Why Aren't I Losing Anything?

SHBoss1673

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PNS/PNS54_01/S0029665195000255a.pdf&code=9d7151f1b3d4573be4a6c55bf429b91c

Just to clarify - having read the article to get a broad view of its content - this is primarily about starvation (that is fasting over an extended period of time), rather than the reduction in calories (not nutrition - if the correct food is eaten).

It seems that most often on the forum people refer to starvation mode to people who are on a reduced calorie (but hopefully correct nutrition) food intake.

I am sure you have other (extensive) research for those on a reduced calorie (good nutrition) diet, but I am not sure that one can use an article that is most specifically related to extended fasting or starvation to address people saying they are in "starvation mode" when they are not fasting over an extended time.
Or am I misinterpeting what you have included the article for. Just curious (scientific mind, always curious)

Actually, that summary is a report on multiple different experiments, in which they are clear to point out not only starvation but what they call "underfeeding" as well I.E. caloric deficit. Throughout the study they point out the differing effects of the body after short term moderate and prolonged fasting periods. The only real question they weren't able to give solid evidence for was the question as to why the body changes to a fat conservation metabolism after prolonged periods, although they give a solid hypothesis. Also that the effects take longer in underfeeding to manifest than they do with the total lack of calories (which would make sense).

Case in point, taken from the second section titled "Energy Metabolism in Starvation and Underfeeding"

It is generally believed that resting and total energy expenditure fall in starvation and
underfeeding. Whilst this is undoubtedly true after a few days of undernutrition, it may
not be the case initially. The classical studies of Benedict et al. (1919) revealed a modest
rise in resting energy expenditure in the first 12 d of a prolonged period of underfeeding.
This was followed by the expected fall over the next 30 d. Similarly, the first 2 d of total
starvation are accompanied by increased resting energy expenditure (Mansell et al. 1990;
Webber & Macdonald, 1994), which is likely to be due in part to the energy costs of
gluconeogenesis, ketogenesis and fatty acid-triacylglyceroi recycling. The rates of
gluconeogenesis and fatty acid-triacylglycerol recycling seen after 2-3 d of starvation
could easily account for 5% of resting energy expenditure. As starvation proceeds there
is a fall in resting energy expenditure, such that it is normally below initial values after 4 d
of starvation (for review, see Elia, 1992).

Please note that when they talk of starvation, you have to remember starvation isn't the total lack of incoming
calories, it's an amount of calories insufficient to support the person, thus the effect of starvation
occurs.

kimwig

Please note that when they talk of starvation, you have to remember starvation isn't the total lack of incoming
calories, it's an amount of calories insufficient to support the person, thus the effect of starvation
occurs.
[/quote]
I will re read the sections and linked material based on you comment, however I made the assumption that starvation in the context of this report (and as a medical term) was absence of food (fasting as they say, which in a medical context has tended to mean no food only water - as in before an operation).

I did note that they did made mention of undernutrition (as separate from starvation), but I thought that was to differentiate from an absence of food rather than a deficit of food with the different studies to which they were referring.

SHBoss1673

you'll notice in the study that they go over both a 0 calorie method, and an underfeeding method. While the timeline for the 2 are different (0 calorie NET is about 72 hours before complete change from fat burning metabolism) to 6 to 12 days for underfeeding. the results are similar in that the body changes from a system that uses fat oxidation as a secondary mechanism (after glycogen burning) for energy, to a mixed system using lean tissue as an alternate, and hormone levels that are attributed to higher fat storage rise in both cases.

I.E. after the threshold is crossed to "starvation mode" the body starts storing more fat and burning more lean tissue (amino acids AKA proteins) to account for a reduction in incoming usable energy and a lowering of the RMR to help compensate. This means that your maintenance calories go down, and the amount of fat you burn goes down, while the amount of protein you burn from lean tissue and ingested protein goes up. If you follow MFP's goals and don't adjust to account for the lower RMR you won't lose what MFP thinks you will as you don't have the same maintenance calories as someone who is at a normal metabolic rate. This can mean the weight loss can appear to be "stalled".
While the normal thought process would most likely be "don't eat as much", the body will continue in this downward sloping RMR, continuing to reduce metabolic rates until a virtual "floor" is hit, where the body just can no longer support any more reduced burn rate, where organ failure can begin (granted, this normally takes months of prolonged severe under eating but still, it's a medical probability). Typically and predictably, this is seen quite often in anorexics who notice first (besides the apparent "wasting" properties) bad skin and teeth, continuing on to gall bladder and renal issues. I'm not sure what the progression is medically speaking, or what the body deems the most "expendable" but skin, hair, teeth, and nails would seem most likely as they are one of the first sets of organs and structures to show severe signs of starvation.

I realize that most of us on MFP don't need to worry about anorexia (with respect to those who've had eating disorders in the past), the basic processes that cause it are still in play in the body when ever we are at a prolonged calorie deficit. The facts presented in this cumulative study seem to support those conclusions. I.E. it's important to keep a close watch on what your energy levels are, how much you are eating RELATIVE to how much you burn during the day (TDEE), and what a realistic goal should be.

I submit that if two woman who were genetically identical (twins for instance), who both were at the approximate same level of weight, lean tissue, and fat percentages (assuming both were at least mildly obese to start); were given the exact same diet and the exact same amount of caloric intake, assuming we could know the "tipping point" for starvation mode and stay out of it, we would, with almost 100% surity, be able to predict the results of both in the following situation:
Woman 1 would do little exercise, basically just maintaining her current activity levels.
Woman 2 would exercise hard, buring between 600 and 1000 calories a day.

No additional calories would be given to woman 2.
I suspect the conclusions would be:
After 2 weeks woman 2 would have lost significantly more weight than woman 1 and her percentages of fat vs. lean tissue loss would be significantly higher.
After 1 month woman 2 would have begun to plateau or would be fully invested in a plateau and would be losing significantly less weight than woman 1, and the fat loss vs lean tissue loss would have somewhat reversed (noting that exercising will stave off some of the muscle catabolism). At the same time woman 1 would have continued to lose weight at a relatively constant rate, with a similar amount of fat vs lean tissue loss as she had during the first few weeks.

The conclusion (assuming the above were the case) is that sure you can exercise while you lose weight, but you need to try to keep that energy balance while you do it. Growing your deficit doesn't necessarily mean more weight loss, and you won't lose the kind of weight you really want, at the levels you are hoping for (I.E. fat loss instead of lean tissue loss).

kimwig

......
The conclusion (assuming the above were the case) is that sure you can exercise while you lose weight, but you need to try to keep that energy balance while you do it. Growing your deficit doesn't necessarily mean more weight loss, and you won't lose the kind of weight you really want, at the levels you are hoping for (I.E. fat loss instead of lean tissue loss).

I understand where your coming from, though I am not fully bought into your hypothesis conclusion, and am reading further on some areas as I note that some recent scientific studies (2007) some interesting viewpoints

My main "issue" with regard to the concept of "starvation mode" as it gets called with respect to this forum (weight loss areas in general), is how the term is bandied about, without understanding.

I feel it is often suggested as being the cause of people who are significantly overweight /obese not losing weight when they have either been on the diet for only a short time and/or only in a minimal calorie deficit.

Initial attention of such (IMHO) should be: to increase fibre ( to increase "throughput and therefore get rid of that hidden unthought of weight), ensure food is being properly logged (including weighing it etc) to ensure no under reporting of calorie intake, and ensure calories claimed for exercise are correctly calculated to ensure no over reporting.

Of course that is aligned to ensuring calorie intake is good (ie all required nutients vitamins minerals protein)

SHBoss1673

Well, I can't say I disagree with any of your points kimwig, although I'm fuzzy as to what you mean by "hidden unthought of weight" but I'll assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you mean waste that isn't passing? Which, usually isn't a problem for most people unless they are constipated. I've had that conversation with 2 Gastroenterology doctors and both have said the same thing to me, I.E. people don't have waste sitting in their colon and intestines unless there's a problem in there, and if there was a problem, they'd know it.
That's kind of besides the point though, as I find giving people advice to eat more fiber is fine in my book, fiber does all kinds of good things in the body so I'm all for it.

I do agree that the term "starvation mode" has some interesting connotations attached to it, ones that I've been trying to straighten out for a long time. The idea (for instance) that you generally stop losing weight while in starvation mode. This is not necessarily (or usually) the case at all, it's more a case that you will lose LESS than you think you should, and much of the loss will be the weight you don't want to lose.

I also don't believe it's as easy as people think to enter starvation mode for those in the overweight (overfat) and obese category. With a lot of extra fat, comes a lot of extra calories available, and someone who is obese will need to create quite a large deficit and keep that deficit quite high in order to dip into that zone (you're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 lbs a week for those in the obese category). What my main issue is, is people looking to lose 20 or 30 lbs and still trying to lose 2 lbs a week, or someone with a BF% ( a woman in this case) of about 24 or 25% and still trying to lose 2 lbs a week. They're just going to end up losing less weight than they could by eating more, and having a higher (significantly higher in extreme cases) percentage of any weight they do lose be LBM (Lean Body Mass, I.E. muscle, connective tissue...etc).

And of course, my other main issue is the people that look at 1 post with virtually no vitals or lifestyle information talking about a plateau and immediately replying that the person needs to eat more. I find myself talking to my monitor and saying "How do you know?" all the time. Then I catch myself and chuckle. Who cares that she's eating 1200 calories and not eating her exercise calories back. Maybe she's obese, maybe she has type 2 diabetes and has Hashimoto's disease and has a lower than normal metabolic rate, maybe she's 60 years old and her metabolic rate has slowed by 20%. Maybe she's 4'11" tall and has is sedentary and has a TDEE of 1380. We don't know, she didn't tell us any of that, blindly assuming that someone is not eating enough because they aren't eating their exercise calories is just as bad as someone who SHOULD be eating them who isn't, because it perpetuates bad information. Better to ask the right questions then assume things. Things like, what's your body fat %? What's your goal deficit? Do you have any medical conditions? Are you feeling sluggish or tired? .......... These questions at least give you a picture of the person before a theory can be floated.

SHBoss1673

......
The conclusion (assuming the above were the case) is that sure you can exercise while you lose weight, but you need to try to keep that energy balance while you do it. Growing your deficit doesn't necessarily mean more weight loss, and you won't lose the kind of weight you really want, at the levels you are hoping for (I.E. fat loss instead of lean tissue loss).

I understand where your coming from, though I am not fully bought into your hypothesis conclusion, and am reading further on some areas as I note that some recent scientific studies (2007) some interesting viewpoints

My main "issue" with regard to the concept of "starvation mode" as it gets called with respect to this forum (weight loss areas in general), is how the term is bandied about, without understanding.

I feel it is often suggested as being the cause of people who are significantly overweight /obese not losing weight when they have either been on the diet for only a short time and/or only in a minimal calorie deficit.

Initial attention of such (IMHO) should be: to increase fibre ( to increase "throughput and therefore get rid of that hidden unthought of weight), ensure food is being properly logged (including weighing it etc) to ensure no under reporting of calorie intake, and ensure calories claimed for exercise are correctly calculated to ensure no over reporting.

Of course that is aligned to ensuring calorie intake is good (ie all required nutients vitamins minerals protein)

fyi, if you can read scientific research well (I.E. have a good grasp of chemistry), you'd do well to read "Advanced Metabolism and Human Nutrition" it's a college text (pretty advanced), but it goes deeply into the human metabolism, from a sub-cellular level all the way up. It's fantastic, it really opens the eyes on how our bodies process food and use energy. I warn you though, it's super heavy on the bio-chemistry front, and I'm not talking high school bio-chem either, this is the serious stuff. I was a Chemical Engineering major through most of my college days, and I had some struggles reading it. Granted it's been 16 years for me, but still, I'm pretty good with chemistry. If I hear one more word about Co-enzyme A my head might burst.

ladyhawk00

Bump cause this thread has some really good info in it. :flowerforyou:

emily2182

I know how you feel lilmissunderstood...I experience the same...takes 1 lousy meal to undo all that good work. I'll lose 1kg (2lb) in 6 days, have a social event in which I eat an unhealthy meal on the 7th day - generally something with more carbs - then weigh in the next day and I'm back up by 1kg...yet it took 6 days to lose it! It can be very disheartening and frustrating...

But I have to realise and accept that weight will always fluctuate and I try to see things differently. I figure the food is still sitting in my stomach, I could be retaining fluids, it could also be hormone related...I wait 2-3 days after to see the impact of my naughty meal.

I now try to take the measurements of my waist and hips more seriously, and the figures on the scale as a motivator. If the numbers 1 month on haven't budged then I know that I have to change something.

mkennedym

2 causes:

1. you are consuming too many calories.
2. too much sodium and/or not enough water.