Hunger Strike, Starvation Mode and Sugar Toxicity

mmipanda

I imagine the statistics of people below the poverty level eating below 1200 calories is VERY low considering that the rate of obesity is highest at that socioeconomic level.

or perhaps there is a correlation between not being able to afford a nutritious diet and being overweight...?

lesteidel

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?

According to the WHO, UNICEF, OXFAM and others there are roughly 1.5 billion people ( yes, Billions ! ) on this planet who eat consistently less than 1000 calories a day; often during a whole lifetime. While this is not considered a starvation diet, these people are in direct danger from any kind of catastrophe like food shortages through prolonged war, political unrest, flood or draught or through extreme poverty, which could easily push the amount of calories they have available down. Any change downwards will upset this very precarious nutritional system and people will starve and die from that starvation usually of opportunistic infections or systematic organ failure.
The above mentioned organizations consider a diet of on average 500 or less calories over a prolonged period of time starting in some areas after two month, but usually after 90 days to lead ultimately to death through starvation, if the calories are not increased. The discrepancy of the time is, because some groups ( like years ago in North Korea ) have access to drinking water, while others ( like right now in Mali and Somalia ) do not. I have dealt with people who have not had more than 500 calories for 6-8 month before they were unable to walk, move or speak. In this state they usually succumbed within a couple of weeks.
Of course if you only think of the US, the picture is completely different, even though statistics say that there are also people who eat 1200 calories or less, usually due to extreme poverty, unless it is due to a personally selected diet regimen . Admittedly the percentage is not very high, but does exist.

Maybe I should have said those who are eating 1200 calories BY CHOICE To lose weight are most likely to eat long before a VLCD does damage to their body?

I thought that was a pretty much implied

Sorry for the confusion.

YES, people are living off of less every day, and yes, I am sure, given the opportunity, they would eat more. My point was those who have the choice to eat, rarely (outside of disorders such as anorexia) if ever, stay on such a restricted low calorie diet for a long enough time it could cause real damage to their bodies. Most people who have access to food, and feel extreme hunger, eat, long before they hurt themselves by not eating.

whierd

I imagine the statistics of people below the poverty level eating below 1200 calories is VERY low considering that the rate of obesity is highest at that socioeconomic level.

or perhaps there is a correlation between not being able to afford a nutritious diet and being overweight...?

That is a completely different topic.

Acg67

-- 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.

So anything less than 15% in under two months is non significant? Oh it's stupid? but according to the eat more to lose more, if you eat under your BMR you will lose more if you were eating more

-- 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 you

So fearmongering is ok as long as it is for the greater good? Gotcha. Can you imagine any scenario where eating under 1200 cals is ok, where did you pull such an arbitrary number from?

DatMurse

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?

The logic is flawed because it relies on evidence from an extreme example. I provided the Tylenol analogy specifically to illustrate that the extreme is not always the best approach.

So, for example, the OPs news article indicated a variety of outcomes amongst the hunger-striking inmates. We do not know if the two who have lost more than 15% of their body weight have lost just slightly more than the others, or if they are true statistical outliers. But in either case, the results of a prisoner with a healthy BMI consuming only powdered gatorade for two months are not necessarily predictive for overweight person here on MFP who's consuming inadequate calories.

Does that help to clarify?

how is the logic flawed?
You didnt clarify anything. There is the middle ground that exists that was the whole point of this.

This was to prove a point that you will lose weight, there is no true starvation mode that will stop your body from losing weight.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Weight retention is not only energy based because it can be the person gaining/losing water weight.

DatMurse

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.

Yeah i can see that to some people sugar really is like poison diabetics come to mind. Also it is possible to be allergic to sugar hell i also read about a person allergic to all plant products like all veggies and fruits period. She couldn't even touch them without swelling it was unusual case for sure.

lol what case?
I havent seen anything about someone being allergic to sugar, intolerant yes, but not allergic

mrmagee3

Can we now rule out glucose, fructose and dextrose (the sugars in gatorade), as the evil sugars that make you fat?

Perhaps, but not with the evidence in the article.

shannashannabobana

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...

