Morbidly obese...
Replies
-
If you don't take in enough calories, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't lose any weight. .
This is wrong.
And for the OP, you might find some inspiration from this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1196867-how-i-lost-360lbs-in-15-months0 -
I'm just saying you can be more aggressive than the standard MFP 2 lbs/week calculation when you have that much to lose. And it sounds like you're actually agreeing with me on that, when you reference losing 5-8 lbs week at his size. In short, I don't think we really disagree that much on the subject (but I could be wrong
).
LOl yeah in retrospect pretty much. I always do that on these forums. I definitely agree at 455lbs a person can definitely be more aggressive than MFP suggests.0 -
I started out around 400 and I believe I had an allotment from MFP of 2200 give or take. Since I was just starting AGAIN
I just went by their count and they slowly reduced the calories. It seemed to work since you were not immediately put into starvation mode which 1200 calories would do. Now that Im closer to my goal weigh I actually am increasing calorie intake to match the workout Im doing and still losing, but since I was where you were I was happy just to start losing the weight. 0 -
I started at 310 and when I set MFP at a 2lb per week loss it gave me 1680 calories. As I've lost weight, I reset my goals every 10 lbs. Now at 265 my calorie goal is 1300, still set at a 2lb per week loss. The calories have come down gradually and it has been a lot easier to make the adjustments. I tend not to eat my exercise calories or only eat a small portion of them. I end up in the 1200 to 1500 calorie range most days.
To be honest when I started I was convinced I couldn't lose weight on 1680 calories per day. My doctor's recommendation was not to eat my exercise calories or only eat a portion of them. Every diet I have done in the past was extreme and put me in the 700 to 1000 range. Obviously they didn't work in the long run. By gradually reducing my calorie count over the last 3.5 months I have been able to make small changes in my food choices. That has been much easier than if I had gone straight to 1200 calories.
I have lost an average of 3lb per week. I don't consider this to be excessive given where I started. However I also know that rate cannot be sustained indefinitely. When I hit a plateau where I am stuck for several weeks, I will take that as my body telling me I have reached the point where I need to change what I'm doing. I plan to set the weight loss to a smaller amount and eat more of my exercise calories even if that results in a slower weight loss.
Everyone is different and what works for one person might not work or another. Part of this process is figuring out what works for you given all of the information out there.0 -
yup... what everyone else said. the more weight you are carrying on your body, the more energy is needed to function. It's not a mind over matter thing, it's a need to live thing.
as you go down in weight, the calculations for recommended daily calories WILL also reduce. Give it a try or even try to be just under your calorie goal and you should shed weigh at a healthy rate0 -
Bump0
-
I'm sure a lot of people have commented, but let me give you my 2 cents of advice. Dropping calories is already a daunting task. What will happen if you drop that many calories is one, you're going to feel really bad; your body won't agree with it, probably. Lets say you accomplish it in one week, what may happen because of your lack of sustinence is that you may binge on day 8 or even sooner. Work the plan they gave you and adjust as your body become use to it. Trust me, it will and you'll succeed. Good Luck.0
-
Give it a try. If you lose weight on those calories then that's great. If not drop it down to a lower one.
WOW! Congrats on your weight loss! Awesome job!0 -
Dont do it. I started at 1500, and then as I lost weight - MFP told me to go to 1200....
I started to lose my hair, had dizzy spells, increased panic attacks. It was not pretty, plus I deprived myself. I also stopped losing weight - so then what? Im sure as hell not going down to 1100, or even 1000 calories.
Anyway, once you read the forums enough, you start to learn alternatives, and eating at a 1200 calorie limit is not the best.
I eat about 1800-2100 calories per day, with consistent weight loss (no plateaus for a while), my hair is growing back and I can enjoy a random dessert once in a while!
I am also 5'7, 193.8lbs (started at 250lbs) and female. 0 -
I started at 375 and my starting calories was almost 2800. You have to remember that for us to have gotten as heavy as we did, we took in somewhere close to twice the calories as they are indicating now to lose weight. I think of losing weight the same way as smoking a beef brisket---slow and steady ( like the food reference? ) We are TAPERING down to get the weight down. Our bodies have been accustomed to so many calories that to cut our calories down TOO MUCH in the beginning would cause our system to rebel and act as if it was being starved and make us feel ill.
As the pounds slowly come off, you will get start to get notices on this site on different occasions after you weigh in and it will suggest to adjust your calories and when you accept, you will see the calories lowed a little bit at a time (mine did it after about 14 lbs). I suggest you simply roll with the process and if you REALLY have doubts, you can always check with a healthcare professional. Hope this helps dude.0 -
You probably don't want to be too restrictive if you want to last. If you want your weight loss to be sustainable long-term you need to make permanent lifestyle changes, and not use drastic, temporary methods. As you lose weight, MFP will recalculate your calories down periodically. The loss should be fairly quick at first, but then it will slow down as your body adjusts. Just remember that if you take it slow and be patient it WILL happen. :flowerforyou:
^ This covered it well. Also you don't want to make too big of a change all at once, just small ones. One thing at a time. Let it stick, then change something else. Do that for a while until it settlers in.0 -
I was also surprised when I was given 2300 a day. It goes down little by little as you are losing weight. When I first started I seriously needed all of those calories to feel 'Ok'. Now that I've been at it for a couple of months I always come in bare minimum 500 calories less then that but usually more. You just start needing less little by little. Good luck with your weight loss.0
-
I'm sure plenty of people have weighed in on this. But take it from another former fatty - don't try and go extreme right off the bat. Just gradually clean up your diet. Start by dropping soda + chips (or insert favorite junk food here). You really need to take a sugar detox and just lay off heavily processed food for a bit.
But don't get too too nuts. Sure, going on 1400 calories will make you drop weight fast as hell but you'll be miserable and your chances of making sustained long term progress are 0%. You need to make dedicated thoughtful decisions on a weekly basis to gradually clean your diet and get more exercise (yes, exercise is JUST as important as diet).
Start small and keep making steady progress. You'll fall off the horse every now and then. But just get back on it and keep trucking. Weigh yourself once a week. That's your motivator. If you start stalling in weghtloss (it happens) start adding more exercise or eating a little more cleanly. Do research on how to change your diet (you will probably have a lot of insulin sensitivity issues and I recommend low carbs and staying the hell away from anything with a high glycemic index. Veggies will literally save your life here).
You've got a serious journey ahead but with steady repeated progress you will be able to undo a lot of things you've done to yourself. This will take years. But just keep your head focused and work VERY hard at making lifestyle changes (not crash diets).0 -
Unless you are being Medically monitored it would not be wise for you to have too few calories. If you were Medically monitored depending on what medical issues you have and/or medications you are taking. The monitoring physician would adjust your calories accordingly. If you can afford to seek a medical weight loss program that is an option. Which should include a physical, blood, work and a fitness level exam prior to beginning the program.0
-
Your body will go into starvation mode
To everyone mentioning starvation mode in this thread. Please read this entire quote. And please stop using the term 'starvation mode.' in reference to eating too few calories. YES, eating too few calories has many caveats. Going into 'starvation mode' is NOT one of them.Read this awhile back and it's brilliant.
So sick of reading responses of people regarding diet and weight loss with everyone throwing around purported "facts" about starvation mode. So, here is a little research on the topic. Feel free to chime in with other studies, but lets keep it based on actual research, not personal anecdotes and not "my trainer says."
Starvation mode does not happen overnight or even in just a few days! Calories in, calories out. Simple, right? Short term, yes, it’s simple, long term, not so much. Let’s add some real science to the discussion:
First, a definition. Starvation mode does not mean going without food. It means that you cut your caloric intake to less than what the body would normally burn in the course of a day. I have seen so many posts where people offer advice and tell people they need to eat more to lose weight because they are starving their bodies. The idea postulated is that eating too few calories will reduce a person’s metabolism to such an extent that the person will gain weight instead of losing.
