"starvation" mode

Stewie316

I think the starvatoin thing actually holds some water, at least in my personal situation. For me, I got to a point where I was sick of my weight and instead of doing it the right way, I severely restricted calories and upped my activity. However, I also had binge moments where I would eat a TON of calories in a sitting one day. There's an article in one of the sticky posts at the top of this board that explains why I was great at maintaining my weight, but not losing. I was always so frustrated that I was eating as little as 900 calories a day and not seeing anything drop, then getting depressed and binging just to start the whole thing over agian.

I joined this site 2 weeks ago. I lost 1 lb the first week. Then, I started reading why you should eat more to lose, and I did. I gained 4lbs in just a few days. Today, I weighed myself and I have lost not only those 4lbs, but another 1.4 on top of it. I'm eating between 1300 and 1500 a day (which is torture, but I know it has to be done) healthily and working out 30-45 minutes 3-5 times a week, or as often as I can basically. So far, I am really pleased with the progress and totally believe in starvation mode because I honestly think that's where I was for so long.

Of course, that's just my situatoin and story, but I thought it would add something.

I'm sorry, but that isn't starvation mode. Most people who spout about starvation mode isn't going through true starvation mode. And even when you do go through stavation mode, you still lose weight, it's just that you start to lose more lean muscle and less fat.

The reason you weren't losing weight was because you were binging some days. I know its very easy to go overboard in a day and not realize how many calories you really consumed. I've had some "free" days where I wasn't watching my calories and I would go back later to add up what I had and it could easily amount to 4000 calories. One day of this will ruin a whole week or eating right and exercise.

Erindipitous

Then maybe MFP isn't for you.

What a rude thing to say on a site that is supposed to HELP and SUPPORT others during their weight loss.

Maybe you're just jealous that some people don't need to hit their calorie goal- everyone is different; just because 1200-1800 calories is the rule of thumb doesn't mean it is the correct thing for every single body type.

but anyways- here is a really interesting article about the subject-

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

Thank youuuuu for posting that link!

I checked it out, and I believe the words out of my mouth were: "IN YO FACE!" :drinker: So glad someone finally explained that.

I am so sick of people telling others they are eating too few calories and that they'll gain all of the weight back because they are putting themselves in starvation mode. Who are these people to bash others like that on the message boards -- Excuse me, Dr. Quinn, I didn't realize you had a PhD in Nutrition and Dietetics.

We're all doing this differently. This is MY fitness pal, and if I want to set my calorie goals to 600, that's my choice.

I've successfully lost and maintained in the past after cutting calories way back to about half of my BMR, and it has everything to do with how you start "refeeding" your body once you've eventually hit your goal: Several small "meals" throughout the day, gradually increasing the calories over time, and incorporating EXERCISE to help ramp back up your metabolism. It really is when people hop back into poor eating habits and no physical activity that they "gain it all back".

edorice

also i tried to view your diary to get some tips...but it's private. :ohwell:

My food diary is viewable to those on my friends list.

binary_jester

2500 mg guideline for sodium is based on a 2,000 calorie diet. If you are going over or reaching 2,500 mg of sodium then your sodium intake is too much for less calories. Taking in 1,000 calories in one meal is not a great plan for weight loss, especially at dinner.

Eat like a king for breakfast.
Eat like a prince for lunch.
Eat like a pauper for dinner.

yeah...i understand that. but seeing as though i just wrapped my head around this eating my calories thing this afternoon, it's a little too late for that tonight.

thanks for the help tho

You can choose to believe anecdotal stories that have worked for people, like above. But I could also show you anecdotal stories that worked for people doing exactly the opposite. Last night, I pretty much had all my calories before I went to sleep.

"Taking in 1,000 calories in one meal is not a great plan for weight loss, especially at dinner. " edorice, could you show some evidence to back that statement up?

I think some people are confusing what the OP was trying to argue. Your caloric requirements should be met based on your goals. The deficit created may vary, again, depending on your goals.

But don't tell me WHEN during the day I should eat and how often because I will get fatter and my metabolism will slow down if I don't follow this golden rule. It's simply a myth that is long overdue to die.

I know of studies that show 5 meals vs 3 meals, same exact calories and food, did NOT impact weight loss. I would understand eating a large meal may impact quality of sleep, especially in terms of GERD, but for weight loss, it is simply not true according to those studies. What people chose to believe is entirely different.

edorice

"Taking in 1,000 calories in one meal is not a great plan for weight loss, especially at dinner. " edorice, could you show some evidence to back that statement up?

ADA (American Diabetes Association) spokeswoman Noralyn Mills, RD, believes if we feed the body at regular intervals we send a signal to the body that it doesn't have to store calories and when we skip meals, we affect the metabolism negatively. "But this can be accomplished with three regular meals a day for many of us," she notes.

Christine Steele, PhD, vice president for nutrition of EAS in Golden, Colo., tells WebMD the challenge can be performed at home. The essence is to eat six small, moderate meals a day and perform the exercises, which include a combination of resistance and aerobics exercises. Each session is 20 minutes to one hour long. As for the meals, "We try to be practical," Steele says. "We tell you to eat palm-sized pieces of meat or fist-sized carb sources."

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/diets-tips-for-depression/2010/11/16/id/370674
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/anthony11.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/eat-6-meals-daymaximum-weight-loss.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_5497387_six-pack-abs-muscles.html

binary_jester

The Thermic Effect Of Feeding (TEF)
This myth originated from the misunderstanding of TEF: thermic effect of feeding (one of SEVERAL factors influencing metabolic rate)...the amount of calories burned by the body when processing the food you eat. The thermic effect of feeding averages to about 10% (meal composition also influences TEF) . This means a person consuming 300 calories can expect to burn 30 calories during digestion so every time we eat our metabolic rate spikes slightly during that particular time.
The reasoning became "if I spread my meals out through the day, I will cause TEF more often raising my metabolic rate and burn more fat". However, the truth is this: At the same total amount of calories and meal composition, the person consuming 3 meals per day is going to burn the same amount of calories through TEF as the person consuming 6 meals a day.
The metabolism of the person consuming 6 meals a day isn't going to be faster than the person consuming 3 meals a day. The calories burned through TEF at the end of the day will be the same for both. You see even though the person consuming 6 meals have 6 spikes in their metabolic rate via TEF...the spikes are smaller. The person consuming 3 larger meals will have 3 LARGER spikes resulting in the same amount of calories burned at the end of the day.
To expound further: Two people consuming 3000 calories total: one person divides the 3000 calories into 6 SMALLER meals result:--> smaller calories burned (during the 6 instances of smaller feedings which caused smaller TEFs) will result in the same number of calories burned at the end of the day for the other person who divides the 3000 calories into 3 LARGER meals result:-->Larger calories burned ( during the 3 instances of larger feedings which caused Larger TEFs ). Numerous studies such as the one below have demonstrated no metabolic advantage of eating more frequently...
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
Abstract
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship.
However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure.
Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging.
Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
This is just one of many studies that discredits the "high frequent feeding = faster metabolic rate". Add to it is the fact that you have people who practice intermittent fasting or what some call "warrior diet" ( Eating one big meal a day or 3 meals in a 1 to 8 hour period while fasting for 12 to 23 hours) with no effect on their metabolism and no loss of muscle mass. Our metabolism isn't easily changed, for example it takes around 3-4 days of strict dieting for our metabolism to even slow down.

http://perfectbodyrx.com/2010/10/14/meal-frequency-the-myth-that-refuses-to-die/




1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.

Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.

Origin

Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of "stoking the metabolic fire" by eating small meals on a frequent basis. My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal.

Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i.e. normal people who do not count calories and just eat spontaneously like most people).

There's a saying that goes "correlation does not imply causation" and this warrants further explanation since it explains many other dietary myths and fallacies. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have:

* Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.

* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals.

The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html


and one more I found interesting


4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".


Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.

Origin

I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.



Same link listed above.

TrainerRobin

It's not either "starvation mode" or "calories in versus calories out", it's both. Everyone is different and some folks can get by with eating too few calories. But as a whole, most people cannot reach and maintain a healthy body weight and body composition (lean to body fat) without eating an adequate amount of calories and taking in adequate nutrition. One of my biggest challenges working with clients isn't getting them to eat moderate amounts of food, but with clients who are eating too little and come to me out of frustration that they're not losing or they are losing, but their body fat composition is heading in the wrong direction and they realize that as their lean diminishes, their daily calorie need is falling and they don't want to face a lifetime of eating at such a low calorie level to avoid regaining body fat they worked so hard to lose.

I'll skip the why of it all, and I understand your frustration with this principle, but there is sound science to it and, in practice, it's a real issue. My clients are always so surprised that when they agree to eat a higher calorie plan that I lay out for them just for a week as an experiment, they actually lose fat and gain lean.

To each their own, though. Just offering a counterview.

binary_jester

2500 mg guideline for sodium is based on a 2,000 calorie diet. If you are going over or reaching 2,500 mg of sodium then your sodium intake is too much for less calories. Taking in 1,000 calories in one meal is not a great plan for weight loss, especially at dinner.

Eat like a king for breakfast.
Eat like a prince for lunch.
Eat like a pauper for dinner.

I guess I should have read further.

10. Myth: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch a queen, dinner like a pauper."


Truth

Also connected to this saying, is the belief that you should reduce carbs in the evening as they will be less likely to be stored as fat. While this might sound good on paper, there's nothing to support it and a lot that shows it to be wrong.

The strongest argument against this are the numerous studies available on body composition and health after and during Ramadan fasting. This meal pattern of regular nightly feasts has a neutral or positive effect on body fat percentage and other health parameters. This is quite an extreme and telling example. People literally gorge on carbs and treats in the middle of the night to no ill effect. And yet, in the bizarre world of bodybuilding and fitness, people worry whether it's OK to eat 50 grams of carbs in their last meal.

If the scientific data on Ramadan fasting aren't enough, there are plenty of other studies showing no effect on weight loss or weight gain from eating later in the day.

In one study comparing two meal patterns, which involved one group eating more calories earlier in the day and one group eating most calories later in the day, more favorable results were found in the group eating large evening meals. While those who ate more in the AM lost more weight, the extra weight was in the form of muscle mass. The late evening eaters conserved muscle mass better, which resulted in a larger drop in body fat percentage.

Origin

Just like breakfast skipping is associated with higher body weights in the general population, you will find associations with late night eating and higher body weights. If you have been reading this far, you'll understand the logical fallacy of saying that late night eating must cause weight gain based on such studies. People who engage in late night eating, such as snacking in front of the TV, are likely to weigh more than others. It's not the fact that they are eating later in the day that causes weight gain, it's their lifestyle. No controlled studies show larger evening meals affect body composition negatively in comparison to meals eaten earlier in the day.

Sometimes studies on shift workers are cited to claim that late night eating is bad. These are all uncontrolled (in terms of calorie intake) and observational studies confounded by the fact that shift work has an independent and negative effect on some health parameters like glucose tolerance and blood lipids. Keep this in mind. Context is always relevant.

While I normally don't cite studies on animals, Science Daily featured an article dispelling the late-night eating myth based on findings on rhesus monkeys. It's worth citing since monkeys are metabolically closer to humans than rodents.

Glucocorticoid

"Taking in 1,000 calories in one meal is not a great plan for weight loss, especially at dinner. " edorice, could you show some evidence to back that statement up?

ADA (American Diabetes Association) spokeswoman Noralyn Mills, RD, believes if we feed the body at regular intervals we send a signal to the body that it doesn't have to store calories and when we skip meals, we affect the metabolism negatively. "But this can be accomplished with three regular meals a day for many of us," she notes.

Christine Steele, PhD, vice president for nutrition of EAS in Golden, Colo., tells WebMD the challenge can be performed at home. The essence is to eat six small, moderate meals a day and perform the exercises, which include a combination of resistance and aerobics exercises. Each session is 20 minutes to one hour long. As for the meals, "We try to be practical," Steele says. "We tell you to eat palm-sized pieces of meat or fist-sized carb sources."

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/diets-tips-for-depression/2010/11/16/id/370674
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/anthony11.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/eat-6-meals-daymaximum-weight-loss.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_5497387_six-pack-abs-muscles.html

Sorry, I should have clarified. I did not mean a quote from a spokeswoman on what she "believes" and other random articles. I meant could you post some scientific evidence? I don't believe you can, because there isn't any.

On the other hand, there is scientific evidence that disproves this. A lot of what I was going to post has been posted already by binary_jester. So please refer to his two posts.

tross0924

Very nice post Jester! Thanks for all the leg work. :-)

ginnyroxx

also i tried to view your diary to get some tips...but it's private. :ohwell:

My food diary is viewable to those on my friends list.

well if you feel like actually helping instead of just telling me how much i'm sucking at this, i'd love some good examples of high calories healthy meals.

tross0924

well if you feel like actually helping instead of just telling me how much i'm sucking at this, i'd love some good examples of high calories healthy meals.

Personally I like 1 Cup of brown rice, 4 oz boneless skinless chicken breast, 3 cups or so of veggies, and little bit of teriyaki *(spell check was no help there) sauce all mixed together is really healthy and around 500 calories.

I also like whole wheat tortillas wrapped around egg whites with a slice of ham and a little bit of cheese for 300ish a piece.

Those are 2 of my favorite "go to" meals that I can think of off the top of my head :-)

Mawskittykat

I was understanding the same and couldnt understand why at the end of a day It still said I could have another 1000 calories. There was no way I could eat 2700 calories a day and lose weight. But I went back and read the newbies section under message boards. Read that and see if it makes more sense to you. You can send me a message and I would try to explain it the way I understood it.

ginnyroxx

well if you feel like actually helping instead of just telling me how much i'm sucking at this, i'd love some good examples of high calories healthy meals.

Personally I like 1 Cup of brown rice, 4 oz boneless skinless chicken breast, 3 cups or so of veggies, and little bit of teriyaki *(spell check was no help there) sauce all mixed together is really healthy and around 500 calories.

I also like whole wheat tortillas wrapped around egg whites with a slice of ham and a little bit of cheese for 300ish a piece.

Those are 2 of my favorite "go to" meals that I can think of off the top of my head :-)

thank you! that teriyaki (i just copy catted you :P ) bowl sounds yummy!

Stewie316

"Taking in 1,000 calories in one meal is not a great plan for weight loss, especially at dinner. " edorice, could you show some evidence to back that statement up?

ADA (American Diabetes Association) spokeswoman Noralyn Mills, RD, believes if we feed the body at regular intervals we send a signal to the body that it doesn't have to store calories and when we skip meals, we affect the metabolism negatively. "But this can be accomplished with three regular meals a day for many of us," she notes.

Christine Steele, PhD, vice president for nutrition of EAS in Golden, Colo., tells WebMD the challenge can be performed at home. The essence is to eat six small, moderate meals a day and perform the exercises, which include a combination of resistance and aerobics exercises. Each session is 20 minutes to one hour long. As for the meals, "We try to be practical," Steele says. "We tell you to eat palm-sized pieces of meat or fist-sized carb sources."

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/diets-tips-for-depression/2010/11/16/id/370674
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/anthony11.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/eat-6-meals-daymaximum-weight-loss.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_5497387_six-pack-abs-muscles.html

Saying someone believes something isn't fact. Do you have any long term studies?

binary_jester

Two more studies on meal frequency from The British Journal of Nutrition

Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.
Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E.

Behavioural and Metabolic Research Unit, School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

PMID: 19943985 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985


Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):88-97.
[Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency]
[Article in German]

Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Müller HL, Hollomey S.

Abstract
To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

PMID: 3592618 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618

SHBoss1673

I won't argue the topic, but scientific evidence was requested for starvation mode. OK well here's some research done via scientific method done on the resting metabolic rate after prolonged fasting (greater than 72 hours).

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=789564&jid=PNS&volumeId=54&issueId=01&aid=789556

http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/557.full.pdf+html?sid=d622cbd8-5962-41af-8041-e6f63a032e75

http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/622.full.pdf+html?sid=d622cbd8-5962-41af-8041-e6f63a032e75


if you want more research, there's tons of it at www.ajcn.org free for the asking, if you search on "Fasting Metabolic Rate" you'll uncover dozens of studies done on fasting and our metabolic rates.

exercisesucks

.While I am impressed by the vast amount of knowledge everyone has here in this thread (Google), I am curious how many of you have taken this knowledge and used it for tangible results. What does one do with all the research data requested from other posters. Is it just to win an argument or will it be used to make an educated decision that will positively impact your weight loss goals? Do you run and high five your friends when you feel you have shut down another poster or do you learn something from the many different points of view and experiences here? I wish you all much success and hope you all make your weight loss goals. Your points of view have helped make this a great place to learn from others' experiences.

binary_jester

I won't argue the topic, but scientific evidence was requested for starvation mode. OK well here's some research done via scientific method done on the resting metabolic rate after prolonged fasting (greater than 72 hours).

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=789564&jid=PNS&volumeId=54&issueId=01&aid=789556

http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/557.full.pdf+html?sid=d622cbd8-5962-41af-8041-e6f63a032e75

http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/622.full.pdf+html?sid=d622cbd8-5962-41af-8041-e6f63a032e75


if you want more research, there's tons of it at www.ajcn.org free for the asking, if you search on "Fasting Metabolic Rate" you'll uncover dozens of studies done on fasting and our metabolic rates.

Is there information there on WHEN your body switches. I do believe in starvation mode, but I tend to disagree with the length of time in which it occurs.

exercisesucks

But don't tell me WHEN during the day I should eat and how often because I will get fatter and my metabolism will slow down if I don't follow this golden rule. It's simply a myth that is long overdue to die.

Why all the hostility in this statement? No one is holding a gun to your head with the intent of forcing you to conform. This forum is about sharing ideas and opinions that have worked for each individual. I hope this clarifies things for you. If you are not open to other peoples ideas and opinions, what is the point of being on a forum. I hope you have a wonderful day and whatever has put you in such a mood turns to your favor.