I thought the point of all the starvation mode stuff was that at a certain point your weight loss slows down and you have to eat less and less to keep losing. (I don't think anyone doubts that if you stop eating eventually you will starve to death.) That you might be healthier, and keep losing weight, at a higher calorie level. STarvation experiments are interesting because we see 1. How much people differ in weight loss on similar calorie levels/height/weight etc.. (the minnesota experiment had some interesting results in this direction iirc), 2. how much weight is lost compared to how much weight we would expect for that calorie level.

So in this case, how much weight would we have expected these guys to lose in what 2 months of 650 cals? I'm not sure the sugar stuff applies in this case except in asking whether they would be losing more or less on 650 cals of beef (for example). That would be an interesting experiment.

Sarauk2sf

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...

I thought the point of all the starvation mode stuff was that at a certain point your weight loss slows down and you have to eat less and less to keep losing. That you might be healthier, and keep losing weight, at a higher calorie level. STarvation experiments are interesting because we see 1. How much people differ in weight loss on similar calorie levels/height/weight etc.. (the minnesota experiment had some interesting results in this direction iirc), 2. how much weight is lost compared to how much weight we would expect for that calorie level.

A lot of people state that people's weight completely stops or they even gain weight when eating low calories. Outside a relatively limited range (which will differ from individual to individual), your metabolism only slows down so much outside of that predicted due to being lighter, unless you are very lean and under pretty extreme circumstances. No-one is suggesting (at least I assume they are not) that having higher calories is not 'healthier' or 'better' (this is context dependent) and will have less negative impact.

ETA: to address the later add - the Minnesota experiment looked at that and most of the lost was 'as predicted' taking into account lowering body mass.

Confuzzled4ever

All I know is I was eating well under 1200 calories, when I basically passed out and landed in the ER. It had only been eating at that level for under 2 months. I *wasn't* exercising, I *wasn't* dieting at that time and there were no other underlying health issues. (I was tested for things i never even heard of lol) Most of my calories were coming from alcohol. Hops and Barely.

I would never try to say it's healthy to eat that little. But simple basics of calories in calories out means you will lose weight if you restrict your caloric intake for any reason. Although that statement begs an answer to the plateaus experienced by people who eat at deficit, do not increase their calories or decrease their exercise. So if calories in/out always worked, theoretically plateaus wouldn't exist.

Sugar is evil (not natural sugar). All I need to do is eat some to know it. Cravings, headaches, withdrawal symptoms that follow are enough to convince me.

Starvation mode? real or not, what you do to your body when you do not nourish it properly should be enough to push people to eat better. I also think it varies by person. i could eat double what i do now when I was a teen, without exercise and gain nothing. I could also eat half of what I do now and have no problems. And I flipped back and forth when I was a teen between the two for months at a time. I wasn't fat, I wasn't skinny. I was just normal. fast forward to my 30s and the above happens.

mrmagee3

A lot of people state that people's weight completely stops or they even gain weight when eating low calories. Outside a relatively limited range (which will differ from individual to individual), your metabolism only slows down so much outside of that predicted due to being lighter, unless you are very lean and under pretty extreme circumstances. No-one is suggesting (at least I assume they are not) that having higher calories is not 'healthier' or 'better' (this is context dependent) and will have less negative impact.

ETA: to address the later add - the Minnesota experiment looked at that and most of the lost was 'as predicted' taking into account lowering body mass.

So, they should be saying "eating a severely calorie restricted diet will allow you to continue to lose weight, but your body will cannibalize itself and you'll die pretty quickly" instead? Sure, that's definitely more accurate. I'm just not sure it's a point worth railing against so vociferously. In either case, the point is that one shouldn't eat severely low calorie diets long term.

As for the "toxic sugar" thing that has achieved almost insufferable meme status here, I wish Lustig would refer to it differently. By the definition of what a toxin is, sugar is definitely excluded (though not for any reason refuted in this article). Whether or not sugar/glucose/fructose contributes to negative health is something that people can reasonably disagree on. However, people react more strongly to words like "poison" and "toxin" -- so whether his goal is the evangelize his message (i.e., he's motivated to act in the public interest) or to sell books (i.e. he's acting in his personal interest) it makes sense for him to use words that will grab attention. I disagree with that technique, personally -- then again, he's far more well known than I am, so maybe he's onto something. :laugh:

shannashannabobana

ETA: to address the later add - the Minnesota experiment looked at that and most of the lost was 'as predicted' taking into account lowering body mass.

Eh, I cant' find the details I was thinking of. Maybe it was a different study, or maybe it was about how they regained weight during the refeed period.

jessgumkowski88

hm, just in to follow. Great discussion

meeper123

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.

Yeah i can see that to some people sugar really is like poison diabetics come to mind. Also it is possible to be allergic to sugar hell i also read about a person allergic to all plant products like all veggies and fruits period. She couldn't even touch them without swelling it was unusual case for sure.

So, are peanuts toxic?

to certain people

meeper123

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.

Yeah i can see that to some people sugar really is like poison diabetics come to mind. Also it is possible to be allergic to sugar hell i also read about a person allergic to all plant products like all veggies and fruits period. She couldn't even touch them without swelling it was unusual case for sure.

lol what case?
I havent seen anything about someone being allergic to sugar, intolerant yes, but not allergic

My uncle really is he was getting massive sores his doc wont even let him have fruit it was very odd but it did clear up. There are people allergic to about everything. Also most sugar is made of beets if your allergic to beets most sugar is off the menu for you. You can also be allergic to sugar cane. Hell there are even people allergic to sunlight.

DatMurse

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.

Yeah i can see that to some people sugar really is like poison diabetics come to mind. Also it is possible to be allergic to sugar hell i also read about a person allergic to all plant products like all veggies and fruits period. She couldn't even touch them without swelling it was unusual case for sure.

lol what case?
I havent seen anything about someone being allergic to sugar, intolerant yes, but not allergic

My uncle really is he was getting massive sores his doc wont even let him have fruit it was very odd but it did clear up. There are people allergic to about everything. Also most sugar is made of beets if your allergic to beets most sugar is off the menu for you. You can also be allergic to sugar cane. Hell there are even people allergic to sunlight.

you have a huge misunderstanding of intolerance vs allergic and what things create an autoimmune response within the body.

Sarauk2sf

A lot of people state that people's weight completely stops or they even gain weight when eating low calories. Outside a relatively limited range (which will differ from individual to individual), your metabolism only slows down so much outside of that predicted due to being lighter, unless you are very lean and under pretty extreme circumstances. No-one is suggesting (at least I assume they are not) that having higher calories is not 'healthier' or 'better' (this is context dependent) and will have less negative impact.

ETA: to address the later add - the Minnesota experiment looked at that and most of the lost was 'as predicted' taking into account lowering body mass.

So, they should be saying "eating a severely calorie restricted diet will allow you to continue to lose weight, but your body will cannibalize itself and you'll die pretty quickly" instead? Sure, that's definitely more accurate. I'm just not sure it's a point worth railing against so vociferously. In either case, the point is that one shouldn't eat severely low calorie diets long term.

As for the "toxic sugar" thing that has achieved almost insufferable meme status here, I wish Lustig would refer to it differently. By the definition of what a toxin is, sugar is definitely excluded (though not for any reason refuted in this article). Whether or not sugar/glucose/fructose contributes to negative health is something that people can reasonably disagree on. However, people react more strongly to words like "poison" and "toxin" -- so whether his goal is the evangelize his message (i.e., he's motivated to act in the public interest) or to sell books (i.e. he's acting in his personal interest) it makes sense for him to use words that will grab attention. I disagree with that technique, personally -- then again, he's far more well known than I am, so maybe he's onto something. :laugh:

What about the guy who ate nothing at all for a year?

Still not saying it's a good idea, but not sure 'you will die pretty quickly' is a correct blanket statement to make.

jeffpettis

Just want to sit in the corner and watch this one... LOL!!!:drinker:

jeffpettis

I would never try to say it's healthy to eat that little. But simple basics of calories in calories out means you will lose weight if you restrict your caloric intake for any reason. Although that statement begs an answer to the plateaus experienced by people who eat at deficit, do not increase their calories or decrease their exercise. So if calories in/out always worked, theoretically plateaus wouldn't exist.

I know I'm gonna get slammed for this one but oh well...Weight loss plateaus are purely the result of mathematical errors. Either you are not eating as little as you think or you are not burning as much as you think, the latter is most of the time the culprit in my experience because if you are eating back calories you didn't burn in the first place it stands to reason you probably don't have a deficit present anymore.

QuietBloom

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 you

Better read the article again if you think that only 2 had significant weight loss. 2 had enough weight loss to warrant hospitalization per a doctor. I'm sure the rest have lost significant amounts of weight.