Starvation Mode

Arranna1212

Thank you for the post

craftywitch_63

It's a very interesting article. I always wondered how anorexics were able to become so thin with so little calories if starvation mode actually existed.

or for that matter how the many died in concentration camps from starvation

Yeah, but if there is no "starvation mode" then why is the WHO worried that starving people in Ethiopia are so obese . . . oh, wait that the US not Ethiopia! :noway:

FaunalFantasy

I broke the dreaded "never go below 1200" calories rule a month ago and magically started loosing half a pound a week after months and several different attempts at loosing weight on 1200 calories. I have a friend with dwarfism who is not supposed to eat more than 900 calories a day to maintain her weight, which made me think that at my height of 5'2" I could drop to 1100 calories without entering the touted starvation mode. I am tired of trying to explain to people that I not anorexic (which always makes you sound even more anorexic).

s4naz

thank you for this!

ComradeTovarich

bring on the haters who will disagree.. but makes enough sense to me

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

"And yet you — someone who is likely a normal weight, overweight, or obese person NOWHERE NEAR THIS STATE who will NEVER BE ANYWHERE NEAR THIS STATE who’s trying to lose anywhere from 5 to 200 pounds of body fat to look prettier in your swimsuit — thinks this somehow applies to you? HA!"

10/10 read.

valmaebel

To be honest, I find a lot of the arguments between the two "camps" to be semantic. It seems like the are people on both sides who know what they're talking about but use different terms. For example, in this article he rails against "starvation mode" but then warns against "starvation response". The dangers he lists under starvation response is what I've heard others list as being starvation mode. So basically, both understand the concept but are using different terms for it.

I thought the article has some fantastic points...but the title and intro is a bit aggressive and would probably put off those who actually need to hear it. For those who actually advocate for the "starvation mode" are hardly apt to read all the way through this article and discover the author actually agrees with them on many counts, and honestly I'm not sure what has him so upset. Yes, I agree that to say you will never lose weight if you have too high a deficit is ludicrous. But it also isn't nearly as dangerous as those who go to far under (dangerous not because it will lead to a lack of weight loses...but because it will lead to all other health issues instead).

Basically, this should be a lifestyle..not a diet. It should be something you can realistically maintain. It should not make life a misery and living hell but instead should open up new doors and opportunities. A moderate deficit is USUALLY better at reaching these goals than a more drastic one. As for the never go under 1200...most of the threads I've seen advocated looking at your BMR and calculating based on your individual size, age, and sex to determine your caloric intake. They were fighting against the idea that 1200 is a magic number (another dangerous catch phrase...that some magical number will work for everyone). It's not. Everyone is different and some will do well under that...but far more would be more successful if they were above that. Weight loss and (even more so) healthy living is not cookie cutter and the sooner people figure that out, the better.