Weight loss deficit, eating exercise calories, stavation mod
Options
Replies
-
Well mainly because there are so many uninformed opinions on this thread.
After almost four years of doing research and reading hundreds of studies on nutrition, health, and exercise, and posting literally hundreds of threads on this exact topic (both as SHBoss and as my former username of Banks1850), people still come on and ask the same questions. We even sticky posted all the good threads explaining starvation mode so that newbies would read it and (even if they didn't agree, which I can't figure out since it's based on very solid science) the fact that so many people are still confused and incorrect means that those threads aren't being read. And that makes me feel like I wasted a lot of time. And that makes me very sad.
I hold my tongue quit a bit these days. I used to be very avid in my responses, but after a couple of years of responding, and re-responding, you get tired of it, and you lose your fight. Now I just shake my head, because I don't have the energy any more to keep explaining the same thing over and over and over. Especially when the information is right there for people.0 -
What he means (I believe) is that if you don't give your body its ideal amount of nutrients, your metabolism will slow down so that it can function on the amount you give it. So you certainly can eat less than what is optimum and your body will respond accordingly to survive, but why would you want to do that if you can eat more and keep those fires burning and your body performing optimally?Re: accountant_boi
My POINT Exactly...TO STARVE...is to STARVE (Mal-Nutrition)! But beyond that, we NOW live in a day and time where we have SUPPLEMENTS! I don't know what You mean by STARVE but what I mean...it just ain't so, NOT gonna happen. The KEY is NOT Starvation, it's about whether one has enough ENERGY to complete Tasks, how they feel during the day, week.... If you can Do what you need to Do on 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1500, then go for it. Do YOU actually know that the BODY does NOT get MOST of its Nutrients from what we eat, if it did we would be in REALLY bad shape...BILLIONS of Years ago.
Exactly! Thanks PJilly! It's NOT good to force your body to lower its metabolism. Why would someone want to do that? Starvation mode (or whatever you want to call it if you don't like that name) is real, and it's not a good thing.0 -
I'm incredibly interested in this topic, and after finding that I'm eating too few calories a day on average I decided to crunch the numbers and really find out what I should be eating and how my exercise calories affect those numbers.
Disclaimer - this is my own personal calculation and clearly your mileage will vary! Consider it a case study. Also... this is long. Sorry. :blushing:
Weight: 150lb
Height: 5'4"
Age: 24
BFP: 27%
To start, I calculated my Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). I know my body fat percentage (BFP), so I was able to use three different BMR calculations (including the one that MFP recommends) and averaged those numbers. To define terminology, this is the number of calories that my body burns just to sustain life, without any activity. I then multiplied this by 1.2, as recommended for a sedentary lifestyle (I have a desk job and only am only really active during exercise, which is accounted for later).
BMR: 1,452
x1.2: 1,742 calories per day
Next, I decided I want to burn 1.5 lbs a week. Nothing extreme or unhealthy here! Using the formula that you must create a deficit of 3500 calories to lose 1lb of fat, I would need to shave off 5250 calories a week, or 750 calories a day to lose 1.5 lb a week.
1,742 - 750 = 992 calories a day
Without any exercise, and using solely caloric restriction to lose weight, I'd have to eat 992 calories a day. Now, we always hear that eating less than 1200 calories a day (if you're a woman) is unhealthy so this made me a little nervous. But I do think this corresponds to what accountant_boi was saying about your metabolism not burning enough before exercise to justify eating those calories back.
So let's add in the exercise. I tend to burn about 400 calories at each work out, 4 times a week. That's 1600 calories per week. If I eat those calories back, it averages to an extra ~230 calories a day.
992 + 230 = 1222 calories per day
That means, if I burn 1600 calories and intend to lose 1.5 lbs a week I should be eating roughly 1220 calories a day. This is what MFP sets as my minimum *before* exercise. (Obviously, if I burn more than 400 calories in a work out I should eat more to compensate.)
1200 seems to be a good average number of calories for me a day, based on my metabolism. If I burn more than 400 calories a day, I would want to eat those "excess" calories. But always eating extra calories based on daily exercise when in fact 1200 calories takes exercising into account would negatively affect the calorie deficit needed for me to lose weight.
TL;DR? :yawn:
Do your own calculations! None of this information is hard to come by - determine for yourself if you should be eating back those exercise calories based on your own metabolism!
