To clear things up.....
Replies
-
I think -- and don't quote me on this == that the reason the body will sacrifice hands, toes, etc before the organs in the case of hypothermia is because it's too difficult for the body to continue to warm and sent blood flow to the extremities so it sacrifices them and concentrates on what's close by. In this case, the organs are near the heart (where the blood comes from) so it's easy for the body to continue to warm and send blood there. It's not that it cares more about the kidneys or liver, but it's the closest of the parts it needs to warm.
The body is very efficient and it will save what it can and sacrifice what it can't. Now if your organs were where your feet are, I don't know if more people would die of hypothermia instead of losing a limb, but that's my theory.0 -
I think -- and don't quote me on this == that the reason the body will sacrifice hands, toes, etc before the organs in the case of hypothermia is because it's too difficult for the body to continue to warm and sent blood flow to the extremities so it sacrifices them and concentrates on what's close by. In this case, the organs are near the heart (where the blood comes from) so it's easy for the body to continue to warm and send blood there. It's not that it cares more about the kidneys or liver, but it's the closest of the parts it needs to warm.
The body is very efficient and it will save what it can and sacrifice what it can't. Now if your organs were where your feet are, I don't know if more people would die of hypothermia instead of losing a limb, but that's my theory.
That is a very interesting and logical theory! I am so glad you and I can have this conversation... it really has my brain going! :-) So the new theory is that the body is trying to save what it can; which just happens to include the organs vital to its survival. Lets say you are right and that body shuts down the blood supply to the extremities, not because it is trying to survive, but because it is only trying to "save what it can". Would you then also say that it is Chance that all the organs vital to survival happen to be close to the heart were they will be saved? Or would you say that evolution designed the body in such a way that it has the best chance of survival?0 -
Let's call it Nutritional Deprivation ok?
Every body needs a certain amount of nutrition to keep function AT TOP FORM. For your brain to work, your heart to pump, your kidneys to filter, your lungs to inflate, your stomach to digest, etc all requires calories. Your body cannot maintain it's normal function without them. So it begins to conserve. Your brain gets cloudy, you get tired and sleepy (sleep is the ultimate in energy conservation), your mood becomes crabby and possibly depressed. The gall bladder may develop gallstones. Fat slows down (does NOT stop) and muscle loss begins (muscles burn more energy than fat, so the body tries to conserve fat stores and get rid of that nasty old energy hogging muscle). Eventually, your body will learn to function on the lesser calories as a natural thing. Now, when you go back to eating normally (you DO want that eventually, don't you?), your body has no use for those extra calories, so guess what? It gets stored as fat...cuz omg, we finally have extra food!! Hang on to it for dear life, who knows when she might nutritionally deprive herself again. And you're right back where you started, except minus that nasty old energy hogging muscle.
Runningneo122 posted a TON of scientific studies to back it all up.
If you are under a doctor's care, then YOU are doing this the only way it should be done.
Don't be afraid of calories, they're like electricity for your motor. As you dial down the power, the motor turns slower. And there is no reason for that!! You can safely and effectively lose weight all while eating enough to feel good and keep the motor running smoothly. So why do anything else??0 -
Hold on. What kind of a "doctor" prescribes someone to be on a 900 cal a day diet? Is this someone who is with the medical association? You're only 167, not 600 lbs.
BTW, is your doctor a medical doctor? Or a quack - ie, your chiropractor, acupuncturist, naturopath, etc....if your doctor did not graduate from medical school at a legitimate university I would definitely look for another doctor. I would say it's bad science.
Additionally, if this IS a legitimate doctor, I can tell you horror stories, I would get a 2nd opinion. My Great Aunt (who worshipped doctors) was told to douch with LYSOL....this is decades ago, from a DOCTOR.
My grandmother was given SPEED to lose weight (she also worshipped doctors) - again this was decades ago.
The medical profession no longer does those 2 things, but I would question the legitimacy of any doctor putting a patient on a 900 cal diet - and you've been on it for 2 months? I smell a quack doc.0 -
Let's call it Nutritional Deprivation ok?
Every body needs a certain amount of nutrition to keep function AT TOP FORM. For your brain to work, your heart to pump, your kidneys to filter, your lungs to inflate, your stomach to digest, etc all requires calories. Your body cannot maintain it's normal function without them. So it begins to conserve. Your brain gets cloudy, you get tired and sleepy (sleep is the ultimate in energy conservation), your mood becomes crabby and possibly depressed. The gall bladder may develop gallstones. Fat slows down (does NOT stop) and muscle loss begins (muscles burn more energy than fat, so the body tries to conserve fat stores and get rid of that nasty old energy hogging muscle). Eventually, your body will learn to function on the lesser calories as a natural thing. Now, when you go back to eating normally (you DO want that eventually, don't you?), your body has no use for those extra calories, so guess what? It gets stored as fat...cuz omg, we finally have extra food!! Hang on to it for dear life, who knows when she might nutritionally deprive herself again. And you're right back where you started, except minus that nasty old energy hogging muscle.
Runningneo122 posted a TON of scientific studies to back it all up.
If you are under a doctor's care, then YOU are doing this the only way it should be done.
Don't be afraid of calories, they're like electricity for your motor. As you dial down the power, the motor turns slower. And there is no reason for that!! You can safely and effectively lose weight all while eating enough to feel good and keep the motor running smoothly. So why do anything else??
Thank you so much! Your explanation makes so much more sense than "If you don't eat 1200 calories you will gain weight and your body will eat its organs and you will die!". :laugh:
I definitely accept the "nutritional deprivation" theory, as you stated it, as fact. It makes sense. That is all I wanted. Just for someone to make sense!
The only comment I have is: No. I do not ever want to go back to eating "normally". "Normal" got me to 167 pounds. I am much happier being a healthy weight than I am being able to eat whatever I want, whenever I want. Of course, that is a personal preference and not everyone will share that view. And that is OK.0 -
Hold on. What kind of a "doctor" prescribes someone to be on a 900 cal a day diet? Is this someone who is with the medical association? You're only 167, not 600 lbs.
BTW, is your doctor a medical doctor? Or a quack - ie, your chiropractor, acupuncturist, naturopath, etc....if your doctor did not graduate from medical school at a legitimate university I would definitely look for another doctor. I would say it's bad science.
Additionally, if this IS a legitimate doctor, I can tell you horror stories, I would get a 2nd opinion. My Great Aunt (who worshipped doctors) was told to douch with LYSOL....this is decades ago, from a DOCTOR.
My grandmother was given SPEED to lose weight (she also worshipped doctors) - again this was decades ago.
The medical profession no longer does those 2 things, but I would question the legitimacy of any doctor putting a patient on a 900 cal diet - and you've been on it for 2 months? I smell a quack doc.
I have a thyroid problem that causes extreme migraines that can last for a week at a time. I cannot take the normal medications that would be prescribed for the specific problem I have. One potential "cure" for this problem is a low calorie diet and a healthy or less-than-healthy weight maintenance. My PERSONAL medical issue is being monitored by a Neurologist, Psychiatrist, and Family Practitioner. I am pretty sure (not positive) that they all graduated from legitimate medical schools. And there is no way I would douche with Lysol. :huh:0 -
If ya don't know, now ya know....when using the phrase "Starvation Mode", drama is inevitable.0
-
If ya don't know, now ya know....when using the phrase "Starvation Mode", drama is inevitable.
This is certainly a mistake I am not going to repeat! :frown:0 -
Hold on. What kind of a "doctor" prescribes someone to be on a 900 cal a day diet? Is this someone who is with the medical association? You're only 167, not 600 lbs.
BTW, is your doctor a medical doctor? Or a quack - ie, your chiropractor, acupuncturist, naturopath, etc....if your doctor did not graduate from medical school at a legitimate university I would definitely look for another doctor. I would say it's bad science.
Additionally, if this IS a legitimate doctor, I can tell you horror stories, I would get a 2nd opinion. My Great Aunt (who worshipped doctors) was told to douch with LYSOL....this is decades ago, from a DOCTOR.
My grandmother was given SPEED to lose weight (she also worshipped doctors) - again this was decades ago.
The medical profession no longer does those 2 things, but I would question the legitimacy of any doctor putting a patient on a 900 cal diet - and you've been on it for 2 months? I smell a quack doc.
I have a thyroid problem that causes extreme migraines that can last for a week at a time. I cannot take the normal medications that would be prescribed for the specific problem I have. One potential "cure" for this problem is a low calorie diet and a healthy or less-than-healthy weight maintenance. My PERSONAL medical issue is being monitored by a Neurologist, Psychiatrist, and Family Practitioner. I am pretty sure (not positive) that they all graduated from legitimate medical schools. And there is no way I would douche with Lysol. :huh:
TY for clearing that up. There's a lot of people on here doing unhealthy things....(not pointing a finger at you), but I want to be sure that you are in the care of legitimate people.
Ok, so you have a legit medical issue...I *now* understand why you posted the things that you do which are causing a bit of controversy around here - - and very pleased that you're with real medical professionals. Now knowing this, I hope people will back off a bit. I apologize for coming down on you but so many people see quacks for real medical advice.
Obviously, what is good for YOU is not good for the rest of the populace, you're in the care of professionals & I'm impressed. Good luck with your weight loss!! 0 -
:laugh: Wandering uterus....0
-
You're too much! :laugh: 2 pages of drama and controversy and nutritionally challenged bickering and all you walked away with was "wandering uterous":laugh: Wandering uterus....
I love it!:happy:0 -
Hold on. What kind of a "doctor" prescribes someone to be on a 900 cal a day diet? Is this someone who is with the medical association? You're only 167, not 600 lbs.
BTW, is your doctor a medical doctor? Or a quack - ie, your chiropractor, acupuncturist, naturopath, etc....if your doctor did not graduate from medical school at a legitimate university I would definitely look for another doctor. I would say it's bad science.
Additionally, if this IS a legitimate doctor, I can tell you horror stories, I would get a 2nd opinion. My Great Aunt (who worshipped doctors) was told to douch with LYSOL....this is decades ago, from a DOCTOR.
My grandmother was given SPEED to lose weight (she also worshipped doctors) - again this was decades ago.
The medical profession no longer does those 2 things, but I would question the legitimacy of any doctor putting a patient on a 900 cal diet - and you've been on it for 2 months? I smell a quack doc.
I have a thyroid problem that causes extreme migraines that can last for a week at a time. I cannot take the normal medications that would be prescribed for the specific problem I have. One potential "cure" for this problem is a low calorie diet and a healthy or less-than-healthy weight maintenance. My PERSONAL medical issue is being monitored by a Neurologist, Psychiatrist, and Family Practitioner. I am pretty sure (not positive) that they all graduated from legitimate medical schools. And there is no way I would douche with Lysol. :huh:
TY for clearing that up. There's a lot of people on here doing unhealthy things....(not pointing a finger at you), but I want to be sure that you are in the care of legitimate people.
Ok, so you have a legit medical issue...I *now* understand why you posted the things that you do which are causing a bit of controversy around here - - and very pleased that you're with real medical professionals. Now knowing this, I hope people will back off a bit. I apologize for coming down on you but so many people see quacks for real medical advice.
Obviously, what is good for YOU is not good for the rest of the populace, you're in the care of professionals & I'm impressed. Good luck with your weight loss!!
Thank you. I agree. What's good for one person does not always (maybe even will rarely) hold true for others. :flowerforyou:0 -
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.
AGREED!0 -
You're too much! :laugh: 2 pages of drama and controversy and nutritionally challenged bickering and all you walked away with was "wandering uterous":laugh: Wandering uterus....
I love it!:happy:
Well, it IS a VERY serious problem, you know! They even invented a tool just to combat the wandering uterus: A Vibrator! Of course, it could only be used under the close supervision of a qualified doctor. Dangerous tool, those Vibrators! Especially if they got into the wrong hands!
Look it up! I did not make up a word of this!0 -
I have to admit, it does kind of bother me when I see people say "Oh no, you only ate 1190 calories today! You're going to go into starvation mode!" For one thing, I mentioned this concept to my sister, who is an athletic trainer and is currently going to graduate school for something involving nutrition, (I can never remember what exactly the program is called....) and she said that the idea of 1200 being some magic number that you can never go under is ridiculous. For another, I HAVE been under 1200 (net) calories a day here and there and it hasn't done me any damage.
However!!! Not too long ago, (some time over the past few days) I saw a topic where the author of the first post gave a very personal, TRUE story about getting into starvation mode. Unfortunately, I can't now find it..... But I remember enough about it to say that I think based on that person's story, it's generally something that happens over a LONG period of time, like around a year, of consistently being WELL under the (net) calories you need.0 -
You're too much! :laugh: 2 pages of drama and controversy and nutritionally challenged bickering and all you walked away with was "wandering uterous":laugh: Wandering uterus....
I love it!:happy:
Well, it IS a VERY serious problem, you know! They even invented a tool just to combat the wandering uterus: A Vibrator! Of course, it could only be used under the close supervision of a qualified doctor. Dangerous tool, those Vibrators! Especially if they got into the wrong hands!
Look it up! I did not make up a word of this!
Oh, I know all about that. Those Victorians were dirty! :laugh:
I don't care about drama..."Wandering uterus" struck me because it's just so bizarre. I wish my uterus could wander. I'd send it out for beer.0 -
Whatever you call it, I find logic in the theory that if you don't eat enough calories, your metabolism will slow. My gosh I already have a hard of time losing weight and I want to be able to eat more food not less so I go with the eat a minimum number of calories for slow weight loss plan.
But that said, with any "do not..." rule comes the implied fine print that reads "unless under medical supervision." I am astounded that after the OP clarifies that she (are you a she?) is on an eating plan prescribed by her doctor someone then questions the qualifications of the doctor. What do you know about her or her doctor? Maybe she has a condition where it's either lose weight ASAP or die? Why should she have to defend herself or her doctor to anyone? She's clarified the situation as much as she wants to so lay off.0 -
I wish my uterus could wander. I'd send it out for beer.
I was drinking water when I read that.
My laptop screen is now very clean...... :laugh:
Thank you for that, I now have an extremely amusing mental image of a uterus getting carded for a six pack and trying to explain that it has no pockets and really does come from the body of a 29 year old woman.....
I clearly need more sleep.0 -
Just to throw in my 2 cents: the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen says "Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy" (read between the lines: a doctor knows better, as long as they are a legitimate doctor and not someone who bought their degree off the internet. So if in doubt, talk to your doctor)0
-
TY for clearing that up. There's a lot of people on here doing unhealthy things....(not pointing a finger at you), but I want to be sure that you are in the care of legitimate people.
Ok, so you have a legit medical issue...I *now* understand why you posted the things that you do which are causing a bit of controversy around here - - and very pleased that you're with real medical professionals. Now knowing this, I hope people will back off a bit. I apologize for coming down on you but so many people see quacks for real medical advice.
Obviously, what is good for YOU is not good for the rest of the populace, you're in the care of professionals & I'm impressed. Good luck with your weight loss!!
Agreed.
Sometimes there are good reasons for a medically supervised VLCD / LCD. It seems clinically a decision has been made that the benefits of a VLCD outweighs the costs. The costs are that which we associate with what is known as starvation mode / response: adaptive thermogensis, hormonal fluctuations leading to increased fat storage, food seeking behaviours when normally eating is resumed. Having said that 2 months is not a hugely long time (but it is pushing the envelope a bit!) so these factors may only be of minor affect in reality.
Is it appropriate for a small minority of people? Yes. Does that make it appropriate for the majority of people? No.0 -
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.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.
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.
The only thing I can say to the muscle and body eating itself thing is. Most of the time if you are in a stage where you are that much in starvation mode you are usually sedentary at that point and you need that much muscle. Lets face it if it is nice out like summer you will be out there huning for food. You could go fishing, find berries, even eat grass. If you are snowed in because of a blizzard and you can't go hunting and gathrering, why would you need those mucsle? Chances are you are going to be conserving energy, not working out. We are talking about extreme starvation at this point, not having anything to eat for days. Not the kind of starvation they are talking about for very low calorie dieting.
You are right ing in that it hits everyone at a differnt stage. An obese person is going to take longer to hit the mode than an average weighted person. Just like a thin person will hit it faster. I never said everyone will hit it at the same point.
The other thing is we are talking about prolonged starvation or very low calorie diets. It is not going to happen if you fast for a day, or if you are doing this for a set period of time.
A person who is anorexic is a perfect example. They starve themselves to lose weight. They literally shut down their metabolism and slow down other organs. When they get medical intervention even an IV therapy their body immediately starts to gain weight and store fat. They will have a harder time losing it again.
The problem with starvation mode isn't, "the lose weight of" or "not lose weight", it is the fact that it is not sustainable and when you start to eat normal your body will be confused and hold on to every morsel. If you live on 600 calories a day all the time your body gets used to it and with everything running in slow motion. The one time you eat 700 calories you body will store the additional 100 calories.
That is why people on VLC diets gain all the weight back and then some even when they return to eating a normal healthy diet.
I hope that explains it.
I think the term starvation is taken to the first exreme here and don't think anyone really means that extreme. I think they are talking about the very low calorie extreme and it is not healthy long term.
You are also under doctors care so that may not even apply to you for long term or short term. Maybe you have a metanolic condition that you just can't break down those extra calories. You didn't say why your doctor advised you to do that. I think that people who were giving you a hard time weren't giving in to the fact that you may be the exception to the rule. That being said, just because it works for you doesn't mean it is advisable to everyone else, who doesn't have an underlying medical conditon.
I love a nice healthy debate.
No hard feeling.
:flowerforyou: :drinker:0 -
a kind of off topic point,
It is logically incorrect to discredit an argument simply because of who wrote it. We can`t discredit the argument simply because the person that wrote it is a blogger.
Even the un-educaed and biased can have correct arguments. Simply beasue the person presenting the argument is not ascientific reference does not mean the argument is non-scientific.
That beign said, I didn`t bother to read the original article becaue it was too long and I am confortable and confident in my understanding of the arguemnt.0 -
beer? :noway:
You're too much! :laugh: 2 pages of drama and controversy and nutritionally challenged bickering and all you walked away with was "wandering uterous":laugh: Wandering uterus....
I love it!:happy:
Well, it IS a VERY serious problem, you know! They even invented a tool just to combat the wandering uterus: A Vibrator! Of course, it could only be used under the close supervision of a qualified doctor. Dangerous tool, those Vibrators! Especially if they got into the wrong hands!
Look it up! I did not make up a word of this!
Oh, I know all about that. Those Victorians were dirty! :laugh:
I don't care about drama..."Wandering uterus" struck me because it's just so bizarre. I wish my uterus could wander. I'd send it out for beer.
I'd be happy if it just went and took Aunt Flo with it
:drinker:0 -
It's so nice to know I'm not alone in my twisted sense of humorI wish my uterus could wander. I'd send it out for beer.
I was drinking water when I read that.
My laptop screen is now very clean...... :laugh:
Thank you for that, I now have an extremely amusing mental image of a uterus getting carded for a six pack and trying to explain that it has no pockets and really does come from the body of a 29 year old woman.....
I clearly need more sleep.
:blushing:0 -
I keep seeing people posting about how muscle burns more than fat. Can someone point me to a study that corroborates that? Because that doesn't make sense. 1g of fat is about 9 cal of energy. 1g of protein is 4 cal of energy. That means by burning fat, our body will have more than double the energy than burning muscle. The reason we burn muscle while in starvation mode, or whatever you want to call it, is because of essential amino acids. Essential amino acids only come from protein and muscle. If we are not getting the correct amount of protein through our diet, the body will turn to the only store of it in our bodies, our muscles.0
-
Those nutrients provide you with energy when you ingest them. What people are talking about is your metabolism. It takes more energy to USE muscle than it does for fat to just sit there on your body, inert. About 6-10 vs 2 calories for fat.
So if you lose 5 pounds of fat and gain 5 pounds of muscle, you will burn more calories per day (not a HUGE amount, but some).
http://www.longevityclubs.com/fat-vs-muscle.htm0 -
No. Scagnetti and the mick were talking about why our bodies burn muscle instead of fat while starving. I understand the burning calories while at rest, and yes, your math is right on for the inert calorie burn. To quote why I was asking in my previous post:
MICK: 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?
SCAGNETTI: 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.0 -
I dont mean to sound like an ahole.. but dont make a victim out of yourself.. Everyone has conflicting opinions, and them disagreeing with you doeasnt mean they hate you or whatever..
So yeah anyways, work them muscles, girl! to replace what you lose (in muscle) from your cal deficit.. and keep your body from munching on your muscles.. lol0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions