Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science
Options
Replies
-
Thank you.
0 -
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.
If you are eating a plant based diet, getting enough protein, then you are getting adequate nutrition at a low calorie number, which is way more healthy than someone that is eating 1500 calories of doritos, mc donald's, 100 calorie snack packs, etc..............
I will take eating 900 or 1000 calories per day with meal plans based on eating lots of vegetables, good quality fats and proteins. All natural, farm raised and supporting local and sustainable agriculture.
Again, it is not about the **number**. It about the quality of the foods you are eating.0 -
What people seem to be forgetting is that starvation is classed not only as a severe restriction of vitamins and nutrients but also ENERGY INTAKE. Funnily enough the principal determinant of this are those pesky calorie thingamawahtsits. You know, calorie, medically defined as "A unit of energy-producing potential supplied by food and released upon oxidation by the body, equal to the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1°C at one atmosphere pressure."
It's astonishing that no one has yet mentioned Ancel Key's Minnesota Starvation Experiment. In the 6 month semi starvation portion of the experiment the men were provided with 1,800 calories per day with food which reflected that availbale in work torn conditions in Europe: farina, bread, potatoes, jelly, jam, milk etc. No McDonalds or jexcessive unk food in their diet. However, they were expected to maintain constant physcial activity during the day including mild forms of "exercise" such as walking and household duties which equated to an energy expenditure (you know, based on those pesky calorie thingies) equivalent to 3000 or so calories per day. If you don't know what happened to these men during that time then perhaps you should find out for yourselves.
After the semi staravtion portion of the diet the men were put on a 3 month rehabilitation diet. Ancel Key's remarked following the study "Enough food must be supplied to allow tissues destroyed during starvation to be rebuilt ... our experiments have shown that in an adult man no appreciable rehabilitation can take place on a diet of 2000 calories [actually 2000 kcal (8368 kJ)] a day. The proper level is more like 4000 [4000 kcal (16,736 kJ)] daily for some months. The character of the rehabilitation diet is important also, but unless calories are abundant, then extra proteins, vitamins and minerals are of little value ." You might want to read that last sentence carefully....
I wish people would stop trying to muddy the waters simply because they want to lend support to the concept of intermittent fasting. I actually think a well constructed IF diet has many benefits including fat loss (I am thinking mostly leangains here.) However, to then use IF concepts in isolation to provide frankly distorted advice to the general public along the lines of a starvation response does not exist is patently irresponsible.0 -
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.
hmmmmm I am one of them people thats says I dont eat alot,Ive never complained about being overweight most of my life.In fact most of my life I weighed 130.Ive explained in other threads what happened to make me gain weight.And im losing weight just fine.0 -
Of course, I agree with you. The problem lies in the misunderstanding of MFP's prompt, which tells us that we are in danger of going into "starvation mode" if we don't eat 1200 kCal per day. The prompt is poorly worded, and often misunderstood.
MFP bases this on less than 1200 calories per day over a 5 week period0 -
Oooh gawd that made me shudder, I never wanna go back there!!
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:
The 'complement cascade' just about finished me off aswell.0 -
Oooh gawd that made me shudder, I never wanna go back there!!
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:
The 'complement cascade' just about finished me off aswell.
oh just wait till you get to the gallbladder, the liver, bile salts, and the importance of it in dietary fat oxidation, you're gonna love it!0 -
I'm starting to go off the forums a fair bit due to the all the mafia type posts. I like calorie counting but think I'll avoid the threads a little.wow..and i thought the website was for support and motivation and general friendly discussion????0 -
Nah I finished all that stuff years ago! I've been a medical scientist for years now.
Oooh gawd that made me shudder, I never wanna go back there!!
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:
The 'complement cascade' just about finished me off aswell.
oh just wait till you get to the gallbladder, the liver, bile salts, and the importance of it in dietary fat oxidation, you're gonna love it!
0 -
maybe we should better define "low calorie diet"? I know we're debating abotu the whole 1200 mark and all... are we talking about 600 calories a day or 950-1000?
and this is assuming a person is set at 1200 calories by MFP - not 2,500 or 1850 or ... whatever. Cuz really, I don't think anyone that's posted is interested in a 600 calorie intake. It would seem to be that the debate is rating over a 200 calorie margin of error.
200 calories. That is 3 cookies & a cup of coffee; that is a 1/3 an avacado (or something like that); a handful of chips or crackers; a tablespoon of pasta, a yogurt & apple.... in short, it's missing 1 snack.
Just to add another perspective. I think some are assuming people are referring to a major cut in dietary needs and I don't think that's the case. We're not talking extremes such as some of the studies are citing. We're talking about day to day people with *some* activity and who generally make decent food choices through the day. It seems to me people are thinking that those who miss that one snack are going to dry up and wither away.
The other thing I'd like to ask is where does the concern come from? Is it because you want to be right or is it genuine concern for the wellbeing of others? Some responses look to be genuine concern - which is really kind. Many are offering responses that give the appearance of more the need to be right...which is fine too, but doesn't do much as far as getting people on the other side of the fence on board with your idea.
Maybe more questions should be asked rather than demands for a change of mind/heart? I did see some posts that indicated some people obviously have a scientific background - but really, the jargon isn't helpful. Put things in laymen's terms and we have to admit, science is NOT the end all be all. I mean.. Pluto. Really? Need I say more? It's a generalization and we must be careful of that as well. We need to all learn a little flexibility in our thinking and the way we approach debate.0 -
maybe we should better define "low calorie diet"? I know we're debating abotu the whole 1200 mark and all... are we talking about 600 calories a day or 950-1000?
and this is assuming a person is set at 1200 calories by MFP - not 2,500 or 1850 or ... whatever. Cuz really, I don't think anyone that's posted is interested in a 600 calorie intake. It would seem to be that the debate is rating over a 200 calorie margin of error.
200 calories. That is 3 cookies & a cup of coffee; that is a 1/3 an avacado (or something like that); a handful of chips or crackers; a tablespoon of pasta, a yogurt & apple.... in short, it's missing 1 snack.
Just to add another perspective. I think some are assuming people are referring to a major cut in dietary needs and I don't think that's the case. We're not talking extremes such as some of the studies are citing. We're talking about day to day people with *some* activity and who generally make decent food choices through the day. It seems to me people are thinking that those who miss that one snack are going to dry up and wither away.
The other thing I'd like to ask is where does the concern come from? Is it because you want to be right or is it genuine concern for the wellbeing of others? Some responses look to be genuine concern - which is really kind. Many are offering responses that give the appearance of more the need to be right...which is fine too, but doesn't do much as far as getting people on the other side of the fence on board with your idea.
Maybe more questions should be asked rather than demands for a change of mind/heart? I did see some posts that indicated some people obviously have a scientific background - but really, the jargon isn't helpful. Put things in laymen's terms and we have to admit, science is NOT the end all be all. I mean.. Pluto. Really? Need I say more? It's a generalization and we must be careful of that as well. We need to all learn a little flexibility in our thinking and the way we approach debate.
I firmly agree that the 1200 calorie thing has nothing to do with the OP's point. Starvation mode is intimately tied to a person's TDEE (maintenance calories) and can usually be defined by the long term (>3 days) reduction of calories to a point that is below the threshold where that particular person can replenish glycogen stores in the liver and muscle.
In layman's terms, starvation mode is a relative condition to the person you are describing, thus everyone is different. A host of genetic, environmental, and internal factors decide when a body will cross the threshold.
Starvation mode begins when the body can not reach energy metabolism homeostasis (I.E. energy needed is exactly equal to energy provided). This means carbohydrates consumed, plus the result of lipolysis plus the result of gluconeogenesis (protein break down for energy), plus the existing glycogen stores can no longer reach an equallibrium with what the body demands for energy.
So, this all said, someone who is obese, has a lot more lipids (fat) in their body to use to make up the large deficits. when someone who is NOT so big tries to do the same thing, the gap between TDEE and the starvation mode threshold is far smaller, which is why you can't lose as much weight if you only have 20% body fat as you can if you have 35% body fat, and why more of that weight will be lean tissue (protein from muscle tissue and other non-fat substrates)
the discussion in the medical community isn't whether any of what I just wrote is true, the discussion is more along the lines of what the long term effects of starvation mode are to the body, and what hormones are triggered in response to it, and what this does to body composition after those hormone changes go into affect. THAT is where the medical community has debates.
For instance, there's a strong push to find out the role of Growth Hormone and Testosterone in a fasting environment, along with the "fat" hormones like cortisol (which is called the fat hormone because it's produced by adipocites, or fat cells in higher amounts as a response to times of high stress), and other hormones which are catalysts for energy absorption into cells like insulin. While we have a basic idea of how these hormones interact, because of the amount of chemicals in the body, their VERY complex interactions, and the changes that occur during different times (high stress, underfeeding, obesity, anorexia...etc) we don't know exactly what role these hormones play yet. But we are coming closer every day.
You asked where the concern comes from. Well I admit, I'm no longer trying to lose weight, and could have stopped using MFP years ago. But I'm intimately tied to weight issues by family, I was formerly obese, I'm now a personal trainer, and I genuinely like helping others and receive a certain amount of personal joy from it. My science background allows me to read technical journals and research and be able to (hopefully) translate it into useful information.
You say the technical jargon isn't helpful. but I disagree. Besides the small percentage of people that can actually read and correctly interpret the studies (they're difficult sometimes), there are a lot of people here that need to know that we who cite these resources are actually doing real investigation into the issues, and even if you can't read them all, the fact that we cite them and show how we arrived at a conclusion is important to the process.
As to the concept that science isn't the end all. I disagree, citing Pluto as an example isn't really very relevant as that wasn't a "mistake" it was a reclassification based on additional information. Any mistakes that we make in science are because we are imperfect, not because the science itself is wrong, our existence in the physical world has laws, our bodies follow those laws, just because we don't understand them all yet, and get them wrong sometimes, doesn't make the laws wrong, it makes us flawed as beings.
I have a lot more I would love to say, but I've already written to much. There's reams and reams of data out there if you want it. And there's opinions aplenty on this topic, believe what you want for what ever reasons you want, that won't change the truth, I just hope those out there in MFP land that are unsure do some analytics on the posts they read and don't choose things based on "how much they like the poster" or how much weight the poster has lost, because there's a lot more to this site than a popularity contest.0 -
How did nobody point out this gem, "I also don't believe in calories in / calories out theory either".
You don't believe in the conservation of energy? One of the most fundamental principles of the Universe? The basis for almost all of our scientific understanding of the world? And you're a diet coach?0 -
What people seem to be forgetting is that starvation is classed not only as a severe restriction of vitamins and nutrients but also ENERGY INTAKE. Funnily enough the principal determinant of this are those pesky calorie thingamawahtsits. You know, calorie, medically defined as "A unit of energy-producing potential supplied by food and released upon oxidation by the body, equal to the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1°C at one atmosphere pressure."
quite.
it really isn't just about the nutrients - ie. the vitamins and minerals - we take into our bodies, but about the calories (fuel/energy) we are required to consume to make the cells function.
The heart won't pump on Vitamin C alone......0 -
I have a lot more I would love to say, but I've already written to much. There's reams and reams of data out there if you want it. And there's opinions aplenty on this topic, believe what you want for what ever reasons you want, that won't change the truth, I just hope those out there in MFP land that are unsure do some analytics on the posts they read and don't choose things based on "how much they like the poster" or how much weight the poster has lost, because there's a lot more to this site than a popularity contest.
Pfft facts, you can prove anything with facts!
Honestly, I wrote up a long reply to all of this too but it just isn't worth it. People who want good and healthy advice will take it, those who want to believe what they want aren't going to be convinced. I don't know if it's trolling, willful ignorance, or just stubbornness, but it's petty and childish. I just feel really bad for those who aren't sure what they're doing taking unsound advice from people who don't really understand what they're talking about. "Blind leading the blind," and so on.
Here's one point no one can argue with though: you shouldn't go from being fat to "skinny-fat" for the sake of "weight-loss." If you're not getting healthy (how much can you lift, how far can you run, do you get winded easily? Be honest...) there's no point to doing any of this. Going to a diet of too few calories, despite how comfortable you feel or how well it's "working" for you, will produce this result. You can work your way out of too many calories by exercising more. You cannot work less than 'living' to compensate for too few.
People are not unique snowflakes when it comes to nutritional needs unless you have a severe genetic abnormality (hint: if you're doing this program, you don't). Best of luck to everyone with their fitness goals. 0 -
I am surprised this thread has gone on this long.
EVERYONE'S BODY IS DIFFERENT! what may work for one person with the exact same height weight and build may not work for someone else with the same qualities! Therefore nothing is 100% when it comes to dealing with a persons health. if this was the case i think by now we would have a magic pill to cure many diseases... but we dont.
JUST DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!!0 -
How did nobody point out this gem, "I also don't believe in calories in / calories out theory either".
You don't believe in the conservation of energy? One of the most fundamental principles of the Universe? The basis for almost all of our scientific understanding of the world? And you're a diet coach?
Nice.
While I agree there is more to it than simply calories in vs calories out, as I'm sure anyone here would agree, the idea of completely throwing out the entire concept of calories in vs calories out is bizzare.
While were at it, I think I'm tired of the whole concept of resistance training builds muscle. I think I'll start ignoring everything that's been proven about the sliding filament theory and everything that's associated with muscle breaking down and then rebuilding itself.
I say, unicorn milk is the answer for us getting stronger!0 -
*Like*What people seem to be forgetting is that starvation is classed not only as a severe restriction of vitamins and nutrients but also ENERGY INTAKE. Funnily enough the principal determinant of this are those pesky calorie thingamawahtsits. You know, calorie, medically defined as "A unit of energy-producing potential supplied by food and released upon oxidation by the body, equal to the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1°C at one atmosphere pressure."
It's astonishing that no one has yet mentioned Ancel Key's Minnesota Starvation Experiment. In the 6 month semi starvation portion of the experiment the men were provided with 1,800 calories per day with food which reflected that availbale in work torn conditions in Europe: farina, bread, potatoes, jelly, jam, milk etc. No McDonalds or jexcessive unk food in their diet. However, they were expected to maintain constant physcial activity during the day including mild forms of "exercise" such as walking and household duties which equated to an energy expenditure (you know, based on those pesky calorie thingies) equivalent to 3000 or so calories per day. If you don't know what happened to these men during that time then perhaps you should find out for yourselves.
After the semi staravtion portion of the diet the men were put on a 3 month rehabilitation diet. Ancel Key's remarked following the study "Enough food must be supplied to allow tissues destroyed during starvation to be rebuilt ... our experiments have shown that in an adult man no appreciable rehabilitation can take place on a diet of 2000 calories [actually 2000 kcal (8368 kJ)] a day. The proper level is more like 4000 [4000 kcal (16,736 kJ)] daily for some months. The character of the rehabilitation diet is important also, but unless calories are abundant, then extra proteins, vitamins and minerals are of little value ." You might want to read that last sentence carefully....
I wish people would stop trying to muddy the waters simply because they want to lend support to the concept of intermittent fasting. I actually think a well constructed IF diet has many benefits including fat loss (I am thinking mostly leangains here.) However, to then use IF concepts in isolation to provide frankly distorted advice to the general public along the lines of a starvation response does not exist is patently irresponsible.0 -
1200 calories is the absolute minimum amount necessary for the body to function. Of course, it will vary depending on the person, but if one eats below 1200, they can get seriously ill in a short period of time.
Starvation mode refers to a prolonged period of time that a body is denied the nutrients necessary for its survival. Just because you fast for a day, doesn't mean your body will enter starvation mode. I try to fast every month, having a 1-day water-only fast. This does not mean that my body enters starvation mode, and I don't think MFP or any personal trainer or nutritionist will disagree.
hmmmm...I stay under 1200 calories every day, exercise every day, and my health has done nothing but improve
Anybody find it funny that the people with the most lbs lost are they ones who can see that the article presented makes sense. It is the ones with low lbs lost that seem to want to continue to believe in Starvation Mode.0 -
excuse me ive lost over 40 pounds this time last year I was over 230 now im 187.My ticker only shows what ive lost since ive joined this site.Oh but I forgott since you lost some weight that makes you an expert on everything0
-
Anybody find it funny that the people with the most lbs lost are they ones who can see that the article presented makes sense. It is the ones with low lbs lost that seem to want to continue to believe in Starvation Mode.
Rude. When you start out that much bigger than you were meant to be you can make almost any change and lose weight. It is when you get closer to a healthy weight that people have to start finessing in different ways--brute force (starving your body of kCal, ketosis, other damaging practices) doesn't do the trick.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions