Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

Options
1…5681011…17

Replies

  • frostiegurl
    frostiegurl Posts: 708 Member
    Options
    I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy :p

    "I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

    (picture white girl trying to look cool)

    And your point is?

    So what if there are people on here just using the site for it's calorie counting. Is there something in the TOS that states "all users must read every post in the forum, eat at least 1200 calories every single day, and agree with the "old guard" or your account will be blocked"?
  • MMK72
    MMK72 Posts: 35 Member
    Options

    And your point is?

    So what if there are people on here just using the site for it's calorie counting. Is there something in the TOS that states "all users must read every post in the forum, eat at least 1200 calories every single day, and agree with the "old guard" or your account will be blocked"?

    Hell no! Just teasing love! It's free and it's a free world, so do as you like.
  • thankyou4thevenom
    thankyou4thevenom Posts: 1,581 Member
    Options
    COME ON PEOPLE!

    This is a study based on 6 MEN!!

    The way some of you are jumping on the bandwagon you really do believe that 6 men can represent everyone's bodily functions.
  • FearAnLoathing
    FearAnLoathing Posts: 4,852 Member
    Options
    I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy :p

    "I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

    (picture white girl trying to look cool)


    AHHH i remeber that song!
  • FearAnLoathing
    FearAnLoathing Posts: 4,852 Member
    Options
    I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy :p

    "I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

    (picture white girl trying to look cool)


    ahhh now its stuck in my head:sick:
  • muth3rluvx2
    muth3rluvx2 Posts: 1,156 Member
    Options
    I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy :p

    "I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

    (picture white girl trying to look cool)


    ahhh now its stuck in my head:sick:

    HAHAHAHAHA!!! Poor Jeanette... hee hee... :laugh: :tongue: :bigsmile:

    DrMooMoo - How the weather up there? Tell Jack we said hi! :laugh: :laugh: :glasses:

    This whole thing has gotten silly and it does seem like there's a general consensus that people need to do what they feel is right and best for them, using common sense, logic, and armed with substantial information - and no one answer is a hard and fast rule for all people. Does anyone disagree with these statements?

    (with my luck, someone will :indifferent: :laugh: :smokin: :laugh: :indifferent:)
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    Options
    oops multi-posting. Bad laptop.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    Options
    oops
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    Options
    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!

    I've been here not very long, and tried WW before that, but it took me a while poring through posts to understand how to properly understand the information MFP was giving me (okay, maybe there are instructions elsewhere and I just didn't read them). So for example, when it tells me my goal calories are 1200, I assume that I must try and eat LESS than 1200 calories. And then I see something called NET calories - Boy, did that take me a while to understand.

    So I agree, it would be really useful for newbies like myself to be able to get to grips with how things work easily, and there is a lot of information and misinformation out there. I know that weightloss should be done slowly, I know that it should be a lifestyle change and not a restricted diet that gets you there (by that I mean not being able to eat bananas or something because they are not low GI). But I don't know what calories my body needs to function, nor do I have a clue what my BMR rate is. And this is something I need to know in order to be able to lose weight. So MFP gives me a guideline, a point to start from.

    The 1200 WHO minimum calories thing is very interesting and thankyou whoever mentioned that is where that comes from. But if eating less calories but in a more nutritionally dense format would work, then why doesn't the WHO just say 'give 'em all supplements and they'll be fine'? Nutrients AREN'T the be-all and end-all of the bodies needs. The body needs calories. It needs more than vitamins and minerals for the cells to divide and regenerate. It needs power, and that power can only come from calories.

    I do agree that 1200 is not for everyone, but more likely it is that 1200 is not enough for most people.

    nice to meet you all.

    ps. being 5 foot it is with some amusement I see an awful lot of similar height peple here.....
  • dlaplume2
    dlaplume2 Posts: 1,658 Member
    Options
    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 think it is sad that you quote one source of a 3 day study and say it's a mythe . I have done other research and I suggest you do the same. Check here http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742 . I am sure you can find on study going either way for every single argument under the sun. There is no set method for every body. Some will enter starvation mode sooner than others and the 1200 is an estimate not a rule for everyone.

    You quoted a 3day study and the 1200 calorie restriction they are talking about here is prolonged. 6 months or more. We are trying to make lifestyle changes. Meaning changes the we will live on for the rest of out lives. We should not be restricting ourselves long term to very low calories. It is not sustainable.

    If you want to reduce you calories by all means go ahead but when you give up and gain all the weight back, don't say we didn't warn you.

    This is also why people lose a fair amount of weight and then have one cheat day, gain 4 lbs and get so discouraged.
  • evertongirl
    evertongirl Posts: 120 Member
    Options
    wow..and i thought the website was for support and motivation and general friendly discussion????
  • catcrazy
    catcrazy Posts: 1,740 Member
    Options
    bump for reading all the links later
  • ebgbjo
    ebgbjo Posts: 821 Member
    Options
    This thread gave me a migraine and by page 4 I wasn't anymore enlightened than when I started the thread....

    But now I too have Naughty By Nature "OPP" stuck in my head
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,554 Member
    Options
    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..

    I'm on team Grunt!
  • AmeMahoney
    AmeMahoney Posts: 232
    Options
    This thread gave me a migraine and by page 4 I wasn't anymore enlightened than when I started the thread....

    But now I too have Naughty By Nature "OPP" stuck in my head

    Well, at least something good came out of it all!

    Seriously, when I saw all the people applauding the original post I thought, "maybe this isn't the site for me." Glad to see there are more people with some sense around. What really annoys me is people refusing to eat more calories, saying they have never eaten many calories, and then complaining that they have been overweight their entire lives, and they are still not losing weight. Really? And when we say, "eat more good, healthy calories," they throw absolute fits. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. If you haven't ever tried it our way, I really don't want to hear the whining.
  • PhoenixFire975
    PhoenixFire975 Posts: 70
    Options
    Even if the starvation mode is a myth, it is still seriously dangerous not to eat enough calories. Ask a health professional if you're really confused about the subject, but it is very dangerous to think that you can eat less than 1200 cals a day and still be ok. Actually, you just need to make sure that your meals are balanced with all the right kinds of foods, and maybe do a quick Google check for daily calorie calculators to find out what is the amount that you need to eat based on weight, age, height, and activity level. MFP only puts in 1200 cals because that is the absolute min. to keep people functioning, but that is seriously drastic for most of us. Basically, just talk to your doctor or a dietician about YOUR personal needs.
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories)

    Let them starve, let them weight cycle, let them burn muscle, let them release endogenous catecholamines and risk heart attacks. We should not care if they are silly enough to glean dietary meaning from 3 studies in tiny numbers of healthy weight male subjects eating absolutely nothing which are obviously done to help dieticians adjust TPN or NG feed doses in ICU.

    And engage it if it is fun for you but otherwise, please just ignore them we are unfortunately bumping their silly posts :)

    Not everyone is on MFP to lose weight. For instance, I'm not. I"m watching Calories, because I really don't want to eat more than roughly 1000 Calories a day. That is, for me a caloric restriction of about 50%. I do this, because actual medical research points to the fact that

    a. severe caloric restriction has a number of health benefits as long as there is sufficient nutrition
    b. severe reduction of carbohydrates (and fasting) has a beneficial effect on certain types of brain cancer.

    I'm in a trial to test both these assumptions.

    http://www.asnneuro.org/an/002/e038/an002e038.htm
    http://www.lef.org/protocols/cancer/brain_tumor_03.htm
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20009300
    https://www2.bc.edu/~seyfridt/braincancer.html
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/10/1226.abstract

    As a last thing, it's almost inevitable that we're comparing apples and pears. Yes, I severely limit my caloric intake. And yes, I strive for optimal nutrition within those 1000 Calories daily. The proponents of the "starvation mode happens at 1199 Calories" view base their comments on caloric restriction on situations where either calories have been restricted down to starving level (which means that it simply isn't possible to get sufficient nutrition) or situations where nutrition is bad to begin with, for instance if people continue eating the majority of their calories as carbohydrate.
  • Shawnalee0703
    Shawnalee0703 Posts: 1,093
    Options
    You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories)

    Let them starve, let them weight cycle, let them burn muscle, let them release endogenous catecholamines and risk heart attacks. We should not care if they are silly enough to glean dietary meaning from 3 studies in tiny numbers of healthy weight male subjects eating absolutely nothing which are obviously done to help dieticians adjust TPN or NG feed doses in ICU.

    And engage it if it is fun for you but otherwise, please just ignore them we are unfortunately bumping their silly posts :)

    Not everyone is on MFP to lose weight. For instance, I'm not. I"m watching Calories, because I really don't want to eat more than roughly 1000 Calories a day. That is, for me a caloric restriction of about 50%. I do this, because actual medical research points to the fact that

    a. severe caloric restriction has a number of health benefits as long as there is sufficient nutrition
    b. severe reduction of carbohydrates (and fasting) has a beneficial effect on certain types of brain cancer.

    I'm in a trial to test both these assumptions.

    http://www.asnneuro.org/an/002/e038/an002e038.htm
    http://www.lef.org/protocols/cancer/brain_tumor_03.htm
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20009300
    https://www2.bc.edu/~seyfridt/braincancer.html
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/10/1226.abstract

    As a last thing, it's almost inevitable that we're comparing apples and pears. Yes, I severely limit my caloric intake. And yes, I strive for optimal nutrition within those 1000 Calories daily. The proponents of the "starvation mode happens at 1199 Calories" view base their comments on caloric restriction on situations where either calories have been restricted down to starving level (which means that it simply isn't possible to get sufficient nutrition) or situations where nutrition is bad to begin with, for instance if people continue eating the majority of their calories as carbohydrate.
    I agree in that it has mostly to do with the quality of food that you are taking in and that if you are eating CRAP at 1000 calories, of course your body will not be at it's best health because it is lacking in nutrients. But I do not think it is strictly due to carbohydrates, It completely depends on the carbs you are consuming. You should be taking in carbs, protein and fats, yes. I am a firm believer that the body naturally benefits from good quality whole grains, veggie and fruit carbs.... in addition to enough protein and fats. BUT a nutrient deficit is not only at the fault of carbs. Carbs are important... certain ones-nutrient dense ones.
    Again I totally agree in that you need to meet your nutrient needs no matter the calorie intake. If you are going to eat a low amount of calories, make them GOOD ones, not candy, mcdonalds or KFC(just examples) lol ;)
  • DTetz
    DTetz Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    YYAAAA glad to read this, because I bought into it, but yet thinking about it, it didn't make sense. It is unhealthy, but if you are not eating, you are still burning calories therefore you would lose weight...
  • MMK72
    MMK72 Posts: 35 Member
    Options

    Not everyone is on MFP to lose weight. For instance, I'm not. I"m watching Calories, because I really don't want to eat more than roughly 1000 Calories a day. That is, for me a caloric restriction of about 50%. I do this, because actual medical research points to the fact that

    a. severe caloric restriction has a number of health benefits as long as there is sufficient nutrition
    b. severe reduction of carbohydrates (and fasting) has a beneficial effect on certain types of brain cancer.

    I'm in a trial to test both these assumptions.

    http://www.asnneuro.org/an/002/e038/an002e038.htm
    http://www.lef.org/protocols/cancer/brain_tumor_03.htm
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20009300
    https://www2.bc.edu/~seyfridt/braincancer.html
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/10/1226.abstract


    Actually I have heard about this study and it may well debunk the "starvation is bad" approach to the whole thing - someone mentioned it to me at work when I was spewing the starvation is bad stuff. How are you going keeping with the calorie restriction? I just don't think I could do it. Even if you do get to live longer and have less cancer I could never stick to 1000 calories a day I would go spare. I have heard that the inability to do physical activity is a severe draw back. Are there police that check you are eating your 1000 calories a day or is it an honour system? If it is a big enough study it will let us know I guess which team is right - "team eat" or "team starve". I guess I was born on "team eat" and will quite happily die for it if it turns out that's what it is doing to us!

Categories