If you see something severely wrong in my calculations or think my facts are wrong - please let me know!0 -
Re: SHBoss
THANKS for Holding Your Tongue...or if You want, keep on. Don't knock people who don't think your OPINIONS are the "Prayer Book" on MFP. Frankly, I'm TIRED of "Trainers and Nutritionist" giving out the LITTLE knowledge they have attained and thinking one size fits all. NO wonder most "regular" people who use trainers and nutritionist lose, regain, lose, regain... These people are making money off of the FEARS of Society,PURE Exploitation; try Me...I know what is best....No, try Me, No, I have this product, No, I have a better one...AND ALL the while America is getting Bigger and Bigger and Bigger! WHY, Because"Trainers and Nutritionist" are unrealistic...ever wonder why the "Weight Loss" shows on TV never have 1, 2,3 year reunions...because 95% of the Competitors have REGAINED ALL or Most of the Weight BACK...Why, the "Regimes" are Totally UNREALISTIC and can't be sustained!
So pardon Me (and others) if we CHOOSE NOT to take your advice or if we continue to ask questions...we CHOOSE NOT to see YOU as the "Resident Expert!" I can also name others with far GREATER Knowledge and Credentials who accept the fact that their opinions and expertise work for some, not all...(The Zone, South Beach Plan, Atkins....Doctors.) The thing with THESE DOCTORS and Others is that they have better control of Their Egos and RECOGNIZE that one size does NOT fit all.0 -
Hmmmm this is beginning to make sense to me. I recently looked at my "net calories" graph and it showed that I am consistently UNDER 1200 calories a day ... so this means I may be hurting my weight loss efforts, Trevor (Accountant_Boi) should I be eating MORE of my exercise calories then? Or should I wait another week and see what I lose? I lost 1/2 lb this week, but lost a whopping 3.2 lbs last.
I know that I feel better when I eat enough, which means keeping my net calories at a high enough level. It depends on how much exercise calories you're burning and how low your net calories are. If they're really low - 200, 500, 700 - I would recommend eating more. If it's bouncing closer to 1000 or 1100, I know that personally I'm okay (so if I eat 1700 and burn 600, that leaves me with a net of 1100, which is okay. If, however, I ate 1400 and burned 800, with a net of only 600, I would need to eat more.) You may have to experiment to find what works for you - I know what works for me, but everyone is a little different.
Personally I'd rather err on the side of caution by eating a little more and lose weight a little more slowly than to eat too little, which is going to slow my weight loss in the long run anyways.0 -
this thread makes me sad!
Me too.0 -
Re: SHBoss
THANKS for Holding Your Tongue...or if You want, keep on. Don't knock people who don't think your OPINIONS are the "Prayer Book" on MFP. Frankly, I'm TIRED of "Trainers and Nutritionist" giving out the LITTLE knowledge they have attained and thinking one size fits all. NO wonder most "regular" people who use trainers and nutritionist lose, regain, lose, regain... These people are making money off of the FEARS of Society,PURE Exploitation; try Me...I know what is best....No, try Me, No, I have this product, No, I have a better one...AND ALL the while America is getting Bigger and Bigger and Bigger! WHY, Because"Trainers and Nutritionist" are unrealistic...ever wonder why the "Weight Loss" shows on TV never have 1, 2,3 year reunions...because 95% of the Competitors have REGAINED ALL or Most of the Weight BACK...Why, the "Regimes" are Totally UNREALISTIC and can't be sustained!
So pardon Me (and others) if we CHOOSE NOT to take your advice or if we continue to ask questions...we CHOOSE NOT to see YOU as the "Resident Expert!" I can also name others with far GREATER Knowledge and Credentials who accept the fact that their opinions and expertise work for some, not all...(The Zone, South Beach Plan, Atkins....Doctors.) The thing with THESE DOCTORS and Others is that they have better control of Their Egos and RECOGNIZE that one size does NOT fit all.
and thus you have your answer why I'm sad.
For the record, I've never asked for a dime, nor do I require MFP's services any more. I come on here to support others, offer advice when I can, and maybe reconnect with a few people I call friends. Being mean doesn't make you right. Someone asked me why I was sad, I explained it without singling anyone out, or saying anything derogatory about any person.0 -
What he means (I believe) is that if you don't give your body its ideal amount of nutrients, your metabolism will slow down so that it can function on the amount you give it. So you certainly can eat less than what is optimum and your body will respond accordingly to survive, but why would you want to do that if you can eat more and keep those fires burning and your body performing optimally?Re: accountant_boi
My POINT Exactly...TO STARVE...is to STARVE (Mal-Nutrition)! But beyond that, we NOW live in a day and time where we have SUPPLEMENTS! I don't know what You mean by STARVE but what I mean...it just ain't so, NOT gonna happen. The KEY is NOT Starvation, it's about whether one has enough ENERGY to complete Tasks, how they feel during the day, week.... If you can Do what you need to Do on 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1500, then go for it. Do YOU actually know that the BODY does NOT get MOST of its Nutrients from what we eat, if it did we would be in REALLY bad shape...BILLIONS of Years ago.
Exactly! Thanks PJilly! It's NOT good to force your body to lower its metabolism. Why would someone want to do that? Starvation mode (or whatever you want to call it if you don't like that name) is real, and it's not a good thing.
Lowering your metabolism is not a bad thing and it is not starving yourself. It actually slows down the aging process............0 -
This makes me sad too. What I like about the advice you give is that it is in line with the way MFP works. I happen to be a fan of the MFP philosophy, so I am confused by people who choose to be a part of this community when what they believe is very different from the overall message here of how to achieve optimum health and fitness. I respect anyone's right to subscribe to a different philosophy. I just don't understand why they do it here. I think you help a lot of people understand how this all works, so I hope you don't choose to hold your tongue.Re: SHBoss
THANKS for Holding Your Tongue...or if You want, keep on. Don't knock people who don't think your OPINIONS are the "Prayer Book" on MFP. Frankly, I'm TIRED of "Trainers and Nutritionist" giving out the LITTLE knowledge they have attained and thinking one size fits all. NO wonder most "regular" people who use trainers and nutritionist lose, regain, lose, regain... These people are making money off of the FEARS of Society,PURE Exploitation; try Me...I know what is best....No, try Me, No, I have this product, No, I have a better one...AND ALL the while America is getting Bigger and Bigger and Bigger! WHY, Because"Trainers and Nutritionist" are unrealistic...ever wonder why the "Weight Loss" shows on TV never have 1, 2,3 year reunions...because 95% of the Competitors have REGAINED ALL or Most of the Weight BACK...Why, the "Regimes" are Totally UNREALISTIC and can't be sustained!
So pardon Me (and others) if we CHOOSE NOT to take your advice or if we continue to ask questions...we CHOOSE NOT to see YOU as the "Resident Expert!" I can also name others with far GREATER Knowledge and Credentials who accept the fact that their opinions and expertise work for some, not all...(The Zone, South Beach Plan, Atkins....Doctors.) The thing with THESE DOCTORS and Others is that they have better control of Their Egos and RECOGNIZE that one size does NOT fit all.
and thus you have your answer why I'm sad.
For the record, I've never asked for a dime, nor do I require MFP's services any more. I come on here to support others, offer advice when I can, and maybe reconnect with a few people I call friends. Being mean doesn't make you right. Someone asked me why I was sad, I explained it without singling anyone out, or saying anything derogatory about any person.0 -
1. 1-2 pounds a week is a good average. Some weeks you may lose more, some less. Getting in a big hurry to lose weight that took you years to gain is a mistake. Slower weight loss makes it easier for you to adopt your new habits as a lifestyle you can live with for the rest of your life. Also, you will give your skin time to adjust and shrink along with the fat. Haste can make Waist!
2. Eat back some of the exercise calories
eat protien.
3. Drink more water.0 -
What he means (I believe) is that if you don't give your body its ideal amount of nutrients, your metabolism will slow down so that it can function on the amount you give it. So you certainly can eat less than what is optimum and your body will respond accordingly to survive, but why would you want to do that if you can eat more and keep those fires burning and your body performing optimally?Re: accountant_boi
My POINT Exactly...TO STARVE...is to STARVE (Mal-Nutrition)! But beyond that, we NOW live in a day and time where we have SUPPLEMENTS! I don't know what You mean by STARVE but what I mean...it just ain't so, NOT gonna happen. The KEY is NOT Starvation, it's about whether one has enough ENERGY to complete Tasks, how they feel during the day, week.... If you can Do what you need to Do on 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1500, then go for it. Do YOU actually know that the BODY does NOT get MOST of its Nutrients from what we eat, if it did we would be in REALLY bad shape...BILLIONS of Years ago.
Exactly! Thanks PJilly! It's NOT good to force your body to lower its metabolism. Why would someone want to do that? Starvation mode (or whatever you want to call it if you don't like that name) is real, and it's not a good thing.
Lowering your metabolism is not a bad thing and it is not starving yourself. It actually slows down the aging process............
Well I think I'll keep my healthy metabolism and normal aging process. I have no doubts that the exercise, healthy eating and self-care I'm doing now (and making habit) will do far more for me in the long run than lowering my metabolism would.0 -
Not to mention keep you looking good doing it! :bigsmile:Well I think I'll keep my healthy metabolism and normal aging process. I have no doubts that the exercise, healthy eating and self-care I'm doing now (and making habit) will do far more for me in the long run than lowering my metabolism would.0 -
All of this "Starvation Mode" and Eating exercise calories should not even play a part in your Plan; if you can be active and get done daily what you need to get done on 1000 calories a day, go for it. YOU are NOT going to STARVE, unless Your Body has NO Fat!
Just so you know, starvation mode (as used on this site) does not mean that someone is literally starving. It's when someone's metabolism drops below what it would be normally (meaning they burn fewer calories on a normal non-exercise basis) because their body isn't getting the nutrition it needs. It's a survival mechanism - if our bodies are deprived of adequate nutrition, and people have deficits that are too high for an extended period, the body's metabolism drops to try and conserve the rare resources (ex. calories/nutrients).
I asked my Doctor her thoughts on this and she agrees.
The drop in the metabolism is very small and actually my doctor told me that a slower metabolism is NOT a bad thing. A slower metabolism means you age more slowly..................
I'm sure the properly starving masses in Africa will be pleased to hear that in fact, hardly eating any calories each day only has minimal effect on their metabolisms. How do you then explain why people on very low calorie diets stop menstruating, start losing muscle or have stunted growth if they are children?
Honestly, it's not that difficult. Look at your basal rate. That is the MINIMUM number of calories that your body needs to function properly. Don't go below this. Just don't. Readjust is as your weight drops, but don't go below it, because you body will start taking short cuts. It's like balancing your household budget - if less money comes in, you have to start looking to making savings, first by cutting out nice things like your TV package, but if you continue to cut the money, you'll end up having to downgrade the basics like your food and house.
As for exercise, well, it doesn't matter what you do or how many exercise calories you eat, just as long as you never go under your basal rate. It's therefore important to log your exercise and be accurate about your activity level because if you don't, and you've set your calorie goal to your basal rate and stick to it, then you're automatically under.
My basal rate is about 1230... I lead an active life, so have my daily goal set to 1400, not counting exercise - my maintenance level is 1850. I try to eat around 1400 a day and count exercise on top, eating around 75% of my exercise cals. Either way, I never exceed my maintenance, so am automatically in deficit. I don't care by how much I'm in deficit, because it averages out... and the main point is that I'M STILL IN DEFICIT.0 -
Re: accountant_boi
This is the problem as I see it...FOOD vs Nutrients. WHAT are you saying will decrease one's metabolism? What are You saying will bring on "Starvation?" NOT even the scientist KNOW the proper amount of Nutrients the body needs...to some degree they can give a Minimum (right now the gov't labeling says that its ok to intake 2500mg of Salt daily, many Other studies say intake a maximum of 1800mg per day. BUT we DO know that the Body MUST intake a Minimum of 500mg of Sodium daily to function properly. The Body does not care if this 500 mg comes from Gator Ade, Table Salt, canned tuna, a Salt Pill...) so don't get Nutrients confused with Food (Calories) which is Energy.
Why is it that Many less wealthy Countries are Much Healthier than the USA? Many of these countries caloric intake is FAR less than the USA and in some places they eat Once or Twice per day! WHO said we need 3 meals per day...we NO Longer live in an agrarian culture but we eat like we are going to the field standing behind a plow; we NO Longer live in a Factory based culture, but we eat like we are standing all day on an assembly line. We go to the gym 4 or 5 days per week and we want to eat 2500 calories a day. This food is NOT necessary, it's HABITUAL and most times do not even give the NUTRIENTS needed, to the point that we need Supplements. Obese people are most often suffering from Nutrient Deficits! So, as for Me it's about the Nutrients I need (no matter where they come from), Energy I need and being HEALTHY! If I don't follow some of this Country's scientific data on nutrition, wt loss....I'm OK with that because MOST other places are far more healthy, have less disease and slimmer that the USA. And by the way, WHY would anyone want to eat more than necessary...we know that "Shoving" calories (food) in your mouth can assist in causing many diseases (arthritis, colon cancer..) so, NO, I would NOT want to eat more if I could to keep My Metabolism high...who made You believe that that's a good thing?!0 -
Re: accountant_boi
This is the problem as I see it...FOOD vs Nutrients. WHAT are you saying will decrease one's metabolism? What are You saying will bring on "Starvation?" NOT even the scientist KNOW the proper amount of Nutrients the body needs...to some degree they can give a Minimum (right now the gov't labeling says that its ok to intake 2500mg of Salt daily, many Other studies say intake a maximum of 1800mg per day. BUT we DO know that the Body MUST intake a Minimum of 500mg of Sodium daily to function properly. The Body does not care if this 500 mg comes from Gator Ade, Table Salt, canned tuna, a Salt Pill...) so don't get Nutrients confused with Food (Calories) which is Energy.
Why is it that Many less wealthy Countries are Much Healthier than the USA? Many of these countries caloric intake is FAR less than the USA and in some places they eat Once or Twice per day! WHO said we need 3 meals per day...we NO Longer live in an agrarian culture but we eat like we are going to the field standing behind a plow; we NO Longer live in a Factory based culture, but we eat like we are standing all day on a assembly line. We go to the gym 4 or 5 days per week and we want to eat 2500 calories a day. This food is NOT necessary, it's HABITUAL and most times do not even give the NUTRIENTS needed, to the point that we need Supplements. Obese people are most often suffering from Nutrient Deficits! So, as for Me it's about the Nutrients I need (no matter where they come from), Energy I need and being HEALTHY! If I don't follow some of this Country's scientific data on nutrition, wt loss....I'm OK with that because MOST other places are far more healthy, have less disease and slimmer that the USA.
Agreed!!!
Someone can eat minimal calories, but nutrient dense foods and there is NO WAY one can go into Starvation mode.
Also, another reason as to why Starvation Mode is a myth...............Weight Loss surgery forces the patient to go on a LOW CALORIE PLAN and they lose weight, get off medications and get healthier..............
So, if Starvation Mode were real, then WLS and the Low Calorie plan that goes along with it would not work...........0 -
Mookz0r, how did you calculate your Maintenance Calories (1850)? You can see what I calculated out earlier, but I based my "maintenance level" on my fairly sedentary lifestyle (BMR x 1.2). Is this not accurate? I did notice that it caused my calories limit to go below my BMR, even with exercise calories included.
And to anyone - can someone explain why MFP has you eat "calories burned" on a day to day basis instead of averaging out what you burn per week and adding that to your daily calories? It seems to me that jumping around between 1200 to 1600 calories depending on the day would confuse your body. It also seems to encourage a "reward yourself with food" lifestyle.
Banks/SH - I did read your topic on why MFP has you eat your exercise calories, but it didn't seem to explain this point.
Thanks in advance!0 -
Re: accountant_boi
This is the problem as I see it...FOOD vs Nutrients. WHAT are you saying will decrease one's metabolism? What are You saying will bring on "Starvation?" NOT even the scientist KNOW the proper amount of Nutrients the body needs...to some degree they can give a Minimum (right now the gov't labeling says that its ok to intake 2500mg of Salt daily, many Other studies say intake a maximum of 1800mg per day. BUT we DO know that the Body MUST intake a Minimum of 500mg of Sodium daily to function properly. The Body does not care if this 500 mg comes from Gator Ade, Table Salt, canned tuna, a Salt Pill...) so don't get Nutrients confused with Food (Calories) which is Energy.
Why is it that Many less wealthy Countries are Much Healthier than the USA? Many of these countries caloric intake is FAR less than the USA and in some places they eat Once or Twice per day! WHO said we need 3 meals per day...we NO Longer live in an agrarian culture but we eat like we are going to the field standing behind a plow; we NO Longer live in a Factory based culture, but we eat like we are standing all day on a assembly line. We go to the gym 4 or 5 days per week and we want to eat 2500 calories a day. This food is NOT necessary, it's HABITUAL and most times do not even give the NUTRIENTS needed, to the point that we need Supplements. Obese people are most often suffering from Nutrient Deficits! So, as for Me it's about the Nutrients I need (no matter where they come from), Energy I need and being HEALTHY! If I don't follow some of this Country's scientific data on nutrition, wt loss....I'm OK with that because MOST other places are far more healthy, have less disease and slimmer that the USA.
Agreed!!!
Someone can eat minimal calories, but nutrient dense foods and there is NO WAY one can go into Starvation mode.
Also, another reason as to why Starvation Mode is a myth...............Weight Loss surgery forces the patient to go on a LOW CALORIE PLAN and they lose weight, get off medications and get healthier..............
So, if Starvation Mode were real, then WLS and the Low Calorie plan that goes along with it would not work...........
Believe what you want to believe. Plenty of people on MFP have personal experience that "starvation mode" (or "my body lowered its metabolism because I'm not eating enough mode" or whatever you want to call it) is real. Our bodies are amazing things, and when it senses that its not getting enough calories, it will over time drop your metabolism to help make the calories you eat go further. Obviously it's not going to drop to zero - your body will always burn some calories keeping you alive. This is why you still lose weight on very low calorie diets. That said, just because you are losing weight doesn't mean you're doing it in a healthy way. I would rather eat a healthy amount of nutritious food (most days I'm between 1200 and 1600 calories, usually my net is between 1100 and 1300) and lose weight that way than restricting my diet to unnecessarily low levels.
At that, I'm going to bow out of this thread because both "sides" have expressed their opinions (as they have in numerous other threads on this site), so people can read that and make their own decision (hopefully after doing further research). Further discussion/debate isn't going to add anything of value.0 -
And to anyone - can someone explain why MFP has you eat "calories burned" on a day to day basis instead of averaging out what you burn per week and adding that to your daily calories? It seems to me that jumping around between 1200 to 1600 calories depending on the day would confuse your body. It also seems to encourage a "reward yourself with food" lifestyle.
In simple terms, keeping your calorie count jumping around "usually" will keep you out of a plateau. You'll see it on site as caloric cycling or something along those lines. If you eat the exact same amount of calories every day and do the exact same exercise every day, your body gets use to it and you have to "shock" it back to burning what you'd like it to burn. I'm sure others may have more in depth information for you.
0 -
Mookz0r, how did you calculate your Maintenance Calories (1850)? You can see what I calculated out earlier, but I based my "maintenance level" on my fairly sedentary lifestyle (BMR x 1.2). Is this not accurate? I did notice that it caused my calories limit to go below my BMR, even with exercise calories included.
And to anyone - can someone explain why MFP has you eat "calories burned" on a day to day basis instead of averaging out what you burn per week and adding that to your daily calories? It seems to me that jumping around between 1200 to 1600 calories depending on the day would confuse your body. It also seems to encourage a "reward yourself with food" lifestyle.
Banks/SH - I did read your topic on why MFP has you eat your exercise calories, but it didn't seem to explain this point.
Thanks in advance!
sure, I'm guessing here as I didn't create the site, but I imagine if you ask Mike this is what he'll say.
Since the body has no memory of calories consumed and can't bank undigested food, replenishing calories burned is required only to keep the total balance in equilibrium. You may think of it as rewarding your body, it's one way to look at it. I really think of it as more of just fueling your body accurately. I.E. if you drive your car an extra 100 miles, you'll need to fill up the tank faster, that's not really a reward. Now if you exercise solely to get those extra calories to eat something you enjoy, that might be a problem for someone that has yet to learn to control food. But I think that's a symptom of a larger, psychological issue that probably should be examined.
The downfall of evening out your calories through the week is similar. If you eat 400 extra calories today even though you didn't exercise, the balance for today is either closer to maintenance or could even be over, which means fat storage (or less fat burn at least), as the balance is a running total instead of an end of day balance, any time there's more energy than your body can use, it will be stored as fat. And fat isn't burned as fast as carbohydrates, so you run the risk of storing extra fat today for use tomorrow, and never using that fat.0 -
Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?
Written by j.novick
Saturday, 03 January 2009 19:23
Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorders and saw this common dieting myth was in accurate. Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating to few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.
Really?
Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."
First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere and to maintain a certain level of weight, and equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.
Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.
Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30 and attempts to tract exercise and activities levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem tat people are not accurately determining their caloric intake and output.
Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".
In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.
Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they go further into starvation mode and continue to stay at the same weight or maybe even "gain" weight?
Clearly, they would lose more weight if they stopped eating altogether.
We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.
But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.
So, where did this myth come from?
There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that.
Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s. Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you then them, then neither are you
In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself and if it is not feed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.
This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually it is due to an inaccurate assesment of their energy balance.
Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it is easy to diagnose and can be easily treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.
So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and mantain a healthy level of activity.
In Health
Jeff0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions