To clear things up.....

SiltyPigeon

I copy and pasted an article here before.....

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/184778-starvation-mode-is-a-myth

Obviously I didn't introduce it very well. I would like to apologize for that because it obviously upset a lot of people. Please let me clarify......

Earlier today I was blasted by another user (a lot of you probably saw the blast that was deleted) because UNDER MY DOCTOR'S CARE I am intaking an average of 900 calories per day. I am not obese, but I have some health issues that I would rather not get into that would benefit from me losing some weight quickly. Over the past 2 months I have lost 20 pounds on my "diet" and have finally reached a healthy BMI. This other user blasted me, even though she does not personally know me or my medical issues and told me that I was in a very dangerous situation and that my organs were going to shut down and I was going to die. I am under the care of my physician. I freaked out and started researching "starvation mode" to see what others had to say about it.

That's when I came across the article I posted above. I wanted to see what others had to say about the article. What other's thought about it. I should have been clearer about my intentions for posting the article. Honestly, I thought the article made a lot of sense (even if it is not a "legitimate source" as many people pointed out-- or at least made some legitimate points. Apparently it's not okay to do that because it made a lot of people really upset with me. I'm sorry. THEY WERE NOT MY WORDS! I DIDN'T WRITE THE ARTICLE! Please stop yelling at me!!! :sad:

I hoped to start a productive discussion. I didn't want to get yelled at called names.

Rereading my post I understand why others' misunderstood my intentions. I posted it in haste because of how upset I was. I should have been more clear. Will you all forgive me?

SpartanHard

Regardless of how you posted it no one should have called names thats just immature.

SiltyPigeon

Regardless of how you posted it no one should have called names thats just immature.

Thank you.

reese66

I am sorry that you feel the need to say sorry. I am also sorry that a bunch of people treated poorly because they in THEIR OPINION are correct. I am also sorry that people seem to think it is ok to attack others that do not have the same OPINION that they do.

UmbraForzare

I'll start by saying this:
Nobody has the right to start name-calling, being condescending and/or downright rude to anyone else.
I do not give a monkeys patootie if something isn't said/written clearly - that is when someone can ask politely and civilly for clarification and expansion.

Okay. Moving along from that.
I personally feel bad that you feel you had to apologize for your other thread.
I also feel bad that you seemed to be being attacked for your original post.

If you are under your DOCTORS care and supervision and your DOCTOR has given you an eating plan that is made up of a certain amount of calories and you are feeling good, healthy and happy while on that eating plan then it is NOBODY elses business but yours.
Nobody has the right to bash, flame or otherwise troll (because that's essentially what it amounts to) another person's lifestyle.

I actually admire you, if I'm honest.
I really do not think I could take on the kind of eating plan that you have and not be really cranky :laugh:
Kudos to you, sweetie and good luck on your journey!
:flowerforyou:

SiltyPigeon

I am sorry that you feel the need to say sorry. I am also sorry that a bunch of people treated poorly because they in THEIR OPINION are correct. I am also sorry that people seem to think it is ok to attack others that do not have the same OPINION that they do.

There was a time when people were hanged for having a different opinion. The world wasn't always round, you know!

Thank you. I'm glad not everyone hates me, now!

A note....
I don't know whether starvation mode exists. I'm not claiming to know. In my experience of being on a 900 calorie "diet" for 2 months I have not experienced the stated symptoms of "starvation mode". I have not stopped losing nor gained weight. My organs have not shut down... wait, let me check again..... nope, they're still working. I also have trouble believing that my doctor would enable me to do something that could kill me. I think the subject demands more research and open discussion.

I do find some of the claims behind the "starvation mode" theory to be suspicious. But, I am a suspicious person by nature. Never one to believe anything I am told until I have proof. One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

vzepol

There is no need to be mean. We are here for support and to be supported. Good luck.

foodforfuel

Mickmelie,
I think one of the most important reasons (that is never mentioned) of never (!!!) going below 1200 calories per day while being on this site is because you need 'very thick skin' to be able to post anything here.
I'd like to say keep your head up, don't let people get you down, and I think you have enough self worth that you don't need to beg forgiveness from others on this site.
But alas, I am not an elite expert, nor do I have a degree in saying the exact right thing in the exact right way, so I am unqualified/disqualified to answer.
Sadly, I expected to be pummelled with responses from this post, explaining to me the difference between fat and epidermis, etc.etc.etc...:laugh:

SiltyPigeon

I'll start by saying this:
Nobody has the right to start name-calling, being condescending and/or downright rude to anyone else.
I do not give a monkeys patootie if something isn't said/written clearly - that is when someone can ask politely and civilly for clarification and expansion.

Okay. Moving along from that.
I personally feel bad that you feel you had to apologize for your other thread.
I also feel bad that you seemed to be being attacked for your original post.

If you are under your DOCTORS care and supervision and your DOCTOR has given you an eating plan that is made up of a certain amount of calories and you are feeling good, healthy and happy while on that eating plan then it is NOBODY elses business but yours.
Nobody has the right to bash, flame or otherwise troll (because that's essentially what it amounts to) another person's lifestyle.

I actually admire you, if I'm honest.
I really do not think I could take on the kind of eating plan that you have and not be really cranky :laugh:
Kudos to you, sweetie and good luck on your journey!
:flowerforyou:

Thank you so much for your reply!
I was only cranky for the first week. I think people are very resilient and can adjust to almost any circumstance! I am feeling better than I ever have right now. I have much more energy than I did. Of course, that is probably because of the weight loss rather than because of how much I eat.

SiltyPigeon

Mickmelie,
I think one of the most important reasons (that is never mentioned) of never (!!!) going below 1200 calories per day while being on this site is because you need 'very thick skin' to be able to post anything here.
I'd like to say keep your head up, don't let people get you down, and I think you have enough self worth that you don't need to beg forgiveness from others on this site.
But alas, I am not an elite expert, nor do I have a degree in saying the exact right thing in the exact right way, so I am unqualified/disqualified to answer.
Sadly, I expected to be pummelled with responses from this post, explaining to me the difference between fat and epidermis, etc.etc.etc...:laugh:

Thank you! I think you are right! :laugh:

SiltyPigeon

There is no need to be mean. We are here for support and to be supported. Good luck.

Thank you. :flowerforyou:

scagneti

One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

Because it's easier for the body to burn muscle and (eventually organ) than to burn fat. That's why it takes 3500 calories deficit to burn a pound of fat but it only takes a 700 calorie deficit to burn a pound of muscle. You cannot tell your body where to lose it from. And when your body is starving for fuel, it does the easiest possible thing it can.

FearAnLoathing

well your artical sorce might have been a blog but it seems to me all those other links everyones always throwing around everywhere are just other topics on mfp

dlaplume2

I am sorry that you feel the need to say sorry. I am also sorry that a bunch of people treated poorly because they in THEIR OPINION are correct. I am also sorry that people seem to think it is ok to attack others that do not have the same OPINION that they do.

There was a time when people were hanged for having a different opinion. The world wasn't always round, you know!

Thank you. I'm glad not everyone hates me, now!

A note....
I don't know whether starvation mode exists. I'm not claiming to know. In my experience of being on a 900 calorie "diet" for 2 months I have not experienced the stated symptoms of "starvation mode". I have not stopped losing nor gained weight. My organs have not shut down... wait, let me check again..... nope, they're still working. I also have trouble believing that my doctor would enable me to do something that could kill me. I think the subject demands more research and open discussion.

I do find some of the claims behind the "starvation mode" theory to be suspicious. But, I am a suspicious person by nature. Never one to believe anything I am told until I have proof. One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

I am sorry you were badgered about a post, whether or not it was misunderstood.

I do believe that starvation mode exhist (based on researh after reading the post you mentions here). I think everyone hits it at different points and to different degrees. You are under doctors care and that overrides and supercedes anything you read here. You doctor knows more about your particular situation than anyone here or any text book you read. I wish you the best of luck and much success. I also hope what ever you medical condition is that you get the results you are expecting and are in need of.

Best wishes.

SiltyPigeon

One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

Because it's easier for the body to burn muscle and (eventually organ) than to burn fat. That's why it takes 3500 calories deficit to burn a pound of fat but it only takes a 700 calorie deficit to burn a pound of muscle. You cannot tell your body where to lose it from. And when your body is starving for fuel, it does the easiest possible thing it can.

Thank you for a non sarcastic or mean answer to my question. If you don't mind, I have further inquiry about your response/answer; because I honestly want to understand, not because I want you to be wrong or me to be right:

Why would our body, who's main objective is to survive, choose (even if it's easier) to take mass away from our organs, making us sick or possibly even killing itself, rather than take mass away from fat? From my understanding evolution has provided our bodies with all the instincts most productive to surviving (fight or flight, adrenaline, pain responses... even "starvation mode" is said to have evolved for the sole purpose of enabling our body to survive through famine). Why would this be the one example? Why would our body choose to kill itself rather than to burn the fat of an overweight or obese person to survive?

dlaplume2

One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

Because it's easier for the body to burn muscle and (eventually organ) than to burn fat. That's why it takes 3500 calories deficit to burn a pound of fat but it only takes a 700 calorie deficit to burn a pound of muscle. You cannot tell your body where to lose it from. And when your body is starving for fuel, it does the easiest possible thing it can.

The reason your body burns mucsle before fat, is by design. Your body knows that muscle burns more fat. After a point in time. (different in everybody) your body kicks into starvation mode. It will burn mucsle so that it does not need tthe additional energy to self sustain.
You need to keep in mind that this survival mechanism was designed back in the beginning for when people went for weeks on end living on only berries, or what ever they could hunt and kill that week. People stored what they grew in their garden and if they ran out in March they had to make due and survive on what ever they could find.
They didn't have restaurants on every corner or supermarkets.

SiltyPigeon

I am sorry that you feel the need to say sorry. I am also sorry that a bunch of people treated poorly because they in THEIR OPINION are correct. I am also sorry that people seem to think it is ok to attack others that do not have the same OPINION that they do.

There was a time when people were hanged for having a different opinion. The world wasn't always round, you know!

Thank you. I'm glad not everyone hates me, now!

A note....
I don't know whether starvation mode exists. I'm not claiming to know. In my experience of being on a 900 calorie "diet" for 2 months I have not experienced the stated symptoms of "starvation mode". I have not stopped losing nor gained weight. My organs have not shut down... wait, let me check again..... nope, they're still working. I also have trouble believing that my doctor would enable me to do something that could kill me. I think the subject demands more research and open discussion.

I do find some of the claims behind the "starvation mode" theory to be suspicious. But, I am a suspicious person by nature. Never one to believe anything I am told until I have proof. One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

I am sorry you were badgered about a post, whether or not it was misunderstood.

I do believe that starvation mode exhist (based on researh after reading the post you mentions here). I think everyone hits it at different points and to different degrees. You are under doctors care and that overrides and supercedes anything you read here. You doctor knows more about your particular situation than anyone here or any text book you read. I wish you the best of luck and much success. I also hope what ever you medical condition is that you get the results you are expecting and are in need of.

Best wishes.

Thank you. :flowerforyou:

reese66

Your not going to find an answer here. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying it's not here and that no one is right, but for one school of thought you have so many people that argue against it with their own "facts" to prove their point and disprove the other, so in the end no one comes away proving beyond a doubt one way or the other. Speak to a nutritionist would be my best suggestion.

SiltyPigeon

One HUGE issue I have problem with is Why do we have fat stores if not to use them during famine times? Why would I our bodies choose to take our calories from our organs, muscle, brain, or anywhere else before taking them from our fat? Isn't that what the fat is there for?

Because it's easier for the body to burn muscle and (eventually organ) than to burn fat. That's why it takes 3500 calories deficit to burn a pound of fat but it only takes a 700 calorie deficit to burn a pound of muscle. You cannot tell your body where to lose it from. And when your body is starving for fuel, it does the easiest possible thing it can.

The reason your body burns mucsle before fat, is by design. Your body knows that muscle burns more fat. After a point in time. (different in everybody) your body kicks into starvation mode. It will burn mucsle so that it does not need tthe additional energy to self sustain.
You need to keep in mind that this survival mechanism was designed back in the beginning for when people went for weeks on end living on only berries, or what ever they could hunt and kill that week. People stored what they grew in their garden and if they ran out in March they had to make due and survive on what ever they could find.
They didn't have restaurants on every corner or supermarkets.

Thank you for you non sarcastic or mean response.

May I pose to you the same question I posed to another poster? Again... not because I want you to be wrong or me to be right, but because I HONESTLY want to understand. ::
Why would our body, who's main objective is to survive, choose (even if it's easier) to take mass away from our organs, making us sick or possibly even killing itself, rather than take mass away from fat? From my understanding evolution has provided our bodies with all the instincts most productive to surviving (fight or flight, adrenaline, pain responses... even "starvation mode" is said to have evolved for the sole purpose of enabling our body to survive through famine). Why would this be the one example? Why would our body choose to kill itself rather than to burn the fat of an overweight or obese person to survive?

ALSO... Another thing that sparks me as interesting is that not only did we not have restaurants around every corner, but we were not as likely to be obese (because of everything you said). The reason I bring this up is because starvation mode makes perfect sense for someone of average or low amounts of fat. However, it only seems natural that a person with excess amounts of fat would survive longer in a famine... because of burning said fat before burning up organs, muscle, or brain mass.

Thank you, again, for a healthy discussion.

Nailrep

Nothing to forgive. Anyone blasting you over your (potential) opinion has no life. Period. Rude, nasty people love to hate on people who don't agree with them.

noltes2

Yep, agreed. Do not feel the need to apologize as you were sharing an interesting article! Some people....

It got me thinking about "starvation mode" (gosh, I'm so sick of it being thrown around if you eat one calorie under 1200!) Posters on here told my fiance because he was eating 1800 calories a day and working out for 2 hours a day that his body was in "starvation mode" and he was going to drop dead from a heart attack! HAHAHAHA too funny, right? Because 2 hours of exercise is enough to kill someone. If anything being sedentary is what is going to lead to a heart attack... ok enough with that...

ANYWAYS... I share you're curiosity and would love an answer too. Maybe our bodies weren't designed to be obese. When they evolved there was no fast food, no sedentary life style, so having excess fat was unheard of! Hence our bodies were designed to eat away at everything else first, and the fat last because it knows that the fat will keep it alive. Who knows. Do whatever works for you!

taletreader

May I pose to you the same question I posed to another poster? Again... not because I want you to be wrong or me to be right, but because I HONESTLY want to understand. ::
Why would our body, who's main objective is to survive, choose (even if it's easier) to take mass away from our organs, making us sick or possibly even killing itself, rather than take mass away from fat? From my understanding evolution has provided our bodies with all the instincts most productive to surviving (fight or flight, adrenaline, pain responses... even "starvation mode" is said to have evolved for the sole purpose of enabling our body to survive through famine). Why would this be the one example? Why would our body choose to kill itself rather than to burn the fat of an overweight or obese person to survive?

Two things here:

First of all I'm really uncomfortable with attributing intentions, reasons and choices (ie, mental operations) to the physiological functioning of our bodies. The human body doesn't intend or chose or try or reason -- it just is and functions in some ways and others. It's a complex system (in the technical sense of the term as well as in the colloquial sense) that we, and especially non-medical people like myself, don't understand all that well. There are rules to how it functions, but also substantial individual and genetic variation. Etc. etc.

Second I'm not sure where the entire stuff about starvation mode = death comes in. That's completely over the top. I don't think anyone who actually dies from under-nourishment would do so in a state where substantial fat reserves are left (even though of course cardi-vascular collapse from lack of food or water might happen, but that's not starvation). The (overly dramatic) term "starvation mode" quite simply refers to our metabolism adapting and saving energy when it detects steady significant weight loss. The result is that someone who SHOULD be losing fat because they eat significantly fewer calories than a person of their age and activity level would normally consume does NOT lose fat because the body has become so thrifty. That's not a state you want to be in when you want to lose weight, for obvious reasons.

Bottom line, it's great you haven't experienced it. Others who eat 900 cals for prolonged times *may* and therefore would have had to up their calories and find ways to stimulate their metabolism again. In both cases, the danger isn't immediate death, of course.

scagneti

I'm not a nutritionist or a doctor or anything even related to science, so I don't feel comfortable answering why the body does that with any certainty. From what I understand, it does the easiest thing it can to survive, and in this case, it finds burning muscle easier than burning fat (it starts off burning what's in the tummy and when that's depleted, it looks elsewhere. It doesn't realize that it's slowly killing itself by going after muscles & organs. It's instinct is to protect the fat because it knows it will need it, so it burns it only when it feels comfortable doing so. Even trainers and people who went to school for decades still have muscle loss when in a weight loss stage -- the key is to minimize the muscle damage and maximize the fat burn.

Here's a link from Lance Armstrong's site. Now I don't know anything about the author or her credentials, but it makes sense.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/220416-how-to-burn-fat-instead-of-muscle/

There is a ton of informaiton online from much smarter people than me, which you can find by googling "burn muscle instead of fat."

Good luck. I hope that now that you're at a healthy BMI you're able to continue your weight loss journey in a less drastic way. I don't mean that to sound mean, but 900 calories a day is drastic and there aren't a lot of people who could continue that for an extended period of time.

runningneo122

well your artical sorce might have been a blog but it seems to me all those other links everyones always throwing around everywhere are just other topics on mfp

Since you asked, here you go:

This is the author that I swear by as do many others on this site:
http://www.burnthefat.com/starvation_mode.html

And here are plenty of research links that AREN'T MFP post links:

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

LuckyLeprechaun

May I pose to you the same question I posed to another poster? Again... not because I want you to be wrong or me to be right, but because I HONESTLY want to understand. ::
Why would our body, who's main objective is to survive, choose (even if it's easier) to take mass away from our organs, making us sick or possibly even killing itself, rather than take mass away from fat? From my understanding evolution has provided our bodies with all the instincts most productive to surviving (fight or flight, adrenaline, pain responses... even "starvation mode" is said to have evolved for the sole purpose of enabling our body to survive through famine). Why would this be the one example? Why would our body choose to kill itself rather than to burn the fat of an overweight or obese person to survive?

Two things here:

First of all I'm really uncomfortable with attributing intentions, reasons and choices (ie, mental operations) to the physiological functioning of our bodies. The human body doesn't intend or chose or try or reason -- it just is and functions in some ways and others. It's a complex system (in the technical sense of the term as well as in the colloquial sense) that we, and especially non-medical people like myself, don't understand all that well. There are rules to how it functions, but also substantial individual and genetic variation. Etc. etc.

Second I'm not sure where the entire stuff about starvation mode = death comes in. That's completely over the top. I don't think anyone who actually dies from under-nourishment would do so in a state where substantial fat reserves are left (even though of course cardi-vascular collapse from lack of food or water might happen, but that's not starvation). The (overly dramatic) term "starvation mode" quite simply refers to our metabolism adapting and saving energy when it detects steady significant weight loss. The result is that someone who SHOULD be losing fat because they eat significantly fewer calories than a person of their age and activity level would normally consume does NOT lose fat because the body has become so thrifty. That's not a state you want to be in when you want to lose weight, for obvious reasons.

Bottom line, it's great you haven't experienced it. Others who eat 900 cals for prolonged times *may* and therefore would have had to up their calories and find ways to stimulate their metabolism again. In both cases, the danger isn't immediate death, of course.

***LIKE***

SiltyPigeon

I'm not a nutritionist or a doctor or anything even related to science, so I don't feel comfortable answering why the body does that with any certainty. From what I understand, it does the easiest thing it can to survive, and in this case, it finds burning muscle easier than burning fat (it starts off burning what's in the tummy and when that's depleted, it looks elsewhere. It doesn't realize that it's slowly killing itself by going after muscles & organs. It's instinct is to protect the fat because it knows it will need it, so it burns it only when it feels comfortable doing so. Even trainers and people who went to school for decades still have muscle loss when in a weight loss stage -- the key is to minimize the muscle damage and maximize the fat burn.

Here's a link from Lance Armstrong's site. Now I don't know anything about the author or her credentials, but it makes sense.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/220416-how-to-burn-fat-instead-of-muscle/

There is a ton of informaiton online from much smarter people than me, which you can find by googling "burn muscle instead of fat."

Good luck. I hope that now that you're at a healthy BMI you're able to continue your weight loss journey in a less drastic way. I don't mean that to sound mean, but 900 calories a day is drastic and there aren't a lot of people who could continue that for an extended period of time.

Thank you, again, for your reply. I see why burning muscle, in the short term, would make sense. More bang for your buck. If the body needed a quick shot of energy it it is easier to burn a pound a muscle than a pound a fat. Who needs muscle to pick berries? It's the organ and brain part that just doesn't make sense. Over long term it would only makes sense (and most things in evolution make perfect sense, don't you think?) that the body would choose to burn fat, which won't hurt your body rather than burn away your brain or vital organs.
Food for thought: When a person is freezing to death, the body will shut down blood flow to the extremities in order to protect the organs. A person will lose their feet, hands, legs, and arms before their organs are compromised. Yet, proponents of starvation mode states that the body would sacrifice the organs before fat?
Another thought: A lot of people immediately point to "the experts" and "smart people" stating that whatever THEY say is "gospel". However, I would just like to point out that there was a time when "the experts" believed that "hysteria" was a disease that inflicted women, caused by a "wandering uterus" and was curable only by an orgasm. In addition, the world used to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, "bleeding out" cured all that ailed you, unbaptized babies went to purgatory, eggs were bad for you, and smoking did not cause cancer, and heroine was available at the local drug store because it cured the common cold. At no point should people blindly believe the experts, but should ask "Does this make sense?"

runningneo122

Another thought: A lot of people immediately point to "the experts" and "smart people" stating that whatever THEY say is "gospel". However, I would just like to point out that there was a time when "the experts" believed that "hysteria" was a disease that inflicted women, caused by a "wandering uterus" and was curable only by an orgasm. In addition, the world used to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, "bleeding out" cured all that ailed you, unbaptized babies went to purgatory, eggs were bad for you, and smoking did not cause cancer, and heroine was available at the local drug store because it cured the common cold. At no point should people blindly believe the experts, especially when the evidence doesn't add up.

It seems to me that no matter how much absolute factual evidence is presented to you, your mind is made up and you really don't like being confused by the facts.

I'll repeat myself in saying good luck to you in your weightloss.

SiltyPigeon

Another thought: A lot of people immediately point to "the experts" and "smart people" stating that whatever THEY say is "gospel". However, I would just like to point out that there was a time when "the experts" believed that "hysteria" was a disease that inflicted women, caused by a "wandering uterus" and was curable only by an orgasm. In addition, the world used to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, "bleeding out" cured all that ailed you, unbaptized babies went to purgatory, eggs were bad for you, and smoking did not cause cancer, and heroine was available at the local drug store because it cured the common cold. At no point should people blindly believe the experts, especially when the evidence doesn't add up.

u
It seems to me that no matter how much absolute factual evidence is presented to you, your mind is made up and you really don't like being confused by the facts.

I'll repeat myself in saying good luck to you in your weightloss.

My mind is not made up. I have agreed that it makes sense that muscle, in the short term, would burn before fat. I am only looking for reasonable responses to my questions. You say "factual evidence". What "facts" are you referring to and what evidence have you stated that proves it to be a fact? I have not stated anything as being fact. I am only asking reasonable questions. I am a curious person. I like to understand, not just accept what I am told. Do they not say that no question is a stupid one? Am I not entitled to answers to my questions? Should I just believe everything an "expert" tells me without question?

SiltyPigeon

The article you quote states that it is bad for people to "weight cycle" or go up and down in weight because of the increased correlation with gallstones . I do not see the relevance to whether or not a lower than 1200 calorie diet will cause a person to cease weight loss or even gain weight.

DianaPowerUp

I think there is a difference b/t "starvation mode" and "true starvation". It may be that the body turns on itself when it is truly starving (like victims of famine, etc), but if you are eating less than that magic # of 1200 cal, are you truly starving? If you're a 300 lb 6' 4" man, maybe. If you're a 5' 3" woman, I doubt it, esp. if you weigh only 100 lbs to begin with. Your body's BMR just won't be that high. Point being, I think there is a range of what is ok as a bottom # of cal. to eat, and it depends on you, personally. You may be ok with 900 cal/day, and that won't be an insufficient amt. of cal. for you, whereas for someone else, their body may want to shut down more, b/c it's clearly not enough for them.

SiltyPigeon

I think there is a difference b/t "starvation mode" and "true starvation". It may be that the body turns on itself when it is truly starving (like victims of famine, etc), but if you are eating less than that magic # of 1200 cal, are you truly starving? If you're a 300 lb 6' 4" man, maybe. If you're a 5' 3" woman, I doubt it, esp. if you weigh only 100 lbs to begin with. Your body's BMR just won't be that high. Point being, I think there is a range of what is ok as a bottom # of cal. to eat, and it depends on you, personally. You may be ok with 900 cal/day, and that won't be an insufficient amt. of cal. for you, whereas for someone else, their body may want to shut down more, b/c it's clearly not enough for them.

I absolutely agree with you. I definitely believe there is a bottom number that depends on each individual person. If for no other reason, than because the lower your intake of calories, to more difficult it is get all the necessary nutrients. Which is why I am under the care of a doctor. I am happy, healthy, and still losing weight (despite starvation mode) on an average of 900 calories a day. 20 pounds is nothing to argue with! :-)