Now, a look at one of the classic scientific studies on starvation. Probably the most famous study done was conducted after WWII by researchers at the University of Minnesota. Starvation was widespread throughout Europe during the war and scientists were trying to figure out how to re-feed people suffering from starvation and determine the long-term effects. (Remember, tens of thousands of people died after liberation from concentration camps not only from disease but from the reintroduction of food that their bodies were no longer capable of digesting.) Scientists recruited 36 young healthy men to participate in a yearlong study divided into several phases: a 12-week normal control period, a 24-week starvation phase where calories were so dramatically reduced that participants lost approximately 25% of body weight; and, finally, a recovery phase to renourish participants. Results of the study were published in the two-volume, Biology of Human Starvation (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis, 1950). See more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment.
So, what did the results of the study find? First, all participants lost weight. Starvation mode does not result in your body hanging onto extra fat or calories in an effort to “preserve” your body. But, it’s more complicated than just losing weight. All of the participants also experienced a drop in their metabolic rates – approximately 40% below baseline. Now, you will see many posters here that will argue that you will start losing muscle and not fat within a few days of going into so-called “starvation mode.” Yet, the research shows that participants lost both. In fact, at no point did they stop losing fat until they hit a rate of approximately 5% body fat near the end of the study.
Lyle McDonald explains it this way:
In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits… But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
But, keep in mind that apart from weight loss, semi-starvation has other not-so-cool effects on your mind and body. The other physical effects from the Minnesota study on semi-starvation included a significant drop in physical endurance, reduction in strength of about 10%, and sluggish reflexes. Those that were the most fit initially showed the greatest deterioration. In addition, heart volume shrank about 20%, pulses slowed and their body temperatures dropped. Concentration and judgment became impaired. Sexual function was reduced and all lost interest in sex. They had every physical indication of accelerated aging. But keep in mind, this was a year-long study, not something that happened in a just a few days or two weeks of eating restricted calories.
The more dramatic effects of semi-starvation from the Minnesota study were psychological, similar to what can be observed in anorexic patients. The men became nervous, anxious, apathetic, withdrawn, impatient, self-critical, emotional and depressed. A few even mutilated themselves, one chopping off three fingers in stress. They became obsessed with food, thinking, talking and reading about it constantly; developed weird eating rituals; hoarding, etc.
Now, let’s look at another aspect. The folks at Cambridge University in England did a study to determine the different effects starvation had on lean people versus obese people. The study can be found here: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid0 7e11.htm. Let’s just cut to the chase with this study.
Does starvation mode slow down the metabolism? No and Yes.
In the first 2 days of starvation, there is a small absolute increase in basic metabolic rate relative to values obtained from overnight fasting. Overnight fasting is what every one of us does during our sleeping hours. So it is not true that going below recommended calories for one day is going to slow down your metabolism -- quite the contrary, it may speed it up just a little. Of course, this is just limited to the first few days. After that, studies in fact support that “starvation mode” slows down metabolism.
Does Starvation mode cause our bodies to catabilize (devour our muscles and other lean mass)? Yes and No.
Lean individuals lost great amounts of fat-free, lean tissue during starvation, but obese individuals lost much more fat tissue. The loss of lean mass is not as critical to the obese person simply because an obese person has more lean mass than a person of the same age and height but normal weight. Here we get to a basic idea that makes sense – fat storage – the same way animals build up bulk to rely on during the winter, obese people have fat stores they can use (to a limited extent) in times of need. This means that the effects of a semi-starvation diet upon a normal weight individual are of course much more devastating than the effects on someone who is obese.
Finally, some conclusions. Does all this mean I should reduce my caloric intake below the minimum recommended as an effective way to lose weight? If you think the answer is yes, then you haven’t carefully read everything here, so I will spell it out:
Let’s start by clearing up that major myth I see repeated over and over again in the forums: that a single day or even a few days of extreme caloric restrictions forces your body into starvation mode, significantly reducing your metabolism and causing you to lose muscles. Not true. You may, in fact, lose weight in the short term. Your body does not go into starvation mode after a few days of extreme calorie restricted eating.
However, let’s look again at the Minnesota study for further compelling evidence why semi-starvation is not a good idea for long-term weight loss. In the latter half of the Minnesota Starvation Study the men were allowed to eat ad libitum again. Researchers found they had insatiable appetites, yet never felt full, these effects continued for months afterwards. Semi-starvation diets don’t work long-term for this simple reason – under ordinary pressures, when eating resumes, people put the weight back on and oftentimes, gain more.
And let’s not forget the other physical and psychological effects mentioned earlier. Any of those sound appealing to you? Reduced concentration or sexual function anyone? The Cambridge study also looked at several deaths from people who undertook extreme starvation diets, particularly those that did not create a good nutritional balance in the calories that were consumed.
Bottom line, you should do adequate research and dietary analysis to ensure you are getting the best nutrition you can for your calories.0 -
Just go with what mfp suggests and "trust the process." every time you lose 10 lbs mfp will ask you if you want to recalculate your calorie needs. Just click yes and every 10 lbs. your calories will adjust appropriately.0
-
honestly.. if you have the sheer willpower go for it. however, your body is not used to it and it may make you prone to binging. if you ate only 1,200 calories a day you would lose nearly a pound a day. if you believe you can restrict your intake that much go for it. if you end up binging maybe increase your intake by 250 calories. if you still binge increase it again. and so on. you may find out that at your weight you function the best at the caloric recommendation that MFP gave you. best of wishes and i hope you have successful weightloss!0
-
People don't seem to understand that liberated adipose tissue is actual energy. Plus why would it make sense to add extra calories to support the extra body fat someone over 400lbs is carrying, why would we want to feed fat. Saying that, 1200 calories for someone that normally consumes 4000 is probably going to have a problem with adherence. Maximum fat oxidation from adipose tissue is around 30cals for a lb of fat per day and if the OP has 200 lbs of extra fat, which is probably a little low that would mean that 6000+ can be used as daily energy. Basically the deeper the deficit the more body fat is liberated and for someone that is that weight sometimes quicker fat lose equates to better adherence and physiologically feels better about themselves......I'm not saying 1200 is the correct calories but there's certainly no need to be up anywhere 3000 either.0
-
neanderthin my new friend!
I agree with the facts in your post - like the numbers and everything. 100% agree that physically a huge deficit is fine for someone at that weight.
What I don't understand are people's hang ups on the 3000 calorie number (im losing at 3200 - tho have a strict workout routine to complement that).
I am not saying he must adhere to 3000, but from my personal experience (albeit I was bigger than this guy) at around 3000cals that weight is going to melt off him initially. Especially if he incorporates something like walking (or swimming, or ANY activity). He will see that quick fat loss you mention, if he measures his food and actually hits something around the 3000 mark.
At this size though - the psychological aspect can not be ignored.
For example, if someone had a binge day, we would never recommend that person eat super low cals the next day to make up for it. We know that can lead to a dangerous cycle, and unhealthy relationship with food. Now extrapolate that to a lifetime of binges. The OP 100% already has a bad relationship with food - I don't think extreme measures are going to help that - and potentially exasperate it.
I failed multiple diets following that same routine.
I also question how he could hit his macro or micro nutrients at his size and a 1200 (or even 2000 cals for that matter) diet. At 455lbs I would imagine it would be a shocking change to try and eat the type of foods that would let him hit his needed micros.
Why not start at 3000 cals and see what happens after a week? Then work from there. I don't get the necessity for a massive cut to start.
* Note if his doctor has said drop weight as fast as possible because you are on verge of something horrible - that is a different story. My health markers were actually decent (for a behemoth lol) outside of slightly elevated blood pressure.
Also here is an interesting study I just found. I have been looking for info on super obese people since I started my weight loss, and the info is actually semi-hard to find. I know you are into this **** like me Neanderthin so you might enjoy it.:laugh: I actually haven't read it thoroughly just found it as i was writing this...
Metabolic Slowing with Massive Weight Loss despite Preservation of Fat-Free Mass
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2012-1444
The conclusion jumped out at me though:
Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.0 -
Fascinating study. When I started, my BMI was 44. I cut my calories to 1200 a day, and took up exercising 6 days a week, at least 90 min/ day. In 6 months I've lost 95 lbs and my BMI is now 28, which is still overweight, but no longer obese. Contrary to thoughts here, my metabolism did not slow on such a restriction. My metabolism is actually on the fast side of normal (I had it tested, since I was afraid of potential crashing). I'm losing at a rate of 15lbs/mo, which many will say is too fast. But it works for me. And what I'm doing IS sustainable (at least for me)
Someone else recommended recording your intake as it is now. I find that to be very sound and motivating advice. You will see in words what is going into your mouth, and may be shocked into action.
I can tell you that you will never get a consensus opinion here, so my suggestion is that you read, think, ask questions, and make up your own mind. In the end, do what feels best for YOU. Tedrickp has good thoughts and it sounds like he's got a similar journey to yours. Maybe he can mentor you *wink*0 -
Maybe he can mentor you *wink*
0 -
Just to put things into perspective...
I'm 5' 2.5" 42 year old woman & I eat about 1200 calories a day. I have also had WLS (vertical sleeve gastrectomy 4/4/12) so I can eat at this level & not feel deprived. I have been advised by my nutritionist & my surgeon about my diet. My bmi the morning of surgery was 45.3--well into morbidly obese. I know that for myself, I tried so many diets before I had the surgery & my main problem was hunger. If you limit your calories at such an extreme level without removing your stomach, I really think you will just not be able to maintain & you will give up. That happened to me over & over. I'm not saying that you should have WLS--it isn't for everyone and you do have to resolve your bad relationship with food or it will not work for you, but you do have to pick a strategy that you will be able to stick with in the long run & I think the calorie suggestion given by MFP would be a good starting point. You absolutely will lose weight quickly if you start eating 1200 calories a day, but you will not be happy & being unhappy at every meal & hungry & waiting for the next time you can eat is not a good way to live your life. It is just trading one unhealthy way of relating to food with another. You will get a lot of advice on this forum, but what it boils down to is finding what works for you. If you eat at the MFP suggested level & aren't losing, try adjusting your calories down slightly until you are. I know that you want to lose the weight as fast as possible. Before I started the surgery process, I was so discouraged with the time constraints--all the different doctors I had to see, the 6 months of nutritional counseling before I could even have the surgery. It was all a horribly frustrating delay so I know that the idea of taking a couple of weeks or months to experiment with different calorie amounts is probably not what you want to do. You probably want to get rid of the weight as fast as possible but remember that changing you whole life is really hard not just physically but psychologically & it will take time. Good luck!!!!0 -
You would risk throwing your body into starvation mode; where it wants to hold on to every last pound because it thinks it is going through a time of famine. It's a survival adaptation. If you put your body into starvation mode, your weight loss will become extremely slow. You want your body's metabolism to be quick to burn things off, and to do so it cannot think it is going through famine. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.0
-
I used to be 235 pounds four months ago and now I'm 191 pounds...and I got there by reducing my calories to 1200 a day. No, I wasn't "miserable." No, I wasn't starving. In fact, I had a hard time getting ENOUGH calories because I was FULL all of the time...know why? Because I eat mostly vegetables, fruits, legumes, and little nuts/seeds. You have to eat more of this type of food in order to get the calories, so you feel full most of the time.
First off - amazing job on your weight loss.
Secondly, and I say this respectfully - you were a 235lb female...that isn't even remotely comparable to a 455lb male.
+1 on both points. If I had tried to start at 1200 calories as a 300+ female, I would have failed miserably - would have most likely binged and not addressed changing my eating habits. Have lost 23 pounds since December with 1700 to 1800 a day. As I enter my new weight, the recommended calories gradually decrease so I suspect when I hit 235 (oh what a glorious day that will be!), 1200 will seem totally reasonable.0 -
IIn my opinion, just being accountable for your calories and logging them in will begin your success in weight loss. It made me realize what mindless eating I did in the past. Makes you thing twice, triple, about what you put in your mouth. Wishing you the best!0
-
bump for later reading, i would like to input an answer when I have time0
-
You would risk throwing your body into starvation mode; where it wants to hold on to every last pound because it thinks it is going through a time of famine. It's a survival adaptation. If you put your body into starvation mode, your weight loss will become extremely slow. You want your body's metabolism to be quick to burn things off, and to do so it cannot think it is going through famine. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true.
This is not true. Read this
Your body will go into starvation mode
To everyone mentioning starvation mode in this thread. Please read this entire quote. And please stop using the term 'starvation mode.' in reference to eating too few calories. YES, eating too few calories has many caveats. Going into 'starvation mode' is NOT one of them.Read this awhile back and it's brilliant.
So sick of reading responses of people regarding diet and weight loss with everyone throwing around purported "facts" about starvation mode. So, here is a little research on the topic. Feel free to chime in with other studies, but lets keep it based on actual research, not personal anecdotes and not "my trainer says."
Starvation mode does not happen overnight or even in just a few days! Calories in, calories out. Simple, right? Short term, yes, it’s simple, long term, not so much. Let’s add some real science to the discussion:
First, a definition. Starvation mode does not mean going without food. It means that you cut your caloric intake to less than what the body would normally burn in the course of a day. I have seen so many posts where people offer advice and tell people they need to eat more to lose weight because they are starving their bodies. The idea postulated is that eating too few calories will reduce a person’s metabolism to such an extent that the person will gain weight instead of losing.
Now, a look at one of the classic scientific studies on starvation. Probably the most famous study done was conducted after WWII by researchers at the University of Minnesota. Starvation was widespread throughout Europe during the war and scientists were trying to figure out how to re-feed people suffering from starvation and determine the long-term effects. (Remember, tens of thousands of people died after liberation from concentration camps not only from disease but from the reintroduction of food that their bodies were no longer capable of digesting.) Scientists recruited 36 young healthy men to participate in a yearlong study divided into several phases: a 12-week normal control period, a 24-week starvation phase where calories were so dramatically reduced that participants lost approximately 25% of body weight; and, finally, a recovery phase to renourish participants. Results of the study were published in the two-volume, Biology of Human Starvation (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis, 1950). See more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment.
So, what did the results of the study find? First, all participants lost weight. Starvation mode does not result in your body hanging onto extra fat or calories in an effort to “preserve” your body. But, it’s more complicated than just losing weight. All of the participants also experienced a drop in their metabolic rates – approximately 40% below baseline. Now, you will see many posters here that will argue that you will start losing muscle and not fat within a few days of going into so-called “starvation mode.” Yet, the research shows that participants lost both. In fact, at no point did they stop losing fat until they hit a rate of approximately 5% body fat near the end of the study.
Lyle McDonald explains it this way:
In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits… But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
But, keep in mind that apart from weight loss, semi-starvation has other not-so-cool effects on your mind and body. The other physical effects from the Minnesota study on semi-starvation included a significant drop in physical endurance, reduction in strength of about 10%, and sluggish reflexes. Those that were the most fit initially showed the greatest deterioration. In addition, heart volume shrank about 20%, pulses slowed and their body temperatures dropped. Concentration and judgment became impaired. Sexual function was reduced and all lost interest in sex. They had every physical indication of accelerated aging. But keep in mind, this was a year-long study, not something that happened in a just a few days or two weeks of eating restricted calories.
The more dramatic effects of semi-starvation from the Minnesota study were psychological, similar to what can be observed in anorexic patients. The men became nervous, anxious, apathetic, withdrawn, impatient, self-critical, emotional and depressed. A few even mutilated themselves, one chopping off three fingers in stress. They became obsessed with food, thinking, talking and reading about it constantly; developed weird eating rituals; hoarding, etc.
Now, let’s look at another aspect. The folks at Cambridge University in England did a study to determine the different effects starvation had on lean people versus obese people. The study can be found here: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid0 7e11.htm. Let’s just cut to the chase with this study.
Does starvation mode slow down the metabolism? No and Yes.
In the first 2 days of starvation, there is a small absolute increase in basic metabolic rate relative to values obtained from overnight fasting. Overnight fasting is what every one of us does during our sleeping hours. So it is not true that going below recommended calories for one day is going to slow down your metabolism -- quite the contrary, it may speed it up just a little. Of course, this is just limited to the first few days. After that, studies in fact support that “starvation mode” slows down metabolism.
Does Starvation mode cause our bodies to catabilize (devour our muscles and other lean mass)? Yes and No.
Lean individuals lost great amounts of fat-free, lean tissue during starvation, but obese individuals lost much more fat tissue. The loss of lean mass is not as critical to the obese person simply because an obese person has more lean mass than a person of the same age and height but normal weight. Here we get to a basic idea that makes sense – fat storage – the same way animals build up bulk to rely on during the winter, obese people have fat stores they can use (to a limited extent) in times of need. This means that the effects of a semi-starvation diet upon a normal weight individual are of course much more devastating than the effects on someone who is obese.
Finally, some conclusions. Does all this mean I should reduce my caloric intake below the minimum recommended as an effective way to lose weight? If you think the answer is yes, then you haven’t carefully read everything here, so I will spell it out:
Let’s start by clearing up that major myth I see repeated over and over again in the forums: that a single day or even a few days of extreme caloric restrictions forces your body into starvation mode, significantly reducing your metabolism and causing you to lose muscles. Not true. You may, in fact, lose weight in the short term. Your body does not go into starvation mode after a few days of extreme calorie restricted eating.
However, let’s look again at the Minnesota study for further compelling evidence why semi-starvation is not a good idea for long-term weight loss. In the latter half of the Minnesota Starvation Study the men were allowed to eat ad libitum again. Researchers found they had insatiable appetites, yet never felt full, these effects continued for months afterwards. Semi-starvation diets don’t work long-term for this simple reason – under ordinary pressures, when eating resumes, people put the weight back on and oftentimes, gain more.
And let’s not forget the other physical and psychological effects mentioned earlier. Any of those sound appealing to you? Reduced concentration or sexual function anyone? The Cambridge study also looked at several deaths from people who undertook extreme starvation diets, particularly those that did not create a good nutritional balance in the calories that were consumed.
Bottom line, you should do adequate research and dietary analysis to ensure you are getting the best nutrition you can for your calories.0 -
IIn my opinion, just being accountable for your calories and logging them in will begin your success in weight loss. It made me realize what mindless eating I did in the past. Makes you thing twice, triple, about what you put in your mouth. Wishing you the best!
*clap* So true!!!0 -
Because that's the minimum any adult should eat. So due to your size you need more then that. If you are 450 pounds you may be eating as much as 3000 or even 4000 calories a day. Give what MFP a try and don't do much lower then what they say. Just remember you didn't get to your size over night and you will not get to your goal that way either. Best of luck to you!0
-
I want to thank everyone who has posted. I think I will start out trying the mfp recommended levels and seek out someone that I can use as a sounding board.
My goal is to lose the fat and get healthier.
I can't thank all of you enough for voicing your advice, concern & support...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions