, the OP's point is Right!... and Wrong!
What works for me may not work for you. So, cut everyone some slack and quit wasting your time trying to throw egg on others faces.0 -
Incidentally... the stalled weight loss of "starvation mode" is not the ONLY valid reason to advice against severe calorie restrictions. Whether it's bogus or not, there are many other legitimate reasons to counsel people to eat a reasonable number of calories. For example, people who starve themselves are extremely likely to binge and self-sabotage. Weight loss achieved this way is extremely unlikely to be sustainable over the long term. Another example: it's nearly impossible to get adequate micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) from a diet that is severely restricted, even if you supplement with a multi-vitamin. Your body needs micronutrients, and deficiencies over time can lead to all kinds of metabolic and physiological damage.
The point just being, whether or not "starvation mode" is a real impediment to weight loss... people who imagine that they can take a 900-calorie-per-day path to their future dreams need to be told to EAT.0 -
Oh I'm in on this.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
In to watch0
-
You would think healthy would matter more than a number as well as quality of life. Why focus on just lowering a number if you don't try to do anything beyond that. You don't have to be perfection of healthy eating but at least try and eat some good foods. ( aka fruits and veggies)
no reason to go to far that is something i had to learn. Also people who do starvation diets not only ( normally) gain all that weight back and then some can do some real damage to their health. 0 -
Incidentally... the stalled weight loss of "starvation mode" is not the ONLY valid reason to advice against severe calorie restrictions. Whether it's bogus or not, there are many other legitimate reasons to counsel people to eat a reasonable number of calories. For example, people who starve themselves are extremely likely to binge and self-sabotage. Weight loss achieved this way is extremely unlikely to be sustainable over the long term. Another example: it's nearly impossible to get adequate micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) from a diet that is severely restricted, even if you supplement with a multi-vitamin. Your body needs micronutrients, and deficiencies over time can lead to all kinds of metabolic and physiological damage.
The point just being, whether or not "starvation mode" is a real impediment to weight loss... people who imagine that they can take a 900-calorie-per-day path to their future dreams need to be told to EAT.
No-one is advocating low calorie diets (in fact, both the OP and myself made reference to other issues) - the post is about whether you get to a point where AT is enough to stop you losing weight.
...as well as dat toxic sugar...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions