STARVATION MODE
colombiana444
Posts: 133 Member
so i have been in a plateau for a week and i was worried that maybe i was hitting this starvation that everyone talks about so i did some research and found this. Hope this help those that are unclear about starvation mode.
THIS IS THE ARTICLE I FOUND:
There are a number of nutritional myths running around out there on the web. Mythbusters is one of my favorite shows and misinformation annoys me, so I decided to do a series of articles on each myth examining what is and isn't true about it. (Plus stealing the Mythbusters title makes me feel like Kari Byron, or at least like I could be her mother.)
So let's start by examining the whole "starvation mode" idea that you see all the time in articles about dieting. I picked this one to start with because I'm now tracking my food on My Fitness Pal and the number of people there screaming "starvation mode" is about 10x higher than most of the other weight loss boards I go to. They annoy the heck out of me, so I want to "answer" them in a permanent way vs. just arguing with them over and over on the boards there.
So what is the Starvation Mode Myth? It goes like this:
"If you don't eat enough, you won't lose weight!"
Okay, so all I have to do to lose weight is ... eat more food! Wow, isn't that awesome? If I stall out at 800 calories, I'll just go up to 1000. And if I stall at 1000, I'll go to 1200. If that doesn't work, how about 1500? 1800? 2200? Oh wait, when I ate 2200 calories, I weighed 223 pounds. Okay, that's not going to work.
But what if I just don't go below the magic "1200" that "everyone" says "no one" should go below? That must be what they mean by "starvation mode," right? If I stay at 1200, I will lose weight but if I go below that, I won't.
The problem with this idea is that, if it were true, no one would die from starvation and obviously people do. Clearly, even if you eat what is obviously too few calories to be healthy, such as an anorexic does, you will continue to lose weight.
So where did this idea -- that not eating enough calories makes you not lose weight -- come from?
It started with the famous Minnesota starvation study. Some normal-weighted men agreed to live on a compound where their exercise and diet was strictly controlled. For portions of the study, they were on a "starvation diet" which is defined as 50% of the calories your body needs to function.
For me, these days, that's about 750-850 calories a day. So I was on a starvation diet up for the first four months after my surgery. Yet I lost weight just fine during that period -- better than fine, really. Most of the people on The Biggest Loser are also on starvation diets, from what I can tell. They may eat a lot more than I do but they also exercise strenuously 6-8 hours a day. So they are often below 50% of their calorie expenditure for the day. They seem to lose just fine too.
How can this be?!
The answer lies in what actually happened to the Minnesota guys when they were on their starvation diets.
Like most of us on a diet, their metabolisms did slow down. In fact, after they'd been on this diet for a while -- we're talking months, not days here -- their body fat percentage got to a point below what is considered minimal to live on (about 5% for a guy, 6% for a gal). At this point, their metabolism had slowed down as much as 40%. But -- and this is the important point for those of us on a diet -- they continued to lose weight. Even with that big of a slow down in their BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), they were still operating at a great enough calorie deficit to lose.
If this is true with a 40% slow down, it's even more true when the slow down is somewhere in the 14 - 22% range, which is more where if falls with normal dieting.
WARNING MATH CONTENT AHEAD:
Take an individual who needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain their current weight. Assuming calorie expenditure remains the same, they will lose (approximately) as follows:
Calories Expected
Loss
Per Week Actual Loss
2,000 0 pound 0 pound
1,500 1 pound 1 pound
1,000 2 pounds 2 pound
500 3 pounds 2¼ to 2½ pounds
As you can see from the table, once you go below a certain calorie level, you aren't getting the weight loss you'd expect. This is because your BMR will go down more if you eat only 500 calories compared to eating 1500. But, as you can see, you are still losing more than if you were eating 1000 calories.
This is a lot different than the "no" weight loss that the "starvation mode" myth touts.
The other important point to note about this study is that it was performed on normal-weighted men. When starvation studies have been done on the obese, they find that the impact of the starvation diet is much less. Our bodies have fat stores designed to get us through a famine (i.e., a diet) and when we have a famine (i.e., a diet), those fat stores get used. The drastic slowdown of the metabolism doesn't happen until those fat stores are largely gone -- which takes a lot longer for the obese than for those who only have to lose 10-25 pounds.
So why are we told not to go under 1200 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision?
Mostly because, the more you reduce your intake, the harder it is to get the nutritients you need from food. If you are on a very low calorie diet (as I am), you need to see your doctor(s) regularly, get labs done regularly, etc. Not to mention, vitamin supplementation is a must. Doing what I'm doing on your own can be dangerous, as you may not know or noticed the signs of a vitamin or mineral deficiency. Don't forget: some vitamin deficiencies can kill you!
Another reason not to go below a certain calorie expenditure is that human beings are not machines and, unlike the guys in the Minnesota study, we aren't living on a compound with our activity and food strictly controlled. As a result, when we reduce our calories substantially, there is a tendency to subconsciously (or even consciously) reduce our calorie expenditure. Combine this with our tendency to under-report what we eat and over-report our exercise, and you can see where we can get into trouble.
As an example, one Saturday I did a killer two hour workout. After which, I came home and took a three hour nap! Obviously my calorie expenditure that day was lower than if I hadn't taken the nap.
Now, I still lost weight that week. But if I was only eating 500 calories for months at time, I doubt I'd be able to have done that workout to begin with -- I'd still be doing the 30 min. low intensity workouts that I started with. Plus, I might also be taking naps a lot more than once in a while. Both of which would have impacted my weight loss because they would have decreased my calorie expenditure.
Eating more over time has allowed me to exercise more so that, as a result, my rate of weight loss hasn't gone down as much as it could have as my calories have gone up. Plus I'm happy because I'm fitter and healthier.
In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things.
HERE IS A LINK TO ANOTHER HELPFUL ARTICLE
http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
THIS IS THE ARTICLE I FOUND:
There are a number of nutritional myths running around out there on the web. Mythbusters is one of my favorite shows and misinformation annoys me, so I decided to do a series of articles on each myth examining what is and isn't true about it. (Plus stealing the Mythbusters title makes me feel like Kari Byron, or at least like I could be her mother.)
So let's start by examining the whole "starvation mode" idea that you see all the time in articles about dieting. I picked this one to start with because I'm now tracking my food on My Fitness Pal and the number of people there screaming "starvation mode" is about 10x higher than most of the other weight loss boards I go to. They annoy the heck out of me, so I want to "answer" them in a permanent way vs. just arguing with them over and over on the boards there.
So what is the Starvation Mode Myth? It goes like this:
"If you don't eat enough, you won't lose weight!"
Okay, so all I have to do to lose weight is ... eat more food! Wow, isn't that awesome? If I stall out at 800 calories, I'll just go up to 1000. And if I stall at 1000, I'll go to 1200. If that doesn't work, how about 1500? 1800? 2200? Oh wait, when I ate 2200 calories, I weighed 223 pounds. Okay, that's not going to work.
But what if I just don't go below the magic "1200" that "everyone" says "no one" should go below? That must be what they mean by "starvation mode," right? If I stay at 1200, I will lose weight but if I go below that, I won't.
The problem with this idea is that, if it were true, no one would die from starvation and obviously people do. Clearly, even if you eat what is obviously too few calories to be healthy, such as an anorexic does, you will continue to lose weight.
So where did this idea -- that not eating enough calories makes you not lose weight -- come from?
It started with the famous Minnesota starvation study. Some normal-weighted men agreed to live on a compound where their exercise and diet was strictly controlled. For portions of the study, they were on a "starvation diet" which is defined as 50% of the calories your body needs to function.
For me, these days, that's about 750-850 calories a day. So I was on a starvation diet up for the first four months after my surgery. Yet I lost weight just fine during that period -- better than fine, really. Most of the people on The Biggest Loser are also on starvation diets, from what I can tell. They may eat a lot more than I do but they also exercise strenuously 6-8 hours a day. So they are often below 50% of their calorie expenditure for the day. They seem to lose just fine too.
How can this be?!
The answer lies in what actually happened to the Minnesota guys when they were on their starvation diets.
Like most of us on a diet, their metabolisms did slow down. In fact, after they'd been on this diet for a while -- we're talking months, not days here -- their body fat percentage got to a point below what is considered minimal to live on (about 5% for a guy, 6% for a gal). At this point, their metabolism had slowed down as much as 40%. But -- and this is the important point for those of us on a diet -- they continued to lose weight. Even with that big of a slow down in their BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), they were still operating at a great enough calorie deficit to lose.
If this is true with a 40% slow down, it's even more true when the slow down is somewhere in the 14 - 22% range, which is more where if falls with normal dieting.
WARNING MATH CONTENT AHEAD:
Take an individual who needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain their current weight. Assuming calorie expenditure remains the same, they will lose (approximately) as follows:
Calories Expected
Loss
Per Week Actual Loss
2,000 0 pound 0 pound
1,500 1 pound 1 pound
1,000 2 pounds 2 pound
500 3 pounds 2¼ to 2½ pounds
As you can see from the table, once you go below a certain calorie level, you aren't getting the weight loss you'd expect. This is because your BMR will go down more if you eat only 500 calories compared to eating 1500. But, as you can see, you are still losing more than if you were eating 1000 calories.
This is a lot different than the "no" weight loss that the "starvation mode" myth touts.
The other important point to note about this study is that it was performed on normal-weighted men. When starvation studies have been done on the obese, they find that the impact of the starvation diet is much less. Our bodies have fat stores designed to get us through a famine (i.e., a diet) and when we have a famine (i.e., a diet), those fat stores get used. The drastic slowdown of the metabolism doesn't happen until those fat stores are largely gone -- which takes a lot longer for the obese than for those who only have to lose 10-25 pounds.
So why are we told not to go under 1200 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision?
Mostly because, the more you reduce your intake, the harder it is to get the nutritients you need from food. If you are on a very low calorie diet (as I am), you need to see your doctor(s) regularly, get labs done regularly, etc. Not to mention, vitamin supplementation is a must. Doing what I'm doing on your own can be dangerous, as you may not know or noticed the signs of a vitamin or mineral deficiency. Don't forget: some vitamin deficiencies can kill you!
Another reason not to go below a certain calorie expenditure is that human beings are not machines and, unlike the guys in the Minnesota study, we aren't living on a compound with our activity and food strictly controlled. As a result, when we reduce our calories substantially, there is a tendency to subconsciously (or even consciously) reduce our calorie expenditure. Combine this with our tendency to under-report what we eat and over-report our exercise, and you can see where we can get into trouble.
As an example, one Saturday I did a killer two hour workout. After which, I came home and took a three hour nap! Obviously my calorie expenditure that day was lower than if I hadn't taken the nap.
Now, I still lost weight that week. But if I was only eating 500 calories for months at time, I doubt I'd be able to have done that workout to begin with -- I'd still be doing the 30 min. low intensity workouts that I started with. Plus, I might also be taking naps a lot more than once in a while. Both of which would have impacted my weight loss because they would have decreased my calorie expenditure.
Eating more over time has allowed me to exercise more so that, as a result, my rate of weight loss hasn't gone down as much as it could have as my calories have gone up. Plus I'm happy because I'm fitter and healthier.
In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things.
HERE IS A LINK TO ANOTHER HELPFUL ARTICLE
http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
0
Replies
-
Thank you... A very balanced post.0
-
I really appreciate this post and the related article. I have been thinking that something was wrong with me. Istarted trying to lose weight about a year ago when I went to the doctor and weighed in at 248 lbs, he also told me my cholesterol levels were high for my bad and low for my good, I had a vitamin D deficiency and high blood pressure! In other words I was in bad shape!
I started by just adjusting my diet and he put me on high blood pressure medication. I slowly began to lose weight but it was a struggle. The beginning of february I was down to 228 and I kicked it in to high gear, I really began to monitor my diet and added an hour a day riding my stationary bike doing about 10-12 miles in that time.
A week or two in I joined MFP and began tracking my weight and calories to date I am down to 195 and continue to lose on average 4-7 pounds per week. More importantly I have a HUGE increase in energy and overall feel much better. I went to my doctor two weeks ago and got blood work done. My cholesterol levels are now in the green on both good and bad, he took me off my blood pressure medication and told me my vitamin D levels are good.
I am now doing the Jillian Micheal's thirty day shred every morning before work and ride my bike for an hour after work now average 20+ miles in the same time. I have been pretty active here and the whole "starvation mode" that everyone talked about made me nervous because with the combination of exercise and preparing my own meals I always have a very low net calorie level and I was concerned that I may be doing myself harm in the long run. However this article and speaking with my doctor on a regular basis has reinforced what I thought, as long as you don't experience a lack of energy or pain (bad pain not good "burn") while exercising you are not hurting yourself.
It is important to keep an eye on what you are eating to take in our calories; as stated to ensure you are getting sufficient levels of proteins, carbs and fats but it is possible to get these and still bring your calories down while maintaining a feeling of fullness. For me I have been able to accomplish this by substituting mashed cauliflower for potatoes, adding shirataki noodlesto my diet in place of rice and other pasta and eating more shellfish and poultry than red meat. I also use a lot of 'negative calorie" foods such as celery, lettuce, etc to bluk up my meals an make them more filling.
All in all, I think it is about finding what works for you and maintaining a "healthy for you" attitude.0 -
Wow, that's so interesting. Thanks for posting!0
-
I really appreciate this post and the related article. I have been thinking that something was wrong with me. Istarted trying to lose weight about a year ago when I went to the doctor and weighed in at 248 lbs, he also told me my cholesterol levels were high for my bad and low for my good, I had a vitamin D deficiency and high blood pressure! In other words I was in bad shape! I started by just adjusting my diet and he put me on high blood pressure medication. I slowly began to lose weight but it was a struggle. The beginning of february I was down to 228 and I kicked it in to high gear, I really began to monitor my diet and added an hour a day riding my stationary bike. I week or two in I joined MFP and began tracking my weight and calories to date I am down to 195 and continue to lose on average 4-7 pounds per week. More importantly I have a HUGE increase in energy and overall feel much better. I went to my doctor two weeks ago and got blood work done. My cholesterol levels are now in the green on both good and bad, he took me off my blood pressure medication and told me my vitamin D levels are good. I am now doing the Jillian Micheals
That's amazing! good for you! nothing like being back in control of your health
best wishes 0 -
Thanks so much for posting that, I have often thought that this "Starvation Mode" stuff can't be quite as straightforward as a lot of posters on here seem to think!!0
-
Thank you, my common sense was fighting the "starvation mode - eat your calories" suggestions. This article put the issue at rest for me. Our bodies are amazing and they want to be healthy.0
-
Bump! Read for later 0
-
Glad this has helped others as much as it helped me 0
-
I just wanted to add that "starvation mode" and "plateaus" are not phenomena that we see after just one week. Just because you didn't lose weight in 7 days doesn't mean that you are necessarily on a plateau. Most of the time this occurs when weight is stable for multiple weeks or even months. Same for "starvation mode." You don't all of a sudden destroy your metabolism in just a week, even if you severely undereat everyday that week. It takes a much longer time period than that.0
-
I just wanted to add that "starvation mode" and "plateaus" are not phenomena that we see after just one week. Just because you didn't lose weight in 7 days doesn't mean that you are necessarily on a plateau. Most of the time this occurs when weight is stable for multiple weeks or even months. Same for "starvation mode." You don't all of a sudden destroy your metabolism in just a week, even if you severely undereat everyday that week. It takes a much longer time period than that.
yup, and after reading so many post about starvation mode here, a lot of users really believe that it is something that can happen in a few days.
I have actually been the same weight for a year... but i started my training regimen again 1 week ago... i guess i got too excited to see change so soon, but thanks for your input I just think it is important for everyone to have the right tools and sources to better understand nutrition, exercise and overall well-being. 0 -
bumped so I can read later and good to see some old fashioned sense0
-
I just wanted to add that "starvation mode" and "plateaus" are not phenomena that we see after just one week. Just because you didn't lose weight in 7 days doesn't mean that you are necessarily on a plateau. Most of the time this occurs when weight is stable for multiple weeks or even months. Same for "starvation mode." You don't all of a sudden destroy your metabolism in just a week, even if you severely undereat everyday that week. It takes a much longer time period than that.
I agree with this. One week is not always long enough to know whether you have lost body fat. Water retention, muscle glycogen, and/or more food in the digestive system can change my weight 7-8 lbs from one day to the next.
Also agree the metabolic slowdown happens over time, gradually.0 -
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this post. 0
-
adding to my topics for reading later....
Thanks!0 -
I love this post, though I am sure that we will see some posters disputing it. And some will have well reasoned responses. Which just adds to my confusion.
I had never heard of starvation mode before I joined MFP. For the last couple of days, it has really gotten into my head and I had just about convinced myself that that's where I was.
I started 30 days ago and for 3 1/2 weeks was losing almost a pound a day. Suddenly it stopped and I haven't lost a thing for about 4 days now. In fact today, the scale went up 1/2 pound. My intake is usually 1200-1500 and net is about 600-1000 calories. Bear in mind that I am a big guy with high body fat. I thought the easy target (belly fat) would continue to burn fast and I wouldn't plateau until much later. Maybe it's naive, but with that kind of results for over 3 weeks, then coming up on a week with no results at all, I was really looking for the answer.
Until I read this post, I was about to start eating some of those calories back, just to see if I could start things rolling again. I tend to agree with the post, but I remain a bit confused about it all.0 -
me too! Thanks for posting!:flowerforyou:LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this post.0 -
I love this post, though I am sure that we will see some posters disputing it. And some will have well reasoned responses. Which just adds to my confusion.
I had never heard of starvation mode before I joined MFP. For the last couple of days, it has really gotten into my head and I had just about convinced myself that that's where I was.
I started 30 days ago and for 3 1/2 weeks was losing almost a pound a day. Suddenly it stopped and I haven't lost a thing for about 4 days now. In fact today, the scale went up 1/2 pound. My intake is usually 1200-1500 and net is about 600-1000 calories. Bear in mind that I am a big guy with high body fat. I thought the easy target (belly fat) would continue to burn fast and I wouldn't plateau until much later. Maybe it's naive, but with that kind of results for over 3 weeks, then coming up on a week with no results at all, I was really looking for the answer.
Until I read this post, I was about to start eating some of those calories back, just to see if I could start things rolling again. I tend to agree with the post, but I remain a bit confused about it all.
You do seem very confused! So many issues with your post.
-You can`t target your gut for weight loss, you body will chose whatever fat it wants.
-4 days isn`t a significant amount of time to worry about not seeing results.
-o.5lbs incease is normal daily fluctuation
-1200 to 1500 calories is not enough for a big guy, eat more and eat healthy
-re-read the article, it actually tells you to eat more.
The problem with this debate is a probelm called stasis, where either side of the argument are not arguing about the same thing. It is important to define the parameters of what starvation mode is before we can debate it. 1stly nobody claims starvation mode will make you stop losing weight .Often you see a STARVATION MODE MYTH article say, its not true that starvation makes you stop losign weight, we know that, lets not debate it.
As stated in the article starvation mode reduces your metabolism, and we don`t want that, think hungry african children = not healthy. Our goal is to be fit, healthy and live long, you have to eat enough to operate your body properly to acheive those goals.
Another probelm with starvation mode is that you will lose muscle mass along with fat. we want to loose weight in the form of fat, not muscle. You need muscle to stay lean once you reach you target weight.
KKellam1: I don`t know your specifics, but I have a feeling you should target to eat 2200 to 2500 calories (if you exercise 4-5 times a week)0 -
doublies0
-
So what is the Starvation Mode Myth? It goes like this:
"If you don't eat enough, you won't lose weight!"
see the problem here. This isn't what people claim starvation mode is.
but he conclusion of the article is very sensible re-read it below if you didn't catch it the frst time
Eating more over time has allowed me to exercise more so that, as a result, my rate of weight loss hasn't gone down as much as it could have as my calories have gone up. Plus I'm happy because I'm fitter and healthier.
In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things.0 -
The sad thing is that for every good post on the mythological "starvation mode", there are 10 others where people are swearing they are gaining weight on an 800 calories per day diet. Thank you for posting.
Also, next time could you post links to the article and study if you found them?0 -
So what is the Starvation Mode Myth? It goes like this:
"If you don't eat enough, you won't lose weight!"
see the problem here. This isn't what people claim starvation mode is.
but he conclusion of the article is very sensible re-read it below if you didn't catch it the frst time
Eating more over time has allowed me to exercise more so that, as a result, my rate of weight loss hasn't gone down as much as it could have as my calories have gone up. Plus I'm happy because I'm fitter and healthier.
In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things.
Nicely put. I for one enjoy getting my metabolism up and running strong. I am not a big guy. Small boned and 5' 6". At a minimum i need to eat 1,500 and 1,600 calories 6 days a week and one day a week at 2,200 to 2,400 calories before exercise and still am losing at a solid rapid pace. I do eat back all exercise calories plus some occasionally.
When I hit maintenance I will be able to enjoy a 2,400 calories day before exercise and maintain quite easily. I can't imagine driving my metabolism down so low I have to basically eat a restricted diet just to maintain.
I finally got my wife to understand this and she now also eats the exact same as me and is now averaging a 1 to 1.5 pound loss weekly.0 -
Great post! Definately makes sense!0
-
It is a great post, and it makes sense, but can i get one thing straight?
When i first started using MFP, it suggested a calorie goal of 1200. I stuck to a NET calorie goal of 1200 (i cycle a lot so made sure i always got back up to 1200) and for 2 weeks my weight didn’t budge. I then, after reading all the articles about starvation mode, upped my calorie goal to 1400, just to make sure i wasn't going under. Since then i have lost weight, but obviously this may not be down to me upping my calories.
So what i want to know is, from reading your article, there is more chance of me losing weight if i put my calorie goal back down to a NET of 1200, and as long as i stick to 1200 i should, in theory, lose more weight than having a goal of 1400.
I appreciate everybody is different, but from what you say, the chances of going into so called starvation mode are unlikely.
Hope that makes sense.0 -
LOVE this post! Thank you for the information! :flowerforyou:0
-
So what i want to know is, from reading your article, there is more chance of me losing weight if i put my calorie goal back down to a NET of 1200, and as long as i stick to 1200 i should, in theory, lose more weight than having a goal of 1400.
well you risk being mal-nurished and slowing down your metabolism. Then if say you have an off day and eat 1800 calories with a slower metabolism you risk storing more as fat.
In therory, yes the less you eat the more you lose. You could also go on a 800 calorie diet and lose even more weight. 500 would be even better. see the problem here.
Your objectives have to be more complexe than reducing the number on your scale. Things you should strive for:
-Health
-Beign fit
-Fat loss
-Eating healthy
you can`t do all that by eating an highly reduced caloric diet.
If your goals are:
-loss weight even if it is muscle
-be mal-nurished and un-healthy
-have low energy
then a low calorie diet is perfect for you.0 -
Obviously I need to ensure that my net calories get to 1200 every day, but the whole reason i upped them to 1400 is because of all the talk of starvation mode, but if i know i can drop them back down to 1200 and not have to worry about not eating enough then this is good news.
I usually burn around 900 a day and most days i do struggle getting back up to 1400 net. I will try 1200 for a while and see how it goes.
Thanks for the reply.0 -
Great post! Thanks for sharing 0
-
Guys, this post has be circulating around the internet for a LOOOOONG time. And it's been on MFP plenty of times before. There's no need to re-hash this, just do an MFP search on starvation mode and you'll find so many posts that you'll be overwhelmed, no need to add another re-hash of the same topic.
FYI, the reporter who wrote this, at least half of his claims are either wrong, or he took facts out of context, especially regarding the Minnesota study, I have read that study, almost none of his claims are accurate to the study's reports. PM me if you have specific questions about the article, but I don't wanna go over it on here again and prolong yet another starvation mode battle.0 -
I think this is THE KEY point of this whole thing:
"In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things."0 -
Your objectives have to be more complexe than reducing the number on your scale. Things you should strive for:
-Health
-Beign fit
-Fat loss
-Eating healthy
you can`t do all that by eating an highly reduced caloric diet.
If your goals are:
-loss weight even if it is muscle
-be mal-nurished and un-healthy
-have low energy
then a low calorie diet is perfect for you.
Exactly. That article is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever read. It just gets thrown around as justification for people who think eating 1000 calories a day or less is a great way to loose weight. I think the Geneva Convention demands more than that as a minimum for POWs and people on here are acting like it's a diet tactic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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