Hunger Strike, Starvation Mode and Sugar Toxicity

ajaxe432

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.

This I agree with!

Although I do like the argument the OP brings! So not the egg part;)

kdsp2911

Well obviously the gastric bypass/lapband industry is booming because it works! What happens when people have bypass surgery? They eat 700 to 800 cals a day (if they can even manage that much) and wow...they lose weight!

mrmagee3

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...?

correlation is not causation

People say that (perhaps not you) in order to undermine the validity of what someone said far too frequently. Yes, to say that "not being able to afford a nutritious diet" and "being overweight" correlate with each other does not mean that the first causes the second (although, you also can't say that it doesn't cause it without further evidence, either), but it does mean that it's something that worth further study. Correlation is correlation for a reason, right?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ajaxe432

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...?

correlation is not causation

People say that (perhaps not you) in order to undermine the validity of what someone said far too frequently. Yes, to say that "not being able to afford a nutritious diet" and "being overweight" correlate with each other does not mean that the first causes the second (although, you also can't say that it doesn't cause it without further evidence, either), but it does mean that it's something that worth further study. Correlation is correlation for a reason, right?

True. I can agree upon that:) I was not trying to undermine the validity of her statement. Yes there is a coorelation and it hasn't been proven either way. I was simply implying that it was a coorelation, but not the pinpointed cause.

yustick

bump

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...?

correlation is not causation

People say that (perhaps not you) in order to undermine the validity of what someone said far too frequently. Yes, to say that "not being able to afford a nutritious diet" and "being overweight" correlate with each other does not mean that the first causes the second (although, you also can't say that it doesn't cause it without further evidence, either), but it does mean that it's something that worth further study. Correlation is correlation for a reason, right?

True. I can agree upon that:) I was not trying to undermine the validity of her statement. Yes there is a coorelation and it hasn't been proven either way. I was simply implying that it was a coorelation, but not the pinpointed cause.

I deliberately said the word correlation instead of talking in absolutes. So your comment was unnecessary. The idea (from original quote) that people living below the poverty line are stuffing their faces & are therefore obese is... an ignorant one, to say the least.

However, in a forum where people insist that different foods have no impact whatsoever on health, I don't expect to win any arguments promoting the virtues of access to fresh fruit & veg vs the $1 menu at fast food restaurants.

bestbassist

"Starvation mode" is a myth perpetuated by the food industry to trick gullible people into eating more than they need to. This keeps food sales as well as fad diet sales high.

_errata_

"Starvation mode" is a myth perpetuated by the food industry to trick gullible people into eating more than they need to. This keeps food sales as well as fad diet sales high.

Myth? Nope. Misdiagnosed by idiots? Sure.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/nutritional_disorders/undernutrition/protein-energy_undernutrition.html

Starvation is the result of a severe or total lack of nutrients needed for the maintenance of life.

Starvation is very real and has a medical diagnosis. The question should be "At what calorie intake relative to BMR actually leads to the physiological state of starvation?" Is it a continuum? Or is there a biochemical threshold at which the body says, "**** it, I'm starving" ? Can this threshold be described in terms of a biological pathway that can be demonstrated in a lab?

The answer:

Laboratory tests are required if dietary history does not clearly indicate inadequate caloric intake. Measurement of serum albumin, total lymphocyte count, CD4+ T lymphocytes, transferrin, and response to skin antigens may help determine the severity of PEU (see Table 3: Undernutrition: Values Commonly Used to Grade the Severity of Protein-Energy UndernutritionTables) or confirm the diagnosis in borderline cases. Many other test results may be abnormal: eg, decreased levels of hormones, vitamins, lipids, cholesterol, prealbumin, insulin-like growth factor-1, fibronectin, and retinol-binding protein. Urinary creatine and methylhistidine levels can be used to gauge the degree of muscle wasting. Because protein catabolism slows, urinary urea level also decreases. These findings rarely affect treatment.

The usage of the word "severity" would imply that starvation has a "yes" or "no" diagnosis, but that there are also varying degrees of starvation, some being more severe than others, the most severe being death, the least severe being... I don't know?

The other assumption being made is that starvation, regardless of the severity, is a "bad" thing. That may not be the case due to the hormetic effects of being in a fasted state, or a risk/reward calculation. It might be better to starve to lose weight (gastric bypass) than risk the health negatives of not starving (eating too much and dying of a heart attack).

The debate isn't about whether starvation exists or not, or whether you will lose "weight" on a VLCD, but what the optimal way to lose weight is. You absolutely will lose mass if you cut calories to a severe deficit, and the loss will be directly related to caloric intake, but if that mass isn't 100% fat mass, then the overall loss in mass is misleading.

The OP assumes that the relationship between calorie intake and fat loss is linear, when it clearly is not. You could absolutely consume more calories, lose less overall mass, but lose the same amount of fat mass. It is a basic mathematical optimization problem. There is a point of inflection at which the variables of fat loss and caloric intake are maximized and "starvation" symptoms are minimized.