"Starvation mode"?

2»

Replies

  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    My kids think I'm weird but I like salt on my granny smith apple slices. Watermelon, also. While I know sodium can be problematic, my heart is in great shape and I am doing much better these days at drinking a fair amount of water.

    I've been averaging an apple a day recently. Eating more f/v & drinking more water are personal goals for me - areas I tend to do poorly unless I make an effort. The interesting thing is that most of us are here for the same reasons, and we all have different strengths & weaknesses. No one is perfect. Its a process. :)

    As to your original question(s) - something to consider: there is more potential long-term harm in under-eating than there is long-term benefit.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    I recently broke a stall by doing an intermittent fast.

    Starting a week ago, I'm taking in all my calories during a 4-hour window. (The timeframe is up to you - people do 6 or even 8 hour windows...). I sit at a desk, so I picked 4-8pm so I can have a snack at work at the end of the day, then dinner with the fam at home.

    As of this morning, I'm down 10 lbs from that. I'm pretty freaking flabbergasted but keep in mind - 10 lbs in a week is NOT GOING TO BE FAT LOSS.

    It's almost certainly water weight, including weight I put on during the VACATION I took previous to last week, a vacation during which I tracked food and tried to stay honest, but somehow went up 4lbs anyway.

    My point is simply that it worked for me, it's worked for many people, it's not THAT hard if you're dedicated, and lets you have an extra-large dinner :)

    Good luck!

    [Edit]

    Oh also: Starvation mode is bull****.
  • lisaabenjamin
    lisaabenjamin Posts: 665 Member
    "Starvation mode" is when you are literally starving, like those famine-stricken children in Africa. It's when you have no carbohydrate or fat reserves left in your body, so you start to burn protein (which is largely stored in your muscles) as a source of energy. This is a very serious condition and not likely to happen to the average Westerner unless you have a serious eating disorder.

    Eating under 1200 cals, or 1000 cals every so often or for a short period of time is not going to put you in this very malnourished state. It's not recommended of course, but it's not the same thing as starvation mode.
  • seehowyousoar
    seehowyousoar Posts: 60 Member
    I recently broke a stall by doing an intermittent fast.

    Starting a week ago, I'm taking in all my calories during a 4-hour window. (The timeframe is up to you - people do 6 or even 8 hour windows...). I sit at a desk, so I picked 4-8pm so I can have a snack at work at the end of the day, then dinner with the fam at home.

    As of this morning, I'm down 10 lbs from that. I'm pretty freaking flabbergasted but keep in mind - 10 lbs in a week is NOT GOING TO BE FAT LOSS.

    It's almost certainly water weight, including weight I put on during the VACATION I took previous to last week, a vacation during which I tracked food and tried to stay honest, but somehow went up 4lbs anyway.

    My point is simply that it worked for me, it's worked for many people, it's not THAT hard if you're dedicated, and lets you have an extra-large dinner :)

    Good luck!

    [Edit]

    Oh also: Starvation mode is bull****.


    Thanks!
    I kinda did this for a while, but it was only 12-14 hours of not eating. Never tried making it any bigger! I might try this sometime. :)
    Let me just ask, did you exercise during the intermittent fast?
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member

    I doubt metabolism is slow..have you had it tested? or just an assumption?

    As well meal timing and frequency does not speed it up...


    Going ot be slightly awkward here.
    An assumption - but since I "go" once every few days (unless I drink lots of teas that kickstart it), I thought it'd be safe to say it's slow?
    Any suggestions?

    Thanks for trying to help btw. I appreciate it :)

    no...most people who "believe" they have a slow metabolism actually have a normal one..."going" infrequently isn't a sign...having a hard time losing weight doing everything right...would be an indicator...

    Logging accurately, everything you eat, using a food scale and measuring cups and choosing the correct entries is the only way to know if you are in a deficet. A reasonable deficet...

    If you exercise eating back 50-75% is good as well that way you wont be over estimating burns...as MFP database is known for it.

    It's all about keeping calories in lower than calories out...
  • seehowyousoar
    seehowyousoar Posts: 60 Member
    My kids think I'm weird but I like salt on my granny smith apple slices. Watermelon, also. While I know sodium can be problematic, my heart is in great shape and I am doing much better these days at drinking a fair amount of water.

    I've been averaging an apple a day recently. Eating more f/v & drinking more water are personal goals for me - areas I tend to do poorly unless I make an effort. The interesting thing is that most of us are here for the same reasons, and we all have different strengths & weaknesses. No one is perfect. Its a process. :)

    As to your original question(s) - something to consider: there is more potential long-term harm in under-eating than there is long-term benefit.

    Funny food cravings are the best. The other day, I wanted to eat some salami but had no bread, so I had salami with petit beurre biscuits. It was actually not half bad hehe
  • seehowyousoar
    seehowyousoar Posts: 60 Member
    no...most people who "believe" they have a slow metabolism actually have a normal one..."going" infrequently isn't a sign...having a hard time losing weight doing everything right...would be an indicator...

    Logging accurately, everything you eat, using a food scale and measuring cups and choosing the correct entries is the only way to know if you are in a deficet. A reasonable deficet...

    If you exercise eating back 50-75% is good as well that way you wont be over estimating burns...as MFP database is known for it.

    It's all about keeping calories in lower than calories out...


    Yeah, I understand. That's why I'm sooo confused. :( But I guess I'll keep trying for longer and give it more time. It's just so discouraging...
  • lisaabenjamin
    lisaabenjamin Posts: 665 Member

    I doubt metabolism is slow..have you had it tested? or just an assumption?

    As well meal timing and frequency does not speed it up...


    Going ot be slightly awkward here.
    An assumption - but since I "go" once every few days (unless I drink lots of teas that kickstart it), I thought it'd be safe to say it's slow?
    Any suggestions?

    Thanks for trying to help btw. I appreciate it :)

    I'm not a medical professional but I don't think the rate at which you poop is anything much to do with your metabolism. Contrary to popular belief, your metabolism isn't just about "how fast you burn calories"; metabolism is actually the rate at which your body carries out ALL the chemical reactions it does every day, *some* of which involve breaking down fats/carbs etc for energy. Most people do this at around the same rate, unless you have a medically diagnosed condition.

    I saw a TV programme recently in which it highlighted that most people who assume they have a slow metabolism because they find it hard to lose weight, actually don't. They have a normal metabolism and simply overeat without being aware of it!

    Pooping every few days may be normal for you - you don't necessarily need to go every day; everyone is different. If you are constipated however, it may be that you simply need to drink more water or eat more dietary fibre to get things moving!
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Thanks!
    I kinda did this for a while, but it was only 12-14 hours of not eating. Never tried making it any bigger! I might try this sometime. :)
    Let me just ask, did you exercise during the intermittent fast?

    Only the past couple days. Having kids, my window for working out is at like 5am, and after the aforementioned vacation I really didn't feel like getting my butt out of bed that early again until yesterday :)

    I'm still keeping up the fasting, though this morning I had some cream in my coffee which I'm justifying by having burned 500cals on an exercise bike. (Fingers crossed.)

    I'm also reading the article linked above, at bodyrecomposition.com, and he talks about stress and cortisol and water retention. It sounds very sciencey, and makes sense to me, and given my experience (pardon me) pissing like a racehorse the past couple of days, I'll lay money on it being retained water weight.
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    I would try getting more exercise to mix things up. You're body will like it and respond. You should add some more calories too.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,654 Member
    Re: Starvation mode - have a look at this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

    If I remember this story correctly, the woman was eating 700 cals a day during the week, very low carb and low protein, then binging on the weekends on high carb foods, thus negating her calorie deficit for the week.
    This is not starvation mode, it is just a starve-binge cycle.

    Most of the people who claim to be eating very low calories, and either not losing or even gaining, are doing exactly this. They are binging frequently due to the low cals on some days, and thus not creating an overall deficit.

    Anyone who has any extra weight on them, that actually eats 700 cals EVERY day, WILL lose weight.

    **Edited to include the disclaimer that I am NOT suggesting or condoning a 700 calorie diet. Eat at a reasonable deficit over time, and you will lose weight.

    To the OP- Weight stalls can be caused by water retention due to higher sodium or higher carb levels, so all the salami and bread products you have eaten this week, may be the culprit. Salami is generally high in sodium, and extra sugar/starchy carbs can cause your body to increase glycogen stores.
  • amwbox
    amwbox Posts: 576 Member
    The truth is that your metabolism does slow down under caloric restriction...but it doesn't prevent you from burning fat. It just happens somewhat slower. It gets massively overblown, mostly because VLCD's are unhealthy.

    If your down below 500 calories a day you are definitely losing weight faster than if you were eating 3 times as much...but not as fast as if you were eating 3 times as much while also burning a bunch of calories via exercising for hours.

    Under low calorie consumption, the body goes into ketosis, which by its nature causes fat burn. Yes, ketosis happens even in the presence of carbohydrate if the deficit is large enough.

    Extreme caloric deficit can cause rapid weight loss, but is not sustainable in the long term. Its also potentially less efficient than less restriction combined with lots of exercise.
  • tmauck4472
    tmauck4472 Posts: 1,785 Member
    Starvation mode occurs after years and years of low caloric intake. You are not even close to hitting this. Why do you think anorexics are skinny? You didn't do enough research.

    ^This x's 1000000000
  • cassie4animals
    cassie4animals Posts: 23 Member
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html#more-9313

    Good article. Thank you for sharing.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,902 Member
    Whenever one reduces calories, their metabolic rate will drop. The challenge is to keep the metabolic rate up while in calorie deficit and this is usually done with physical activity.
    Stall are normal and usually last a couple of weeks. Just stay consistent.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Categories