the myth, starvation mode, and dont eat before bed.
Replies
-
Bump0
-
Bump0
-
probably the most incorrect post ive ever seen on this site, LOL
your heart seems to be in the right place, but THIS IS THE WORST ADVICE
DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS POST PEOPLE!!
starvation mood DOES exist if you are eating less then 1200 cal for women or 1500 cal for men your body will store its body fat because it thinks theres a famine taking place. you need enough calories to function daily. get exercise instead of eating less way better for you!!!
breakfast IS important! fires up the metabolism and gives you the fuel you need to start your day. starving yourself until lunch will cause you to over indulge and possibly make poor food choices
DO NOT eat a big meal before bed if youre trying to lose weight. best time to be hungry is when your asleep. plus your bod will go burn fat if theres nothing in your stomach for it to burn
basically do the exact opposite of what this post says and you should be on the right track
To each his own.....This is his observation. Some people think the zig zag diet is wrong but oh well I do it anyways, WHY? because it works for me!0 -
WHere did i say... "lower caloric levels don't decrease muscle mass???"
You said:1. Starvation mode .... The theory is, if you don't eat enough calories, your metabolism will slow down,
Which you claim is a myth.
And then said:Does it make sense that when you're hungry, get rid of the most essential part of your body muscle mass??? NO. It does its best to preserve it when you're hungry.That seems to be a pretty clear statement that you believe that extreme calorie restriction will not decrease muscle mass.
I didn't say "use severe calorie restriction." I do understand what you're saying, I didn't want to get all techy with it, I know I got a tendency to type a lot. What I said is a paradox, 2 things that seem in conflict which are actually complementary.
I said "it does its BEST" to preserve it. Yes if you eat low calories for a long time, IT WILL reduce muscle mass. The theory is "your body stores fat because you're on low calories" that's IS A MYTH... the fact is, "you lose muscle mass which in turn slows down your metabolism.Does it make sense that when you're hungry, get rid of the most essential part of your body muscle mass??? NO. It does its best to preserve it when you're hungry.
This is what I DO... I eat low calories 2 times a day, about 1,500 calories a day, my maintained calories is 3,500. Mostly protein, the reason is because, as I said being hungry increases Growth hormone, and IGF-1, which preserves muscle and burns fat. Then on day 3, I let loose eat a ton of carbs, with protein, to prevent the loss of muscle mass, underrating preserves the muscle mass, IT WONT WORK if you go too long with under eating. Like i said at first, "don't listen to anyone, try it yourself, then judge" 13lbs of weight loss in 2 weeks with this method... speaks for itself. In one meal today i ate about 3000 calories. This is what I have been doing, and have been great results. You can't argue with results.
What you're doing is a form of calorie cycling or "zigzagging" - which works on the idea of an average intake rather than daily, meaning your average intake over the week still stays within the deficit range of what your body is comfortable with, without decreasing RMR too much or losing too much lean mass.
However, your loss so far is almost certainly largely water weight, as with anyone starting new eating habits. It's normal and expected to lose large amounts of water weight in the first couple of weeks.
Starvation mode is very much dependent on the levels of fat stores, exact level of intake and exact energy expenditure. Most people with large amounts of fat stores are not in danger of entering starvation mode to any significant degree. So it doesn't really apply to you...at this point. When you get closer to a healthy body fat %, it will become much more relevant to you.0 -
I've been following a member's blog on here. She eats aprox 800 calories a day and works out to what she says is 700 calories burned. She then finds she has not lost any weight and wonders why. I consider her to be a perfect role model for what starvation mode really does.
I'll pass and continue eating.
See it literally dozens of times a day. Classsssic.0 -
I've been following a member's blog on here. She eats aprox 800 calories a day and works out to what she says is 700 calories burned. She then finds she has not lost any weight and wonders why. I consider her to be a perfect role model for what starvation mode really does.
I'll pass and continue eating.
See it literally dozens of times a day. Classsssic.
so wouldn't that put her at just 100 calories a day? That can't be good at all.0 -
Okay, obviously some people aren't reading this very carefully. Low caloric intake "OVER TIME" does decreasing muscle mass, never said It didn't. About the "studies" i am not going to go and paste the studies of over 14yrs of experience. Why do you need scientific studies to tell you something. For example, If you eat a lot, do you get tired of energized??? if a scientific study says "it energizes the body" are you going to believe it? Does it make sense being hungry is stress? Does it make sense that your body recuperates and repairs itself at night? DOes it make sense that, when you're hungry your body isn't processing food and you have more energy??? I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
Don't worry, I read it very carefully.
And if you want experience, I know that I was in starvation mode for quite a while.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/175241-a-personal-view-on-exercise-cals-and-underfeeding
I experienced it. So...does that mean you believe in it now? Since I've given you a personal experience? I'm guessing not. The point being, we're talking about biology, anatomy, chemical/hormonal reactions and science. It's hardly unreasonable to be interested in direct evidence that shows that what you're claiming is backed up by science.
BTW, I'll agree that there's nothing wrong with eating at night. Though I would disagree with taking in the majority of your calories at night. I suppose IF (intermittent fasting) does work for some people, it is not sustainable for the vast majority.
okay, I read your post. In the post you said, "intake of around 1000-1200 for about 5 years. My BMR is about 1500, and maintenance cals at sedentary are about 2000. So I should have been losing weight, right?"
How do you know that was you BMR, by a chart? I have used the bodybugg in the past, it's a device you wear that tells you how many calories you burn throughout the day, with a 90% accuracy. Those charts where dead wrong. They are based on body weight, height, activity level, age. A real BMR is based on muscle mass. It's very possible you're bmr calculations where wrong.
Another issue you talked about carb loading, you knew you where eating too much carbs. That can have been the issue why you couldn't reduce body fat any farther.
I do agree that if you do have a restrictive caloric diet, you will lose muscle mass. I never said "go on a low restrictive diet" I eat my caloric needs, but I do them in a cycle, as I mentioned already. I guess i was too vague when i posted it. I am curious what you did to combat your issue. You said you're losing weight now, so tell me how you did it. I am curious.0 -
I've been following a member's blog on here. She eats aprox 800 calories a day and works out to what she says is 700 calories burned. She then finds she has not lost any weight and wonders why. I consider her to be a perfect role model for what starvation mode really does.
I'll pass and continue eating.
See it literally dozens of times a day. Classsssic.
so wouldn't that put her at just 100 calories a day? That can't be good at all.
Actually no, probably a negative net. Because that doesn't account for just the basics: BMR and activity level, aside from exercise. However, if she's doing it for any length of time, her BMR has likely decreased dramatically. And her activity level is probably fairly low (due to not having enough energy to do much.) But at any rate, yes, still a very unhealthy scenario.0 -
probably the most incorrect post ive ever seen on this site, LOL
your heart seems to be in the right place, but THIS IS THE WORST ADVICE
DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS POST PEOPLE!!
starvation mood DOES exist if you are eating less then 1200 cal for women or 1500 cal for men your body will store its body fat because it thinks theres a famine taking place. you need enough calories to function daily. get exercise instead of eating less way better for you!!!
breakfast IS important! fires up the metabolism and gives you the fuel you need to start your day. starving yourself until lunch will cause you to over indulge and possibly make poor food choices
DO NOT eat a big meal before bed if youre trying to lose weight. best time to be hungry is when your asleep. plus your bod will go burn fat if theres nothing in your stomach for it to burn
basically do the exact opposite of what this post says and you should be on the right track
Starvation mode is 1200 calories. Okay so a 100lbs woman who eats 1200 calories is going to be in starvation mode? dead wrong. SO your advice is to eat breakfast, Dead wrong. You get your energy from your food, so when you get it from fat? You're burning the calories you ate, not your fat. It's best to not eat before bead, dead wrong. Your body is recovering itself, if it has no food to recover with, you're going to feel like crap the next day. Where does the energy come from to repair your body? fat doesn't turn in to protein, you'll lose muscle mass.0 -
I also think its important to understand how your own body works and also the differences between men and women.
I agree I don't think any of us are starving!
I know that if I eat a big breakfast in the morning I am starving for the rest of the day. If I eat a big meal at night - I don't feel hungry in the morning!!
Part of this journey is understanding our own bodies and what works for one doesn't necessarily work for someone else!
VLCD are now being encouraged by some GP's in the UK to reduce weight - as they are seen as less life threatening than being morbidly obese (these diets are closely monitored.) I know two people that have had to go on one of these diets and both have lost significant weight and then put on muscle mass (after they lost the weight they slowly increased both calorie intake and exercise! Yet in theory they have been in starvation mode. The issue I think there is with this approach is actually it doesn't teach you how to eat healthily and thats why we put the weight back on.
I do think there is this condition but I think it takes a while before it kicks in.
Interesting debate as ever!
Yes I agree with you. It's all about learning what is best for you.0 -
However, your loss so far is almost certainly largely water weight, as with anyone starting new eating habits. It's normal and expected to lose large amounts of water weight in the first couple of weeks.
Starvation mode is very much dependent on the levels of fat stores, exact level of intake and exact energy expenditure. Most people with large amounts of fat stores are not in danger of entering starvation mode to any significant degree. So it doesn't really apply to you...at this point. When you get closer to a healthy body fat %, it will become much more relevant to you.
I have been at 12% bodyfat when I was in to body building a while back. This water weight thing. Is also a myth. Water weight theory is based on glycogen reserves in the human body, if you don't eat enough carbs which can very easily happen on a reduce caloric diet, they turn flat, the glycogen goes away. My carbs are up, so it's not water weight.0 -
Okay, obviously some people aren't reading this very carefully. Low caloric intake "OVER TIME" does decreasing muscle mass, never said It didn't. About the "studies" i am not going to go and paste the studies of over 14yrs of experience. Why do you need scientific studies to tell you something. For example, If you eat a lot, do you get tired of energized??? if a scientific study says "it energizes the body" are you going to believe it? Does it make sense being hungry is stress? Does it make sense that your body recuperates and repairs itself at night? DOes it make sense that, when you're hungry your body isn't processing food and you have more energy??? I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
Don't worry, I read it very carefully. And if you want experience, I know that I was in starvation mode for quite a while.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/175241-a-personal-view-on-exercise-cals-and-underfeeding
I experienced it. So...does that mean you believe in it now? Since I've given you a personal experience? I'm guessing not. The point being, we're talking about biology, anatomy, chemical/hormonal reactions and science. It's hardly unreasonable to be interested in direct evidence that shows that what you're claiming is backed up by science.
BTW, I'll agree that there's nothing wrong with eating at night. Though I would disagree with taking in the majority of your calories at night. I suppose IF (intermittent fasting) does work for some people, it is not sustainable for the vast majority.
okay, I read your post. In the post you said, "intake of around 1000-1200 for about 5 years. My BMR is about 1500, and maintenance cals at sedentary are about 2000. So I should have been losing weight, right?"
How do you know that was you BMR, by a chart? I have used the bodybugg in the past, it's a device you wear that tells you how many calories you burn throughout the day, with a 90% accuracy. Those charts where dead wrong. They are based on body weight, height, activity level, age. A real BMR is based on muscle mass. It's very possible you're bmr calculations where wrong.
Another issue you talked about carb loading, you knew you where eating too much carbs. That can have been the issue why you couldn't reduce body fat any farther.
I do agree that if you do have a restrictive caloric diet, you will lose muscle mass. I never said "go on a low restrictive diet" I eat my caloric needs, but I do them in a cycle, as I mentioned already. I guess i was too vague when i posted it. I am curious what you did to combat your issue. You said you're losing weight now, so tell me how you did it. I am curious.
Using several different BMR calculations that all consider height, weight, age and activity level. The point is, even if my BMR or TDEE was off...say by even 20%... My intake was still far below that. I still should have been losing weight - if you don't believe in starvation mode. But I didn't.
And it wasn't that I couldn't reduce body fat - it's that I gained body fat and reduced lean mass. Classic famine response. Of course carbs contributed to it, but they still do not explain not losing weight overall at a deficit of about 1000 cals per day.
As for what I'm doing now, I just posted an update earlier about my progress. But essentially, I eat twice as much as I used to, decreased carbs slightly (still over 150 most days) and do a very moderate amount of exercise (and eat back those cals).
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/249476-victories-scale-and-otherwise0 -
Let's face it. Noone is ever going to be able to 'prove' or have sufficient evidence for this. Everyones body works differently and everyone has a different way of loosing weight that works for them. Leave them to it I say!0
-
One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?0
-
Let's face it. Noone is ever going to be able to 'prove' or have sufficient evidence for this. Everyones body works differently and everyone has a different way of loosing weight that works for them. Leave them to it I say!
*LIKE*0 -
probably the most incorrect post ive ever seen on this site, LOL
your heart seems to be in the right place, but THIS IS THE WORST ADVICE
DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS POST PEOPLE!!
starvation mood DOES exist if you are eating less then 1200 cal for women or 1500 cal for men your body will store its body fat because it thinks theres a famine taking place. you need enough calories to function daily. get exercise instead of eating less way better for you!!!
breakfast IS important! fires up the metabolism and gives you the fuel you need to start your day. starving yourself until lunch will cause you to over indulge and possibly make poor food choices
DO NOT eat a big meal before bed if youre trying to lose weight. best time to be hungry is when your asleep. plus your bod will go burn fat if theres nothing in your stomach for it to burn
basically do the exact opposite of what this post says and you should be on the right track
Starvation mode is 1200 calories. Okay so a 100lbs woman who eats 1200 calories is going to be in starvation mode? dead wrong. SO your advice is to eat breakfast, Dead wrong. You get your energy from your food, so when you get it from fat? You're burning the calories you ate, not your fat. It's best to not eat before bead, dead wrong. Your body is recovering itself, if it has no food to recover with, you're going to feel like crap the next day. Where does the energy come from to repair your body? fat doesn't turn in to protein, you'll lose muscle mass.
