Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

muth3rluvx2

I retract - I misread AND mistyped - I was thinking BMI. I apologize.
damn acronyms. :blushing:

LuckyLeprechaun

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

You're right, everyone's body does react differently. I can't answer your anecdotal evidence; all I can do is cite scientific studies.

But here's the thiing, we have compiled, through time, on this site, a LOT of anecdotal evidence that suggests that when a person has been staying consistently LOW on their calories for weeks, and hits a loss plateau, often, increasing the calories will prompt a new start to the losses, and will break up the plateau.

I agree with your assessment that we toss around the words too casually ("starvation mode" sounds so chicken little)
and we do see a slavish adherance to the magical 1200 number.

BUT that doesn't cancel out the observations of so many members that show that prolonged undereating is detrimental to steady weight loss, and often a higher intake will "fix" this problem.

AmeMahoney

Some of us refer to it as "starvation mode" because that is the common terminology that people know and use (even though we know better). It is far better to eat healthy calories throughout the day, which revs up your metabolism, keeps your insulin steady, and keeps you from crashing in the afternoon than to deprive yourself because you think food and eating is somehow "bad," which seems to be what most people think. This kind of thinking is not only bad for your waistline, but your psychological health as well, and leads to all kinds of nasty issues. Plus, once you know that you can eat 5-6 times a day and in large quantities as long as the food is healthy, why would you want to deprive yourself? If you're eating less than 1,000 calories a day, you definitely aren't getting the nutirition you need and are going to feel worse than those of us who know the truth.

MssMia

OMG - THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have NO idea ...

I'm friending you. lol...

Truly, I've gotten alot of flak because I will NOT LOSE at 1200 a day. My metabolism is so slow that that is maintenance for me. And there's reasons my metabolism is that slow (fat:muscle ratio) and it can/will change - but that's what it is for now and no one has believed me. I know my body damnit - I'm the one that's lived in it for 37 years. and you are very dead on with the nutrient issue.. that's a real challenge at a lower calorie count and one I actually do worry about.

lodro

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

It may well be that the change is due to your increased level of activity on 1300 Calories/day. In fact, that's what you seem to be pointing at yourself in your posting.

erickirb

On top of the whole "starvation mode" argument. It is difficult for your body to get the required nutrients (vitamins and minerals, fat , carbs, protein, fiber) without supplementation on a diet that consists of less than 1200 cals. SO even if you don't believe in starvation mode, I'm sure you understand malnourishment, which can be another side effect of not eating enough, or eating the wrong things.

redheadlynn

Just my two cents, and I am no expert, so bear with me:

Being a 4 foot, 10.5 inch woman who has decent fat rolls, curves, and an 32F cup bra at 115 lbs (pant size between 0-4 at that...grargh), I feel I can speak about this "minimum". Just like I can't drink as much alcohol or coffee or whatever as others, I can say that I do not lose weight at 1,200 kcal unless I am also exercising (like, cardio for at LEAST half an hr/day + weights). I have a bit of muscle on me, too, so it's not like I don't burn calories.

I am the size of a large child and frankly, I have to eat like one or else I will always look like a square.

I have tended to disregard this "minimum" for some time, and I don't quite understand it, at least not for someone my size. Maybe for someone taller or larger-framed, I can see that calorie amount working, but for me to be lean, I have to eat a LOT less. I do take my multivitamins/Omega 3's, and drink plenty of water and eat my protein... it IS possible on fewer calories. Other than my celiac disease, I am very healthy.

It just means that everything on the nutrition scale (fat, amt of protein, etc) adjusts accordingly. I assume that my basic nutritional needs differ from everyone else's. My significant other is 6'1"... and I *know* his minimums for everything are much higher than "average". It doesn't quite make sense that the scale doesn't slide the other way, either.

I think the body responds best to CHANGE, since we are geared to seek homeostasis. Of course our metabolism will eventually become static at a certain calorie level... it's what the human body does. Yes, for many people, I am sure that 1,200 is too little. For me, it isn't. Especially if I am sedentary.

I do agree with other posters that many people DO respond to increasing their calorie intake, and a lot of people can't lose weight on 1,200 calories a day. But for people like me (and smaller than me), it's just plain silly.

JoyousRen

Hello, all. Since I've been on MFP, I've seen quite a bit of pseudoscience (unfortunately, propagated by the site itself) that declares that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you do not eat X amount of calories per day. I don't know the origin of this myth, but here is an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which puts the lie to the myth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

For those of us who don't wish to wade through the scientific and technical jargon, here's a summary. If a person goes without eating AT ALL for SIXTY HOURS, their metabolism will slow by roughly 8%. Until you hit the sixty-hour threshold, without having eaten at all, your metabolism remains unchanged. Should you reach that point of sixty hours without food, your metabolism will come back to normal soon after you begin eating again.

Two other studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292) show that the metabolism actually INCREASES during periods of intermittent fasting, but at an equally negligible rate: 3.8 to 10%.

As well, it appears that the arbitrary number which has been chosen for "starvation mode" (1200 kCal) is the same for everyone, which makes absolutely no sense. Why would this threshold be the same for me, at 185 lbs., as it would be for someone who weighs 260 lbs., or even 110 lbs.?

So here's the science: "starvation mode" is a myth. There is danger in restricted-calorie diets, but it comes from the possibility of not getting the vitamins and minerals your body needs, not from a magical, instantaneous slowdown of your metabolism.

Edit: grammar error

I'm not taking a position either way but you are kind of comparing apples and oranges. These studies are about extreme short trerm reductions in calories. When people talk about "starvation mode", the are generally talking about long term significant reductions in caloric intake.

Also, I believe Mike (the administrator) puts the warning there for liability reasons.

lodro

The source is hilarious. 6 guys try this for less than 3 days, 24 years ago and you think that this is "proof"? Seriously? If you turned that in at school, the teacher would have written a big FAIL across your page.

And here's the truly funny part (other than the people who clearly didn't even bother reading it and feels it someone verifies their stance). Dropping their calories down for 72 hours DROPPED THEIR RESTING METABOLISM. What does that tell you?? If it drops that quickly (72 hours is nothing), what do you think happens to the people that regularly go weeks eating under 1000 calories and then burn 500 off exercising and don't eat it back? Do you think that their metabolism somehow defies the odds and burns efficiently? Of course it doesn't. How long do you think that people can live on what equates to 500 calories a day? Think they can live forever on that? So, as proved by your awesome source, their metabolism drops after only 72 hours (imagine how slow and feeble it would be after several weeks/months!) and then when they go back to eating a normal meal (or they stop exercising), their bodies are so starved and pathetic they can't maintain their weight. Why do you think that the same people who keep talking about "oh I've always eaten like this" are the same ones losing the same 50 pounds for the 2nd, 3rd and more times?

I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Eat whatever you want. And when you whine about not being able to lose or wonder with amazement how you keep gaining it all back, then remember all of the people who explained very clearly that you're starving your body and that's why it keeps rebelling. Some of us are here for a lifelong committement -- not interested in starving themselves for the short-term. That's so 1980s -- just like your article.

ETA -- Eating 1000 calories a day spread over the entire day is NOT intermitted fasting, which is what the article is about. Very few people here who consume 1000 calories a day do it all in one meal and then not eat again for 23 hours.

I do that. Hi! Also: why the aggression?

jenX1174

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

It may well be that the change is due to your increased level of activity on 1300 Calories/day. In fact, that's what you seem to be pointing at yourself in your posting.

No --- it is not. I will state again:

After the Lap-band I dropped 30 pounds initially -- I was exercising, and netting about 200 cals a day. I was exhausted most of the time and had a hard time getting through my routine -- and this was about 8 months (2 mos before surgery and 6 mos after surgery). I plateaued --- I tried increasing my cals a bit, I tried exercising more. Still, no change -- I got discouraged and gave up. I had a period of no exercise --- w/about 500-700 cals daily, and my weight stayed the same. I tried exercising again -- netting cals between 200-700......after another 5 months, no weight loss. Each time, my routine consisted of about 1 1/2 hours of exercise 5-6 days a week.

Between from Sept - Dec 2010 I actually gained 10-14 pounds --- my daily cal intake was still at about 500-700 cals w/ no exercise.

I started here in January, using the calculations given, with a few small adjustments, I am not working out as long or as hard as I had before, and the weight is coming off at a rate of 1-2 pounds a week, so far.

So, no --- it is not an increased activity level, but IS an increase in my calorie intake.

simplywriting

Happy this was posted. Getting really tired of hearing about "starvation mode" and not too thrilled that the site promotes that way of thinking.
Perhaps there could be an area on the site for weight loss articles and this could be posted.

Dobsaya

Good for you, sticking with it and not giving up and figuring out what your body needed to start back losing!

jenX1174

Good for you, sticking with it and not giving up and figuring out what your body needed to start back losing!

I think you were responding to me? If so, thank you .....it's hard work -- dedication and discipline, but I know this time it will be so worth it! :drinker:

runningneo122

OP is absolutely misrepresenting the facts.

I read all the cited studies and they were ONLY targeting research of starving the body of ALL food for any distinct period of time.

The second one cited even used "30-min infusion of epinephrine at 25 ng.min-1.kg body wt-1".

Trying to say that these studies prove ANYTHING referring to "starvation mode" is an OUT-AND-OUT LIE.

The studies said nothing about exercise cals being eaten or not eaten.... in fact all subjects were "sedentary".

Making such false statements is where this debate got started.

Read these for the TRUTH:

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/6/981.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/230S.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl488623pn1q0219/


Long-Term Weight Patterns and Risk for Cholecystectomy in Women
Background: Obesity and rapid weight loss in obese persons are known risk factors for gallstones. However, the effect of intentional, long-term, moderate weight changes on the risk for gallstones is unclear.

Objective: To study long-term weight patterns in a cohort of women and to examine the relation between weight pattern and risk for cholecystectomy.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 11 U.S. states.

Participants: 47 153 female registered nurses who did not undergo cholecystectomy before 1988.

Measurements: Cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994 (ascertained by patient self-report).

Results: During the exposure period (1972 to 1988), there was evidence of substantial variation in weight due to intentional weight loss during adulthood. Among cohort patients, 54.9% reported weight cycling with at least one episode of intentional weight loss associated with regain. Of the total cohort, 20.1% were light cyclers (5 to 9 lb of weight loss and gain), 18.8% were moderate cyclers (10 to 19 lb of weight loss and gain), and 16.0% were severe cyclers (≥ 20 lb of weight loss and gain). Net weight gain without cycling occurred in 29.3% of women; net weight loss without cycling was the least common pattern (4.6%). Only 11.1% of the cohort maintained weight within 5 lb over the 16-year period. In the study, 1751 women had undergone cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994. Compared with weight maintainers, the relative risk for cholecystectomy (adjusted for body mass index, age, alcohol intake, fat intake, and smoking) was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50) among light cyclers, 1.31 among moderate cyclers (CI, 1.05 to 1.64), and 1.68 among severe cyclers (CI, 1.34 to 2.10).

Conclusion: Weight cycling was highly prevalent in this large cohort of middle-aged women. The risk for cholecystectomy associated with weight cycling was substantial, independent of attained relative body weight.
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v22/n6/pdf/0800634a.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696424?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7489033&dopt=Citation

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t462u540t7151722/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/620?ck=nck

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2341229&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

stormieweather

/applause

Now there is some research, if anyone wants to know the TRUTH about this matter.

scagneti

Happy this was posted. Getting really tired of hearing about "starvation mode" and not too thrilled that the site promotes that way of thinking.
Perhaps there could be an area on the site for weight loss articles and this could be posted.

I take it that you didn't read the study itself or the pages of comments or you would see that the study that he posted actually PROVED that metabolism DOES slow down by not eating adequately.

There are lots of websites that not only promote consuming far too few calories but actively encourage it. Thankfully MFP is not one of them.

phinners

A myth eh? It wasn't a myth when I did my biochemistry degree.

_Bro

Sigh - deprivation sucks...
If you have to worry about starvation mode being a myth or fact you probably are doing yourself a diservice.

Eat good food frequently, improve your nutrition, exercise regularly with variety and for heavens sake vary your deficiencies.
Seems to work..

susanrsocal

I have done bouts (weeks at a time) of very restricted calories (yes, significantly less than the 1200 cals), but I eat very specific foods(equal protein to vegetable ratio) in certain measurements (eliminate grains and sugar, etc) - and then follow up w/ weeks of eating 2000+ calories (increased fat but still eliminate grains and sugar).

I have done these very successfully. And felt great both in energy and overall feeling of health. The reason I have done this is to "reset" my metabolism. I have no scientific proof to cite other than it works for me.
I lose weight while on the restrictive calories, then it tapers off after a few weeks. Then when I move into the phase of increased calories and good fats - I continue to lose weight...even while eating 2,000 cals a day.

This is not something I would suggest or advocate for everyone, nor do I plan on living a lifetime of it. But I think that "cleansing", "fasting" for health or religious reasons can be done safely and responsibly.

Obviously there are some absolute truths in fitness (more calories in than burned = gain and vice versa), but to use the same measuring stick for everyone is wrong, in my opinion. And I kind of think that is the point of the original post.

SHBoss1673

I'm not to proud to say I now have a man crush on runningneo122

that was an awesome amount of research. I've actually read many of those, but not all at once, and I never put them all down in one spot. Thanks

thankyou4thevenom

OP is absolutely misrepresenting the facts.

I read all the cited studies and they were ONLY targeting research of starving the body of ALL food for any distinct period of time.

The second one cited even used "30-min infusion of epinephrine at 25 ng.min-1.kg body wt-1".

Trying to say that these studies prove ANYTHING referring to "starvation mode" is an OUT-AND-OUT LIE.

The studies said nothing about exercise cals being eaten or not eaten.... in fact all subjects were "sedentary".

Making such false statements is where this debate got started.

Read these for the TRUTH:

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/6/981.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/230S.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl488623pn1q0219/


Long-Term Weight Patterns and Risk for Cholecystectomy in Women
Background: Obesity and rapid weight loss in obese persons are known risk factors for gallstones. However, the effect of intentional, long-term, moderate weight changes on the risk for gallstones is unclear.

Objective: To study long-term weight patterns in a cohort of women and to examine the relation between weight pattern and risk for cholecystectomy.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 11 U.S. states.

Participants: 47 153 female registered nurses who did not undergo cholecystectomy before 1988.

Measurements: Cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994 (ascertained by patient self-report).

Results: During the exposure period (1972 to 1988), there was evidence of substantial variation in weight due to intentional weight loss during adulthood. Among cohort patients, 54.9% reported weight cycling with at least one episode of intentional weight loss associated with regain. Of the total cohort, 20.1% were light cyclers (5 to 9 lb of weight loss and gain), 18.8% were moderate cyclers (10 to 19 lb of weight loss and gain), and 16.0% were severe cyclers (≥ 20 lb of weight loss and gain). Net weight gain without cycling occurred in 29.3% of women; net weight loss without cycling was the least common pattern (4.6%). Only 11.1% of the cohort maintained weight within 5 lb over the 16-year period. In the study, 1751 women had undergone cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994. Compared with weight maintainers, the relative risk for cholecystectomy (adjusted for body mass index, age, alcohol intake, fat intake, and smoking) was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50) among light cyclers, 1.31 among moderate cyclers (CI, 1.05 to 1.64), and 1.68 among severe cyclers (CI, 1.34 to 2.10).

Conclusion: Weight cycling was highly prevalent in this large cohort of middle-aged women. The risk for cholecystectomy associated with weight cycling was substantial, independent of attained relative body weight.
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v22/n6/pdf/0800634a.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696424?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7489033&dopt=Citation

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t462u540t7151722/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/620?ck=nck

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2341229&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

runningneo122

I'm not to proud to say I now have a man crush on runningneo122

that was an awesome amount of research. I've actually read many of those, but not all at once, and I never put them all down in one spot. Thanks

Aww, shucks.... that was quoted from ladyhawk. I must give credit where credit is due. I copied it to a PM to myself for just this type of occasion.

SHBoss1673

I'm not to proud to say I now have a man crush on runningneo122

that was an awesome amount of research. I've actually read many of those, but not all at once, and I never put them all down in one spot. Thanks

Aww, shucks.... that was quoted from ladyhawk. I must give credit where credit is due. I copied it to a PM to myself for just this type of occasion.

I'm crushed. That's ok though, I already had a science crush on Lady. she and I have recently swapped some great info (I a book that just blows everything else out of the water, and her a great post)

LP4me

All-in-all I believe each individual needs to do what works for their body and make sure they are getting the proper nutrition. If what your doing isn't working for you anymore ...switch it up. Seems like a no-brainer to me!

runningneo122

I'm not to proud to say I now have a man crush on runningneo122

that was an awesome amount of research. I've actually read many of those, but not all at once, and I never put them all down in one spot. Thanks

Aww, shucks.... that was quoted from ladyhawk. I must give credit where credit is due. I copied it to a PM to myself for just this type of occasion.

I'm crushed. That's ok though, I already had a science crush on Lady. she and I have recently swapped some great info (I a book that just blows everything else out of the water, and her a great post)

Aw, don't be. I was privy to that exchange and am downloading a bunch of bio-chem PDFs and etc. to look through. Rather large files that will take weeks to scan through and find the text that you mentioned in that PP. Looking forward to some "light" reading. :laugh:

frostiegurl

Sometimes I do enjoy the drama that unfolds on these forums. This debate will rage on as long as this site exists and as such it's getting a bit old to hear the points on both sides belabored nearly every single day I log in.

Everyone is different, what works for them is different than what works for someone else. You don't like what someone is doing, don't put your nose in their business. Simple as.


That's about it for me, enjoy the rest of your regularly scheduled programming.

jojoworks

Good job all you MFP veterans. I found the mostly civil discourse to be not unpleasant to read and admired what seemed to be a quest for facts.

My concern in this discussion is not for the people who are well educated in these matters; rather it is for the many people, newly arrived on the site who are full of questions and uncertainty for whom such topics are confusing. I'm also concerned about the overly enthused about losing weight people who think less food and more exercise is good, hence way less food and way more exercise must be better. They deserve a discussion not shredded by those of extreme disagreement.

The OP made a bold title statement that drew out everyone with an opinion. It'd be nice to see something come out of this that newbies can understand and educate themselves with.

I really appreciate the care and concern that permeates this forum for the most part.

again, good job all!

evertongirl

Thank you so much for posting this because I have never believed in the starvation mode that people refer to and it drives me crazy when MFP tells me I need to eat more when I don't feel that I do because I am already full & have eaten enough, just worked out too. I understand the body will go into a starvation mode after a period of time, but many act as though it will if you don't eat for a few hours! The whole thing about eating your calories back also seems to be false to me because it seems that it would be pointless to workout if you were going to end up eating the calories back, and I know for a fact I have lost a lot of weight in the past without eating my calories back! In addition, I never understood the "minimum" because I never could see how I should eat a minimum of 1200 calories to lose weight when my body only burns 1400...while the 1200 would be a minimum for someone who is 3x the size of me! Thanks again, this just completely proved my previous thoughts and now I think I will be able to lose weight easier without being brainwashed that I need to eat more, when I know I don't!

SHBoss1673

I'm not to proud to say I now have a man crush on runningneo122

that was an awesome amount of research. I've actually read many of those, but not all at once, and I never put them all down in one spot. Thanks

Aww, shucks.... that was quoted from ladyhawk. I must give credit where credit is due. I copied it to a PM to myself for just this type of occasion.

I'm crushed. That's ok though, I already had a science crush on Lady. she and I have recently swapped some great info (I a book that just blows everything else out of the water, and her a great post)

Aw, don't be. I was privy to that exchange and am downloading a bunch of bio-chem PDFs and etc. to look through. Rather large files that will take weeks to scan through and find the text that you mentioned in that PP. Looking forward to some "light" reading. :laugh:

the section on the Krebs cycle makes me shiver if I think about it to long. 8 steps, pyruvate, CoE A, Adenosine triphosphate, adenosine monophosphate, free Nitrogen molecules... valence electrons. Ugh, I thought college was over for me.

Have fun. :drinker:

evertongirl

Thank you so much for posting this because I have never believed in the starvation mode that people refer to and it drives me crazy when MFP tells me I need to eat more when I don't feel that I do because I am already full & have eaten enough, just worked out too. I understand the body will go into a starvation mode after a period of time, but many act as though it will if you don't eat for a few hours! The whole thing about eating your calories back also seems to be false to me because it seems that it would be pointless to workout if you were going to end up eating the calories back, and I know for a fact I have lost a lot of weight in the past without eating my calories back! In addition, I never understood the "minimum" because I never could see how I should eat a minimum of 1200 calories to lose weight when my body only burns 1400...while the 1200 would be a minimum for someone who is 3x the size of me! Thanks again, this just completely proved my previous thoughts and now I think I will be able to lose weight easier without being brainwashed that I need to eat more, when I know I don't!

I agree with us - I eat alot of fruit and veg which have low cal content and keep me full so I dont eat the whole 1200 cals but im full- i asked an endocrinologist that i know who specialises in metabolic studies and he said that it wasnt right as well- when you plaueau in your weight loss it isnt from starvation mode - you usually just need to kick off a harder exercise routine or change to lower gi foods