Don't believe in "Starvation Mode"?

dartany

Umm fat never turns into muscle. I wasn't trying to imply that Biggest loser was a healthy way to lose weight. Just that it disproves the theory that you need to eat the calories you lost during exercise so you don't go into starvation mode. However, just like there are people who gained the weight back, there are people who didn't. There are a millions ways to loose weight quickly and still be healthy.....WE don't all have to limit ourselves to 1 or 2lbs a week just to sustain weightloss.

Last comment on this subject...We can discuss this topic without end concerning "starvation mode" and whether or not you should eat the calories you expend during exercise. My final example is the tv show the Biggest Loser. These contestants are usually obese. They work out almost 8 hours a day and still remain on a diet. They don't eat back the calories they expend and thus produce a huge deficit which results in huge weekly weight loss totals.

The Biggest Loser isn't an example of healthy sustainable weight loss. It's a game show with a large cash prize. Those folks are focused on dropping as much weight as fast as possible, long term side effects be damned. They are medically monitored everyday because what they are doing is extremely radical and can have it's own health consequences. Many of them have gained the weight back after the show was done. It is not the shining example of how to be healthy.

For your average person who is trying to get in shape and stay that way, a more moderate approach is going to result in sustainable weight loss, and long term maintenance. Fueling your work outs results in a shift in body composition from fat to muscle, and eventually long term loss.
[/quote]

fteale

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

Russellb97

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

No saying this is true, but maybe the mice live longer because their metabolism is slower. There whole body is moving at a slower pace.

Think about it though, I know that is mice but if there wasn't a starvation mode they would at some point having nothing left to burn. If I had a 1,000 calorie a day deficit for 10 years I should lose 1,042 pounds if my math is right, if my body didn't slow metabolism.

Honestly I don't want to live to be 140 anyway. I do however have about a large deficit in my diet 5 days a week and 2 days a surplus to lose a pound a week.

Silvergamma

Umm fat never turns into muscle. I wasn't trying to imply that Biggest loser was a healthy way to lose weight. Just that it disproves the theory that you need to eat the calories you lost during exercise so you don't go into starvation mode. However, just like there are people who gained the weight back, there are people who didn't. There are a millions ways to loose weight quickly and still be healthy.....WE don't all have to limit ourselves to 1 or 2lbs a week just to sustain weightloss.

Sorry didn't mean that to come across that the fat is literally turning into muscle. What I was saying is that getting in shape involves both lowering your body fat percent while building muscle and endurance. In order to sustain the muscle and endurance building, a body needs outside sources of energy and nutrients.

Everyone is free to set their goals based on what they are comfortable with personally. I still maintain that "Biggest Loser" is a poor example for healthy weight loss and maintenance.

Silvergamma

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

Are you referring to this study?

http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47

janesmith1

This is a great subject - ty OP.

I do not think anyone here should go under the 1200 cal range - that would be starvation! In fact, I have found what works for me is to stay around 1400 a day...at first I did eat back all my exercise cals & I wasn't losing, so I lowered my MFP thing to 1.5 lbs per week, it gives me 1350 cals a day, plus I exercise, I eat anywhere between 1250 + up to even including 1800 or even 2000 at times and I am losing weight. I do try to stay in the 1400 a day & lower (to 1200 range) but I can't always, and it does work. I wo 4x per week.

Just want to add, find out the cal range that works for you, don't go under 1200.....seek & you shall find!

grandmatbigsky

I appreciate you posting this, as I see alot of faces on MFP that cetrainly aren't 18+ yet, and a whole lot of fear of fat driving a willingness to sacrifice long-term health for short-term acceptance. Starvation mode is'nt pretty on any age..young OR old... Balance is key...eating AND exercising moderately.

spaboleo

Just my 2 Cents...

Starvation Mode is real...I exercised a lot (burned about 3500kcal/week) and fasted on 3 days each week. That bad lifestylte got my calorie intake down to about only 700kcal every day (if I average the weekly intake). And even though I wasn't loosing weight...instead I was gaining.

Everytime I eated a little bit more my body tried to store as much of it as possible "for the bad times".

I think the alternation by fasting every other day even intesed that effect.


Now that I stick to my 1200kcal/day diet (as suggested by MFP) and eat the exercise calories back (only so many that I am not hungry) I am again losing weight and gaining muscle. Slowly, but steadily and healthy!

fteale

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

Are you referring to this study?

http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47

I was actually referring to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6617113.stm

cloud2011

Years ago in WW, I always heard that if you are plateauing for too long, you should go ahead and eat a cheeseburger. Basically, they were saying eat a little more one day, something with protein. Consistency is sometimes problematic, if you become bored, or if your body just becomes used to the same caloric intake or same workout day after day.

I have heard someone (can't remember where, read it online) recommend that if you're trying to lose, one alternative is to eat for several days at the lower end of your required calories, then bump it up for a few days, then switch back. To me, this makes sense.

Thanks for posting this information. I think it's going to be very helpful to keep in mind.

nyctraveler

Bump

janesmith1

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

Are you referring to this study?

http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47

I was actually referring to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6617113.stm

@fteale - you posted "1000" cals a day leads to better health (which is absurd, and not true) then you linked to a BBC article about 1 guy who eats "On an average day, I eat 1,800 calories." Which is it? The 1800 cals a day thing is FINE btw, but you gave misleading info. 1000 cals a day will put way too much strain on your body.

morawski4

Hello,

any advice is greatly appreciated...

Can anyone out there help me to understand this whole "eating enough" business? I know I am only on the beginning steps of my journey, and a lot older than I was the last time I kicked it into high gear, but I have to say I am getting frustrated! Although I am still consuming 1200-1500 calories a day, I have cut out nearly that amount from my prior "diet". I was incredibly unhealthy; consuming nearly a case of sodas a day! I know...scary right?!?! I don't know how I got so out of control...just my only vice, I guess; and I totally believe that soda drinks are addictive, but my increasing weight, and a wake up call from both my MD and my dentist inspired me to quit cold turkey! So, perhaps it was wishful thinking, but I just assumed that cutting out a whole daily vaue of calories, and probably a week's worth of sugar a day that I would see results rather quickly. Now, I knew that things would level off, but I guess I had hoped for a pretty big drop in the beginning. So here's my question, and I know few of you are registered to make any medical diagnoses, or give advice on that level, but was hoping some of you may have learned ( trough experience, or education) why I may be experiencing this phenomenon. Is my body essentially in starvation/storage mode since I have reduced caloric intake so dratically, or am I just not yet consuming few enough calories for my body to burn as least what I eat and more? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer....

How long have you been at this?

morawski4

about 3 weeks

SHBoss1673

about 3 weeks

would need a lot more information that this to make any kind of guess. Firstly, height and weight, activity level, exercises you are doing, access to your food diary, any medical conditions, job type, weekly goal, long term goal.

Anything else you think might be important to know. Without at least these basic tid bits, we are in the dark and can't really help you.

meggonkgonk

I wasn't trying to imply that Biggest loser was a healthy way to lose weight. Just that it disproves the theory that you need to eat the calories you lost during exercise so you don't go into starvation mode. However, just like there are people who gained the weight back, there are people who didn't. There are a millions ways to loose weight quickly and still be healthy.....WE don't all have to limit ourselves to 1 or 2lbs a week just to sustain weightloss.

Biggest Loser doesn't disprove anything we've been saying though. It's been stated several times that people with a higher body fat % can afford to run a higher deficit without risking starvation mode- in part because their bodies are comfortable with using their excess fat stores to fuel their bodies in place of incoming calories. People on the Biggest loser fall in this category and so can run much more severe deficits before their bodies resist.

If you go back and look at the OP, he posted a list of commalities among people who complained about plateaus. These were:

These people are always close to their goal weight. They always work out an insane amount, usually large amounts of cardio. They NEVER go over their calorie goal and are usually under it. They rarely eat back their calories. They eat a really balanced diet and rarely break from their diet. They lost a lot of weight right off the bat, but now they just DON'T understand why they haven't lost any weight for a month. Most of the time, these are people who have set their goals to lose 2 pounds per week at 180 pounds or have 800+ calorie deficeits on average.

So starvation mode is much more common among people close to their weight loss goals who do not consider undereating a a possible danger or road block to their goals. TBL contestants, regardless of their results, are actually pretty superfluous in this discussion without much more information about their loss and progress.

In the meantime, I would LOVE a list of the "millions" of ways to lose weight quickly and still be healthy-- I've been here 7 month and I haven't seen a single one. As Banks(Boss) pointed out, in cases where very overweight people lose a lot (like TBL), most often they already have health problems and the benefits of quick loss outweigh the risks they are running. It's like taking a medication with side-effects-- it may not be perfect/without detriment, but the pain suffered is better than the potential pain otherwise.

Losing 1-2 lbs a week isn't about "limiting" you; it's about respecting your body and not starving or further abusing it in order to reach an arbitrary ideal. If you want to misuse the MFP tool, or use quick loss solutions, no one is stopping you. But don't come on the boards telling people that this effect doesn't happen - the whole point of this post in particular was to point out the many cases where it does happen.

Silvergamma

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

Are you referring to this study?

http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47

I was actually referring to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6617113.stm

@fteale - you posted "1000" cals a day leads to better health (which is absurd, and not true) then you linked to a BBC article about 1 guy who eats "On an average day, I eat 1,800 calories." Which is it? The 1800 cals a day thing is FINE btw, but you gave misleading info. 1000 cals a day will put way too much strain on your body.

The mice study is fascinating, but the researchers in that one are not sure about applicability to humans (which is why they started testing with primates). I'd actually recommend the mouse study paper to anyone interested in calorie intake and health.

The BBC article was more of a testimonial about the one man's experience. He is actually rocking a similar diet to most of the folks on here. The story didn't look at his exercise routine or activity level, but did talk about how he cleaned up his eating habits as related to his heart health (which is what got me interested in MFP, so I can relate on that level). Calorie restriction in the lab studies, is drastically different from what he was referring to. As Jane pointed out, he was still eating approximately 1,800 cal/day as a 150 pound man. That's not in the same ballpark as long term underfeeding.

janesmith1

@morawski - if you get back to this thread - please make a new thread regarding your specific issue so that you can get a range of opinions, not just 1 or 2 people here who are paying attention, I think you may need more opinions. I'd love to see what other people say. Just briefly looking at your diary, it looks good but...and this is JMHO, but you have a lot of processed foods in it...which I would clean up by making low fat foods ahead of time and eating them throughout the week. Of course there's the "twinkie diet" which actually worked, made the professor of nutrition healthier, etc, but it's just my opinion about the "clean" diet thing. However, possibly to get a bigger range of opinions making a new thread in this forum/category might help get more answers.

ebgbjo

Haven't read all of the posts yet, but have a feeling it is all the same as the previous threads on this same topic. I don't eat all of my exercise calories back, or many at all. I have to have an an extra 500 deficit besides what I burn through exercise because of being hypothyroid. I didn't start losing weight until I made sure that I was making my deficit more than what most sites suggested. It was recommended to me by my doctor to figure out my calories needed for each day- which we did together, then subtract 500 from that, even before figuring out what I need to burn through exercise.

morawski4

it is it's own thread....only got a few replies...since this one was jumping, and related, I figured it was worth a shot....

shaunshaikh

Bump to add this thread to the list:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/204228-weight-just-isn-t-going-down?page=1#posts-2695856

Monica_in_MO

bump

lfclancy

BUMP

mrsjcmyles

bump

baisleac

bump

cath1024

bump for later

lodro

Has it been addressed anywhere else in this thread that eating a severely calorie restricted (1000 cals a day) but nutrient rich diet slows the ageing process and mice put on this type of diet live twice as long as normally fed mice? There are a fair few humans doing it to extend their life span.

I am eating this way: for me, calorie restriction is not about weight loss, and in my case, my metabolism adapting to the low caloric intake is actually a good thing! I want that adaptation to happen, because otherwise eating around 1000 Calories a day would be impossible. Because of the care I take over nutrition it's not as if "my body is eating itself", or my muscle is "wasting away". But actually, everyone who is losing weight will lose both fat and muscle tissue.

I can assure people though that if you're constantly in deficit you will continue to lose weight albeit at a decreasing rate. For most people, 1000 Calories will be between 50% - 60% of their daily energy expenditure, unless they work out a lot, then of course it may be 25% and that's clearly unsustainable.

My exercise consists of long distance walking, for which i train daily, and of periods in the field when I do much heavy physical work to maintain a base camp.

Kjarlune

I disagree...

a plateau is not enough water.....Drink more of it..If your liver is working at optimum you cannot plateau... I understand every person you have shown has plateaued I also understand that I have in the past... but I plateaued eating almost 2000 calories....The moment, I mean moment I upped my water weight loss every time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just my opinion.

YeaILift

I disagree...

a plateau is not enough water.....Drink more of it..If your liver is working at optimum you cannot plateau... I understand every person you have shown has plateaued I also understand that I have in the past... but I plateaued eating almost 2000 calories....The moment, I mean moment I upped my water weight loss every time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just my opinion.

When you eat in a hypocaloric state, T3 hormone production is slowed, lowering your BMR. It has nothing to do with water. It's about the amount of hormones that your body produces in a hypocaloric state vs hypercaloric state.

LYNNPETTY93

I believe in starvation mode...