Quite true that starvation mode reactions will begin at different points for different people, and again, is very dependent on how much someone has to lose. MFP uses the lower limit of 1200 for women and 1500 for men because that is recommended by health experts (such as NIH, WHO, etc) as the minimum amount for the average woman/man to receive adequate nutrition. So people who are much smaller than average can do ok on a lower amount. But they'll still have issues if they drop below a certain level - that level is just lower than it is for someone who is larger.0 -
Okay, obviously some people aren't reading this very carefully. Low caloric intake "OVER TIME" does decreasing muscle mass, never said It didn't. About the "studies" i am not going to go and paste the studies of over 14yrs of experience. Why do you need scientific studies to tell you something. For example, If you eat a lot, do you get tired of energized??? if a scientific study says "it energizes the body" are you going to believe it? Does it make sense being hungry is stress? Does it make sense that your body recuperates and repairs itself at night? DOes it make sense that, when you're hungry your body isn't processing food and you have more energy??? I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
Don't worry, I read it very carefully. And if you want experience, I know that I was in starvation mode for quite a while.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/175241-a-personal-view-on-exercise-cals-and-underfeeding
I experienced it. So...does that mean you believe in it now? Since I've given you a personal experience? I'm guessing not. The point being, we're talking about biology, anatomy, chemical/hormonal reactions and science. It's hardly unreasonable to be interested in direct evidence that shows that what you're claiming is backed up by science.
BTW, I'll agree that there's nothing wrong with eating at night. Though I would disagree with taking in the majority of your calories at night. I suppose IF (intermittent fasting) does work for some people, it is not sustainable for the vast majority.
okay, I read your post. In the post you said, "intake of around 1000-1200 for about 5 years. My BMR is about 1500, and maintenance cals at sedentary are about 2000. So I should have been losing weight, right?"
How do you know that was you BMR, by a chart? I have used the bodybugg in the past, it's a device you wear that tells you how many calories you burn throughout the day, with a 90% accuracy. Those charts where dead wrong. They are based on body weight, height, activity level, age. A real BMR is based on muscle mass. It's very possible you're bmr calculations where wrong.
Another issue you talked about carb loading, you knew you where eating too much carbs. That can have been the issue why you couldn't reduce body fat any farther.
I do agree that if you do have a restrictive caloric diet, you will lose muscle mass. I never said "go on a low restrictive diet" I eat my caloric needs, but I do them in a cycle, as I mentioned already. I guess i was too vague when i posted it. I am curious what you did to combat your issue. You said you're losing weight now, so tell me how you did it. I am curious.
Using several different BMR calculations that all consider height, weight, age and activity level. The point is, even if my BMR or TDEE was off...say by even 20%... My intake was still far below that. I still should have been losing weight - if you don't believe in starvation mode. But I didn't.
And it wasn't that I couldn't reduce body fat - it's that I gained body fat and reduced lean mass. Classic famine response. Of course carbs contributed to it, but they still do not explain not losing weight overall at a deficit of about 1000 cals per day.
As for what I'm doing now, I just posted an update earlier about my progress. But essentially, I eat twice as much as I used to, decreased carbs slightly (still over 150 most days) and do a very moderate amount of exercise (and eat back those cals).
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/249476-victories-scale-and-otherwise
You also said in your post, you'd lose some weight in the summer when you where more active. More activity means more calorie expenditure, than your already very low caloric intake. This would create a "bigger" caloric deficit. So according to the starvation theory, you'd be gaining more weight. You also said "now you're exercising.." all I have to say is 'hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" . Exercise preserves muscle mass, but i am pretty sure you already know that. exercising increases your BMR. your body is "forced" to burn more calories. If you eat low calories, with no exercise, you will not lose weight. You will temperately, but once your body stripped the muscle that couldn't be supported, you will maintain that weight.0 -
One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?
Haven't tried what? Starvation mode? Calorie cycling?
I think the problem is you're trying to argue against starvation mode by saying calorie cycling works, so starvation mode must be a myth. Two entirely separate issues, because starvation mode does not happen in A) obese individuals or
after just a few days of low cal levels. So no, calorie cycling doesn't cause starvation mode (necessarily), but that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist. 0 -
Okay, obviously some people aren't reading this very carefully. Low caloric intake "OVER TIME" does decreasing muscle mass, never said It didn't. About the "studies" i am not going to go and paste the studies of over 14yrs of experience. Why do you need scientific studies to tell you something. For example, If you eat a lot, do you get tired of energized??? if a scientific study says "it energizes the body" are you going to believe it? Does it make sense being hungry is stress? Does it make sense that your body recuperates and repairs itself at night? DOes it make sense that, when you're hungry your body isn't processing food and you have more energy??? I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
Don't worry, I read it very carefully. And if you want experience, I know that I was in starvation mode for quite a while.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/175241-a-personal-view-on-exercise-cals-and-underfeeding
I experienced it. So...does that mean you believe in it now? Since I've given you a personal experience? I'm guessing not. The point being, we're talking about biology, anatomy, chemical/hormonal reactions and science. It's hardly unreasonable to be interested in direct evidence that shows that what you're claiming is backed up by science.
BTW, I'll agree that there's nothing wrong with eating at night. Though I would disagree with taking in the majority of your calories at night. I suppose IF (intermittent fasting) does work for some people, it is not sustainable for the vast majority.
okay, I read your post. In the post you said, "intake of around 1000-1200 for about 5 years. My BMR is about 1500, and maintenance cals at sedentary are about 2000. So I should have been losing weight, right?"
How do you know that was you BMR, by a chart? I have used the bodybugg in the past, it's a device you wear that tells you how many calories you burn throughout the day, with a 90% accuracy. Those charts where dead wrong. They are based on body weight, height, activity level, age. A real BMR is based on muscle mass. It's very possible you're bmr calculations where wrong.
Another issue you talked about carb loading, you knew you where eating too much carbs. That can have been the issue why you couldn't reduce body fat any farther.
I do agree that if you do have a restrictive caloric diet, you will lose muscle mass. I never said "go on a low restrictive diet" I eat my caloric needs, but I do them in a cycle, as I mentioned already. I guess i was too vague when i posted it. I am curious what you did to combat your issue. You said you're losing weight now, so tell me how you did it. I am curious.
Using several different BMR calculations that all consider height, weight, age and activity level. The point is, even if my BMR or TDEE was off...say by even 20%... My intake was still far below that. I still should have been losing weight - if you don't believe in starvation mode. But I didn't.
And it wasn't that I couldn't reduce body fat - it's that I gained body fat and reduced lean mass. Classic famine response. Of course carbs contributed to it, but they still do not explain not losing weight overall at a deficit of about 1000 cals per day.
As for what I'm doing now, I just posted an update earlier about my progress. But essentially, I eat twice as much as I used to, decreased carbs slightly (still over 150 most days) and do a very moderate amount of exercise (and eat back those cals).
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/249476-victories-scale-and-otherwise
You also said in your post, you'd lose some weight in the summer when you where more active. More activity means more calorie expenditure, than your already very low caloric intake. This would create a "bigger" caloric deficit. So according to the starvation theory, you'd be gaining more weight. You also said "now you're exercising.." all I have to say is 'hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" . Exercise preserves muscle mass, but i am pretty sure you already know that. exercising increases your BMR. your body is "forced" to burn more calories. If you eat low calories, with no exercise, you will not lose weight. You will temperately, but once your body stripped the muscle that couldn't be supported, you will maintain that weight.
No, starvation mode isn't a permanent state. When the caloric deficit is extreme enough, it turns into starvation. The body is adaptable, but it has its limits. When I had more activity, I entered into a negative net caloric intake. At that point, the body has no choice but to access all energy sources (fat, muscle, bone, organs, skin, hair, etc) and you'll eventually lose weight. You won't be healthy, but you'll lose weight. At that time, my muscle mass was NOT preserved by exercise - it decreased further.
Maybe it would help to read this (probably not, since you've already made up your mind, but it's worth a shot)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works0 -
One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?
Haven't tried what? Starvation mode? Calorie cycling?
I think the problem is you're trying to argue against starvation mode by saying calorie cycling works, so starvation mode must be a myth. Two entirely separate issues, because starvation mode does not happen in A) obese individuals or after just a few days of low cal levels. So no, calorie cycling doesn't cause starvation mode (necessarily), but that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist.
I think the big misunderstanding, is "what is starvation mode?" I do agree if you eat at low caloric levels for a long time you will find a new BMR. I am in complete agreement on that. Never said that wasn't the case. WHat i said state... is wrong is "HOW" starvation mode is created.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding that, that people are thinking "he said, if you eat low calories you won't lose muscle mass" that is dead wrong, you will lose muscle mass.
The theory is, "if you don't eat enough calories, you will train your body to think there is no food so it will turn everything in to fat" THat is NOT how it works. THAT is wrong. That doesn't exist. It's a complete lie.
How it works, if you decrease calories too low, you won't have enough calories to support the muscle mass, so it will go away. Your body will eat it for energy. Now you have less muscle mass. This will obviously give you a lower BMR. I am not challenging that lowering calories will cause you to lose muscle mass. I am challenging the term "starvation mode."0 -
One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?
Haven't tried what? Starvation mode? Calorie cycling?
I think the problem is you're trying to argue against starvation mode by saying calorie cycling works, so starvation mode must be a myth. Two entirely separate issues, because starvation mode does not happen in A) obese individuals or after just a few days of low cal levels. So no, calorie cycling doesn't cause starvation mode (necessarily), but that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist.
I think the big misunderstanding, is "what is starvation mode?" I do agree if you eat at low caloric levels for a long time you will find a new BMR. I am in complete agreement on that. Never said that wasn't the case. WHat i said state... is wrong is "HOW" starvation mode is created.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding that, that people are thinking "he said, if you eat low calories you won't lose muscle mass" that is dead wrong, you will lose muscle mass.
The theory is, "if you don't eat enough calories, you will train your body to think there is no food so it will turn everything in to fat" THat is NOT how it works. THAT is wrong. That doesn't exist. It's a complete lie.
How it works, if you decrease calories too low, you won't have enough calories to support the muscle mass, so it will go away. Your body will eat it for energy. Now you have less muscle mass. This will obviously give you a lower BMR. I am not challenging that lowering calories will cause you to lose muscle mass. I am challenging the term "starvation mode."
I won't argue at all that the term is overused, misunderstood and misapplied by many people. That's certainly true. But when it comes down to it, frankly I'd rather have people be overly cautious on the subject rather than under. Particularly because a lot of people (especially women) tend to think weight loss = extreme calorie restriction, so starvation mode (or whatever you want to call it) is actually pretty prevalent around here (or any dieting community), especially among beginners. That's why there's so much yo-yo dieting, and it doesn't work. My aim is always to help people find habits that are sustainable. Large deficits simply aren't sustainable.0 -
I read your thing on starvation mode, I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. The only part i do disagree with, is that people who are at higher bf% are at less risk for starvation mode. You state that it's due to the higher fat stores. Fat stores don't increase, they just get bigger. I don't know how it would make a difference if a person is at 12% bodyfat, or 30% bodyfat. Actually I think the opposite is true. People with higher % of bodyfat are more prone to starvation mode theory.
Now we're getting in to exercise. A person who is very over weight, can have difficulty just walking. It takes a lot of energy for them to move their mass. It's kind of like a resistance exercise like lifting weights. They get very tired very quickly. This will trigger the muscle fiber types of 2A or 2B which will increase lactic acid which would atrophy the muscle. If someone is out of breath, they're triggering lactic acid, which destroy muscle. Lactic acid is created because the person can't oxidize the acid produced by the muscle, so it starts to accumulate in the body causing them to get out of breath, their muscles are using too much oxygen trying to cope with the lactic acid. Lactic acid destroys muscle. And of course lower levels of muscle creates lower BMR.0 -
One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?
Haven't tried what? Starvation mode? Calorie cycling?
I think the problem is you're trying to argue against starvation mode by saying calorie cycling works, so starvation mode must be a myth. Two entirely separate issues, because starvation mode does not happen in A) obese individuals or after just a few days of low cal levels. So no, calorie cycling doesn't cause starvation mode (necessarily), but that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist.
I think the big misunderstanding, is "what is starvation mode?" I do agree if you eat at low caloric levels for a long time you will find a new BMR. I am in complete agreement on that. Never said that wasn't the case. WHat i said state... is wrong is "HOW" starvation mode is created.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding that, that people are thinking "he said, if you eat low calories you won't lose muscle mass" that is dead wrong, you will lose muscle mass.
The theory is, "if you don't eat enough calories, you will train your body to think there is no food so it will turn everything in to fat" THat is NOT how it works. THAT is wrong. That doesn't exist. It's a complete lie.
How it works, if you decrease calories too low, you won't have enough calories to support the muscle mass, so it will go away. Your body will eat it for energy. Now you have less muscle mass. This will obviously give you a lower BMR. I am not challenging that lowering calories will cause you to lose muscle mass. I am challenging the term "starvation mode."
I won't argue at all that the term is overused, misunderstood and misapplied by many people. That's certainly true. But when it comes down to it, frankly I'd rather have people be overly cautious on the subject rather than under. Particularly because a lot of people (especially women) tend to think weight loss = extreme calorie restriction, so starvation mode (or whatever you want to call it) is actually pretty prevalent around here (or any dieting community), especially among beginners. That's why there's so much yo-yo dieting, and it doesn't work. My aim is always to help people find habits that are sustainable. Large deficits simply aren't sustainable.
Yes I agree with you, I do my best to help people. That's why i posted this, so they can "THINK" and wonder where things are wrong, and where are things right, and come up with their own conclusions to better their life. A did gain a lot of weight these last 2 yrs that's why i am here. I know my big issue was trying to get quick results when is tarted to put on weight after the bodybuilding phase. You're right it's not sustainable. That's what I try to pass, "do it slow and gradual, don't stress your body too much, if you do your body may not be able to cope with it." If you break, you'll gain the weight back. It's best to make slow gradual changes in your life for long term weight loss.0 -
Well if it's been working for 2 weeks, that's obviously enough empirical data to prove that all of modern science is dead wrong. Now that I know I've been doing this all wrong, I'm going to wake up fat tomorrow morning. Well, at least I know all the secrets now so I can do it all over again your way.0
-
You must understand that if all of this is working for you, that's fantastic, but you're in the heavy minority. The exact opposite of nearly everything that you've stated is what is healthy and a correct manner of weight loss for 75% or more of people who have had studies done. While I'm not a big fan of scientific fact, it is what is is...
If it works for you, GREAT... There are exceptions to every 'rule,' but understand that advising everyone to do the same will have severe effects on many of them. Every body is different.
I know that if I, personally, did what you're doing, my weight loss would plateau instantly. I've done most of that before, but by accident.0 -
You must understand that if all of this is working for you, that's fantastic, but you're in the heavy minority. The exact opposite of nearly everything that you've stated is what is healthy and a correct manner of weight loss for 75% or more of people who have had studies done. While I'm not a big fan of scientific fact, it is what is is...
If it works for you, GREAT... There are exceptions to every 'rule,' but understand that advising everyone to do the same will have severe effects on many of them. Every body is different.
I know that if I, personally, did what you're doing, my weight loss would plateau instantly. I've done most of that before, but by accident.
thank you, I am against people trying out what I am doing, and I have mentioned it many times throughout the topic. I am still experimenting with it. Yes there are exception to every rule, that's what makes everything valid, and also makes it invalid. haha so what do we do? as I have mentioned, test it and see if it works for you, if it doesn't discard it and try something else. There are many things I left out, I didn't want to get all techy with the topic. I have a tendency to type a lot, and the more techy I get the more I end up typing. I am curious what you have done that is similar to what I have mentioned that hasn't worked for you.0 -
I read your thing on starvation mode, I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. The only part i do disagree with, is that people who are at higher bf% are at less risk for starvation mode. You state that it's due to the higher fat stores. Fat stores don't increase, they just get bigger. I don't know how it would make a difference if a person is at 12% bodyfat, or 30% bodyfat. Actually I think the opposite is true. People with higher % of bodyfat are more prone to starvation mode theory.
Now we're getting in to exercise. A person who is very over weight, can have difficulty just walking. It takes a lot of energy for them to move their mass. It's kind of like a resistance exercise like lifting weights. They get very tired very quickly. This will trigger the muscle fiber types of 2A or 2B which will increase lactic acid which would atrophy the muscle. If someone is out of breath, they're triggering lactic acid, which destroy muscle. Lactic acid is created because the person can't oxidize the acid produced by the muscle, so it starts to accumulate in the body causing them to get out of breath, their muscles are using too much oxygen trying to cope with the lactic acid. Lactic acid destroys muscle. And of course lower levels of muscle creates lower BMR.
RMR and muscle mass do decrease in obese individuals, when at a caloric deficit. But the ratio of fat vs lean mass lost is in their favor. They will always lose more fat than muscle, simply because more fat is available. They are still effected by lean mass loss, but not to the same extent. The higher the body fat %, the more stored energy there is. The more stored energy, the better the body is able to compensate for a deficit by accessing those fat stores.
Some good info on this aspect:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat
(the text is adapted from an article by Tom Venuto)0 -
Why would anyone EVER want to use scientific studies to critically assess a theory after all? What's better than going on a hunch, using anecdotal evidence and personal whim? It's much more likely to produce the expected result after all. I mean, what if the scientific studies don't even AGREE with you!? What would you do then?
--
You claim you don't need scientific studies, and yet you use the scientific studies you WANT to bring up because they agree with you. You claim that hunger increases the number of IGF-1 receptors (in what tissues, you haven't mentioned). WHERE. Have you found that information. Was it off somebody's website on a distant corner of the internet? Because I've googled it and there's nothing commendable. Give me a scientific study - a peer reviewed paper. Something with that kind of weight and importance should come from a respectable journal, too. Furthermore, increasing the number of IGF-1 receptors does not necessarily result in growth. Growth and the cell cycle are FAR more complex than that.
You will need to learn to appreciate *all* the scientific evidence out there, critically assess their content and not exclude studies because they don't support your argument.0 -
I read your thing on starvation mode, I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. The only part i do disagree with, is that people who are at higher bf% are at less risk for starvation mode. You state that it's due to the higher fat stores. Fat stores don't increase, they just get bigger. I don't know how it would make a difference if a person is at 12% bodyfat, or 30% bodyfat. Actually I think the opposite is true. People with higher % of bodyfat are more prone to starvation mode theory.
Now we're getting in to exercise. A person who is very over weight, can have difficulty just walking. It takes a lot of energy for them to move their mass. It's kind of like a resistance exercise like lifting weights. They get very tired very quickly. This will trigger the muscle fiber types of 2A or 2B which will increase lactic acid which would atrophy the muscle. If someone is out of breath, they're triggering lactic acid, which destroy muscle. Lactic acid is created because the person can't oxidize the acid produced by the muscle, so it starts to accumulate in the body causing them to get out of breath, their muscles are using too much oxygen trying to cope with the lactic acid. Lactic acid destroys muscle. And of course lower levels of muscle creates lower BMR.
RMR and muscle mass do decrease in obese individuals, when at a caloric deficit. But the ratio of fat vs lean mass lost is in their favor. They will always lose more fat than muscle, simply because more fat is available. They are still effected by lean mass loss, but not to the same extent. The higher the body fat %, the more stored energy there is. The more stored energy, the better the body is able to compensate for a deficit by accessing those fat stores.
Some good info on this aspect:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat
(the text is adapted from an article by Tom Venuto)
I read that post . SHe never got in to the "why" of it. It pretty much makes no sense to me. Here is the real question lets assume it's true... WHY would someone lose more body fat if they're at a higher body fat percentage compared to someone who's at a lower body fat percentage on a restricted caloric diet. If we step back and LOOK at the big picture, it makes no sense at all. If I weighed 100lbs for example, and reduced my calories by 1000 calories, and if someone who is at 8% body fat reduced their calories by 1000. It's obvious more of it will come from fat on a bigger person, it depends on the % of your maintenance calories and what % the deficit is. Maybe I read it wrong, or misunderstood, but that's my take on it.0 -
I read your thing on starvation mode, I don't disagree with you, i agree with you. The only part i do disagree with, is that people who are at higher bf% are at less risk for starvation mode. You state that it's due to the higher fat stores. Fat stores don't increase, they just get bigger. I don't know how it would make a difference if a person is at 12% bodyfat, or 30% bodyfat. Actually I think the opposite is true. People with higher % of bodyfat are more prone to starvation mode theory.
Now we're getting in to exercise. A person who is very over weight, can have difficulty just walking. It takes a lot of energy for them to move their mass. It's kind of like a resistance exercise like lifting weights. They get very tired very quickly. This will trigger the muscle fiber types of 2A or 2B which will increase lactic acid which would atrophy the muscle. If someone is out of breath, they're triggering lactic acid, which destroy muscle. Lactic acid is created because the person can't oxidize the acid produced by the muscle, so it starts to accumulate in the body causing them to get out of breath, their muscles are using too much oxygen trying to cope with the lactic acid. Lactic acid destroys muscle. And of course lower levels of muscle creates lower BMR.
RMR and muscle mass do decrease in obese individuals, when at a caloric deficit. But the ratio of fat vs lean mass lost is in their favor. They will always lose more fat than muscle, simply because more fat is available. They are still effected by lean mass loss, but not to the same extent. The higher the body fat %, the more stored energy there is. The more stored energy, the better the body is able to compensate for a deficit by accessing those fat stores.
Some good info on this aspect:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat
(the text is adapted from an article by Tom Venuto)
I read that post . SHe never got in to the "why" of it. It pretty much makes no sense to me. Here is the real question lets assume it's true... WHY would someone lose more body fat if they're at a higher body fat percentage compared to someone who's at a lower body fat percentage on a restricted caloric diet. If we step back and LOOK at the big picture, it makes no sense at all. If I weighed 100lbs for example, and reduced my calories by 1000 calories, and if someone who is at 8% body fat reduced their calories by 1000. It's obvious more of it will come from fat on a bigger person, it depends on the % of your maintenance calories and what % the deficit is. Maybe I read it wrong, or misunderstood, but that's my take on it.
These go into the "why":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771
"In most situations involving a significant change in body weight, both fat-free body mass (FFM) and body fat participate, but the relative contribution of FFM and fat to the total weight change is influenced by the initial body fat content. Overfeeding: In experiments of at least 3-weeks' duration, the weight gain of thin people comprises 60-70% lean tissues, whereas in the obese it is 30-40%. Underfeeding: In humans, there is an inverse curvilinear relationship between initial body fat content and the proportion of weight loss consisting of lean tissue. The same trend holds for animals and birds, including loss during hibernation. Another factor is the magnitude of the energy deficit: as energy intake is reduced, lean tissue makes up an increasing fraction of the total weight loss. Exercise: If individuals lose much weight with exercise, the result is usually some loss of lean tissue as well as fat, and once again the proportion of lean loss to total weight loss is greater in thin people than in those who have larger body fat burdens. Members of twin pairs often differ in weight. In thin individuals, lean accounts for about half of the intrapair weight difference, whereas in the obese it accounts for only one quarter. Body fat content must be taken into account in evaluating body composition changes induced by nutrition and exercise."0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions