If you think you're in starvation mode...

registers

Oh, one last thing about starvation. Since eating extremely low calories leads to starvation mode, this is the theory. How does gastric bypass work??? Shrinking the stomach so the person eats at an extremely low caloric intake. Wouldn't this put them in starvation mode????!?!?! YES(according to the theory). The people who have gone through that type of surgery, look fine.

beverlyl64

Would suggest that people do their own research and consult a doctor if your that concerned

Driagnor

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

I've heard the exact opposite. I read about a study whereby they provided test groups with the same caloric intake in either 3 or 6 meals per day, and although there wasn't a significant difference in the weight loss, the group which ate fewer meals lost more muscle mass over the course of the study.

I'd be interested to read an article suggesting the opposite - do you have any details on this?

newman50

There are so many mistruths in this article, worst of all is the fallacy about calories in and calories out

Simplicity is one thing the human body and condition is not

Somebody posted this yesterday, which I kept (taken from Articlebase.com

MYTH: Eating a diet that is too low in calories will cause the body to go into starvation mode and not burn any calories
FACT: Severely cutting calories will cause the metabolism to adjust slightly, but not enough to prevent fat loss
Remember that people around the world who truly die of starvation are not overweight when they expire. It's true that when you severely cut calories your metabolism will make a slight adjustment, allowing your body to run on fewer calories—but it's not a large compensation. If you need to lose weight and you are not, eat less and/or move more and forget about slowing your metabolism.

That said, the point is not to lose weight too quickly by drastically reducing calories because that method is generally not sustainable. Second, although there is a slight down regulation in metabolism in response to a very low calorie diet, the main reason it may appear to slow down more than it actually does is because the extremely low calorie intake is slowing YOU down. In other words, you become less energetic, forcing a reduction in your daily activities, therefore burning fewer calories overall. Crash diets and low caloric intake leads to low energy levels ' meaning you burn less calories throughout your day and less intense workouts due to your lack of energy. This means more hunger; and as likely as not backsliding into binge eating and other unhealthy habits. This can result in a calorie intake that temporarily exceeds your pre-diet intake, leading to a rapid re-accumulation of weight. This is easily misinterpreted as the results of a "damaged" metabolism. It is worth noting that any temporary, minor reduction in metabolic rate due to excessively low caloric intake is regained once caloric intake is increased. Your metabolism is not damageable. Take home message: Never blame failure on metabolism, no matter what anyone tells you! Simply move more.

MYTH: Naturally skinny people have faster metabolisms, so they don't have to exercise and can eat anything they want FACT: Naturally skinny people consistently burn as many calories as they consume
Individual metabolisms do vary, but not much. And people who stay slim and eat anything they want either don't want much (total calories) or move enough (daily activities including fidgeting) to cancel whatever they eat. In other words, people who are overweight eat too much relative to how much they move, whether they exercise or not. People who stay thin and don't exercise eat as much as they move. Those who tend to stay thinner have the habits that overweight people need to adopt. They eat smaller portions, eat slowly at meals and get a lot of exercise. The calories in are countered by the calories out. In fact, the heavier you are (no matter who you are) the more calories your body burns. So put that heavier, more calorically expensive body to work and get moving! More weight in motion means more calories burned per unit of time.

Final note on metabolisms and plateaus: The "fast and slow metabolism" thing has become a bad excuse for many people. Anyone can get their daily calorie burn (overall metabolism) as high as they need by simply moving or standing more. The main reason the body comes to plateaus during dieting or exercise (besides cheating) is that when weight is lost you become fit, your body uses fewer calories to perform the same work (because it's easier than when you were heavier and out of shape), forcing you to add work or eat less in order to continue to progress .
People who eat well and exercise regularly (and are "tapped out" as far as time or cutting calories) is to simply increase your daily movements at home or at the office. Stand instead of sitting, pace the room while on the phone or thinking. Take stairs instead of elevators or escalators. Park further away. Take a walk at lunch. Walk to a colleague's office to talk rather than using e-mail or the intercom. Additionally, you can try changing your workout, including the type of cardio you perform, which may help temporarily fire up your metabolism .

So there you have it. You can now take these myths off your list and get on with your fitness goals. Most people know in their heart that these myths can't possibly be real, but then there's another segment on the news or an article in a "health" magazine that makes these myths sound plausible. Relating weight control back to calorie balance may not be as sensational as the idea of damaged metabolism, but it's the truth. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you hear or what you read in the mass media. If you're a fitness professional, you know that it all comes own to those notoriously immutable laws of nature. Calories (energy) in versus calories out determine whether you will stay the same, gain or lose weight. Those are the facts.

Amati F, Dube JJ, Shay C, Goodpaster BH. Separate and combined effects of exercise training and weight loss on exercise efficiency and substrate oxidation. J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jul 10. [Epub ahead of print] Børsheim E, Bahr R. Effect of exercise intensity, duration and mode on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Sports Med. 2003;33(14):1037-60.

registers

LOL.......ok well this post if very confusing for those of us who don't know the truth. Guess I will have to do my own research. @asmcriminal, do you have any training in the nutrition field? I was just wondering about this starvation mode, mainly because sometimes after I finish my diary and don't eat back my exercise calories(which I usually don't) it will tell me I am at risk of going into starvation mode, which if it is real I don't want to do. Just trying to get some more info.

That starvation mode on the web page is bs. If you're losing weight just fine, ignore it. My education is in my signature of my post. This post was kind of a joke amongst a few friends. On the other hand it's also true. What i preach is, If it's working for you stick with it, if it's not, change it. That's all, If you feel you need to eat more calories, and you do, and you're losing weight, stick with it. If you're in supposed "starvation mode" and are losing weight, stick with it. Just do what's working for you.

The reason why i say the webapge says starvation mode is bs. Because, if a 7ft man, who weighs 300lbs, eats 1200 calories he would be in starvation mode? what about a 110lbs woman, she would also be in starvation mode according to the website.

registers

Define "overweight"

I don't see the value in this discussion of semantics and wiki articles ?

Someone who has a higher bodyfat percentage than average. 18-24% for men, 25-30% for women(this is average numbers, not above average).

Driagnor

There are so many mistruths in this article, worst of all is the fallacy about calories in and calories out

Simplicity is one thing the human body and condition is not

What, that you need to have less calories in vs calories out in order to lose weight? Is this even in dispute?

registers

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

I've heard the exact opposite. I read about a study whereby they provided test groups with the same caloric intake in either 3 or 6 meals per day, and although there wasn't a significant difference in the weight loss, the group which ate fewer meals lost more muscle mass over the course of the study.

I'd be interested to read an article suggesting the opposite - do you have any details on this?

Are you serious??? that's a big crock... Here's why, okay for clarity, this is what i do, i don't eat much during the day, maybe 500 calories, then my night meal i eat anywhere from 1500 - 3000 calories. yes in one meal. I don't recommend a consistent run of low calories.

When you're not eating, and you're hungry (like i am during the day) this triggers the flight or fight mechanism because it's a form of stress. This increases GH levels, GH levels have been linked to high levels of stress. You can look it up. That's why it's recommended to work out under 40mins at a high intensity level. Gh burns fat, and maintains muscle mass. WHy do i eat a huge meal at night??? It increases insulin, storing glycogen and repairing my body. I can probably eat 4000 calories, throught the day... 1000 calories per meal, yeah I can do that... But in one meal????? NO WAY. Eating this way automatically makes you eat less.

waster196

Oh, one last thing about starvation. Since eating extremely low calories leads to starvation mode, this is the theory. How does gastric bypass work??? Shrinking the stomach so the person eats at an extremely low caloric intake. Wouldn't this put them in starvation mode????!?!?! YES(according to the theory). The people who have gone through that type of surgery, look fine.

No. This is combatted by eating small meals, mutliple times per day. Their caloric intake will be significantly lower, but not so low as to introduce starvation mode. In any case this would be taken on a person by person basis and each patient would have advice from a trained nutritionist.

registers

There are so many mistruths in this article, worst of all is the fallacy about calories in and calories out

Simplicity is one thing the human body and condition is not

What, that you need to have less calories in vs calories out in order to lose weight? Is this even in dispute?

I completely agree, less calories in, more calories out.Simple.

registers

Oh, one last thing about starvation. Since eating extremely low calories leads to starvation mode, this is the theory. How does gastric bypass work??? Shrinking the stomach so the person eats at an extremely low caloric intake. Wouldn't this put them in starvation mode????!?!?! YES(according to the theory). The people who have gone through that type of surgery, look fine.

No. This is combatted by eating small meals, mutliple times per day. Their caloric intake will be significantly lower, but not so low as to introduce starvation mode. In any case this would be taken on a person by person basis and each patient would have advice from a trained nutritionist.

Hey man, if you get bypass surgery. You're supposed to eat anywhere from 500-1000 calories after the surgery. This will include a 800lbs indivual. How is that different than a man just eating 800 calories a day? Which in theory, puts in him starvation mode.

Bearface115

this is very confusing in alot of ways... On one hand everyone is correct and this is a controversial topic. If you are EATING you are not STARVING. the whole tpoint to weight loss, i thought, is to eat less. LESS meaning dont eat a whole bag a chips. LESS as in PORTION out your food. i know i should talk bc i actually need to seek help for Obsessive food thoughts which make me want bad food ALL the time and repused by healthy food. But common ppl. ...Stavation mode? Who on here told you to eat 700 cals or 500 cals. Its 1200 or more! ok?:noway:

registers

this is very confusing in alot of ways... On one hand everyone is correct and this is a controversial topic. If you are EATING you are not STARVING. the whole tpoint to weight loss, i thought, is to eat less. LESS meaning dont eat a whole bag a chips. LESS as in PORTION out your food. i know i should talk bc i actually need to seek help for Obsessive food thoughts which make me want bad food ALL the time and repused by healthy food. But common ppl. ...Stavation mode? Who on here told you to eat 700 cals or 500 cals. Its 1200 or more! ok?:noway:

Love that sentence, "if you're eating, you're not starving."

Driagnor

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

I've heard the exact opposite. I read about a study whereby they provided test groups with the same caloric intake in either 3 or 6 meals per day, and although there wasn't a significant difference in the weight loss, the group which ate fewer meals lost more muscle mass over the course of the study.

I'd be interested to read an article suggesting the opposite - do you have any details on this?

Are you serious??? that's a big crock... Here's why, okay for clarity, this is what i do, i don't eat much during the day, maybe 500 calories, then my night meal i eat anywhere from 1500 - 3000 calories. yes in one meal. I don't recommend a consistent run of low calories.

When you're not eating, and you're hungry (like i am during the day) this triggers the flight or fight mechanism because it's a form of stress. This increases GH levels, GH levels have been linked to high levels of stress. You can look it up. That's why it's recommended to work out under 40mins at a high intensity level. Gh burns fat, and maintains muscle mass. WHy do i eat a huge meal at night??? It increases insulin, storing glycogen and repairing my body. I can probably eat 4000 calories, throught the day... 1000 calories per meal, yeah I can do that... But in one meal????? NO WAY. Eating this way automatically makes you eat less.

To each their own. That method of doing it wouldn't work for me, and I've come across too many reputable sources suggesting that smaller more frequent meals are better for you due to the balancing out of your blood sugar throughout the day to abandon what's currently working for me.

I don't see that you need to have a physical inability to consume a certain amount of calories in a single meal in order to ensure that you're not going over your calorie goal.

As I say though, to each his own, and if it's working for you then that's fair enough.

registers

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

I've heard the exact opposite. I read about a study whereby they provided test groups with the same caloric intake in either 3 or 6 meals per day, and although there wasn't a significant difference in the weight loss, the group which ate fewer meals lost more muscle mass over the course of the study.

I'd be interested to read an article suggesting the opposite - do you have any details on this?

Are you serious??? that's a big crock... Here's why, okay for clarity, this is what i do, i don't eat much during the day, maybe 500 calories, then my night meal i eat anywhere from 1500 - 3000 calories. yes in one meal. I don't recommend a consistent run of low calories.

When you're not eating, and you're hungry (like i am during the day) this triggers the flight or fight mechanism because it's a form of stress. This increases GH levels, GH levels have been linked to high levels of stress. You can look it up. That's why it's recommended to work out under 40mins at a high intensity level. Gh burns fat, and maintains muscle mass. WHy do i eat a huge meal at night??? It increases insulin, storing glycogen and repairing my body. I can probably eat 4000 calories, throught the day... 1000 calories per meal, yeah I can do that... But in one meal????? NO WAY. Eating this way automatically makes you eat less.

To each their own. That method of doing it wouldn't work for me, and I've come across too many reputable sources suggesting that smaller more frequent meals are better for you due to the balancing out of your blood sugar throughout the day to abandon what's currently working for me.

I don't see that you need to have a physical inability to consume a certain amount of calories in a single meal in order to ensure that you're not going over your calorie goal.

As I say though, to each his own, and if it's working for you then that's fair enough.

Yeah I agree with you, if it's working for you stick to it. About what you said, I also believe that thing about blood sugar to be a myth too. Here's why, when you eat, blood sugar goes up, then it starts to decline, then you eat again, then it goes back up, then it starts to decline. This is constantly yoyoing your insulin. That's why I eat the way i do, if I don't eat anything... my insulin level really doesn't change.

Barneystinson

I've never really understood the "normalizing" blood sugar through more frequent feedings.

So I did a little test on my own for kicks and giggles throughout a single day. I was really curious as a healthy individual just what the heck my blood sugar was throughout a normal day. I got a hold of a tester through a deal at Walgreens along with some test strips and lancets. I then got set up to test on weekend, planning 3 meals, lower carbohydrate as I usually eat - about 70 grams for the day, as I had some fruit for lunch and some sweet potato for dinner.

I eat 3 times daily. Started the day by testing my waking (fasted) blood sugar levels - 62. Cool.

I ate breakfast, tested 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours after meal (postprandial). Continued to do this with each meal of the day. Highest reading was an 86 after lunch which included some fruit. Lowest was my morning fasted reading of 62. Average postprandial was around 73.

When you eat, your blood sugar raises. I don't agree with continually spiking it and raising it to higher levels throughout the day through food consumed. If I was remaining in a fed state more frequenly - i.e. less time between meals, my average daily reading would go up. So again, my average reading is in the low to mid 70s throughout the day, i.e. NORMAL, there is no need to eat more frequently and raise it. Myth...busted.

(If you have a medical reason to monitor your blood sugar and eat more frequently to normalize it (i.e. T1 diabetes) then this post does not apply.)

registers

I've never really understood the "normalizing" blood sugar through more frequent feedings.

So I did a little test on my own for kicks and giggles throughout a single day. I was really curious as a healthy individual just what the heck my blood sugar was throughout a normal day. I got a hold of a tester through a deal at Walgreens along with some test strips and lancets. I then got set up to test on weekend, planning 3 meals, lower carbohydrate as I usually eat - about 70 grams for the day, as I had some fruit for lunch and some sweet potato for dinner.

I eat 3 times daily. Started the day by testing my waking (fasted) blood sugar levels - 62. Cool.

I ate breakfast, tested 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours after meal (postprandial). Continued to do this with each meal of the day. Highest reading was an 86 after lunch which included some fruit. Lowest was my morning fasted reading of 62. Average postprandial was around 73.

When you eat, your blood sugar raises. I don't agree with continually spiking it and raising it to higher levels throughout the day through food consumed. If I was remaining in a fed state more frequenly - i.e. less time between meals, my average daily reading would go up. So again, my average reading is in the low to mid 70s throughout the day, i.e. NORMAL, there is no need to eat more frequently and raise it. Myth...busted.

(If you have a medical reason to monitor your blood sugar and eat more frequently to normalize it (i.e. T1 diabetes) then this post does not apply.)

This is exactly what I am talking about, don't believe the bs you hear/read untill you try it. Barney, I don't have any words to praise your... intelligence. Just a great post.

mielikkibz

Would suggest that people do their own research and consult a doctor if your that concerned

yep, and not listen to someone who prides himself from self learning with nothing to back it up. . .

Come on people, quit posting stuff that could cause people to hurt themselves.

registers

Would suggest that people do their own research and consult a doctor if your that concerned

yep, and not listen to someone who prides himself from self learning with nothing to back it up. . .

Come on people, quit posting stuff that could cause people to hurt themselves.

Nothing to back up? MOst of these theories come from body building, results are the back up. Despite what any dr or any scientific research says. Come on people, stop posting stuff that will leave people in a rut and prevent them from thinking for themselves. Don't let Dr's or Scientist think for you, think for yourself. COME ON PEOPLE. -rolls eyes-

mielikkibz

Would suggest that people do their own research and consult a doctor if your that concerned

yep, and not listen to someone who prides himself from self learning with nothing to back it up. . .

Come on people, quit posting stuff that could cause people to hurt themselves.

Nothing to back up? MOst of these theories come from body building, results are the back up. Despite what any dr or any scientific research says. Come on people, stop posting stuff that will leave people in a rut and prevent them from thinking for themselves. Don't let Dr's or Scientist think for you, think for yourself. COME ON PEOPLE. -rolls eyes-

well, since you've not posted ANYTHING giving us real credentials, WTHshould anybody listen to you? If someone is in a rut, they should talk to a certified specialist, their doctor, not listen to quacks on this board.