Starvation Mode (based on truth, but stretched too far)

daisymae9801

Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.

I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.

So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.

AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!

And I meant under 1000 calories, not 100. Obviously. Because that would be even more absurd.

Yes, there is a way you can be full on 1000 calories. We're not all 5'10" and big boned. Some of us are petite with a few extra lbs we'd like to lose and we require much less food than someone larger. And trying to dispell the starvation mode myth is far different from promoting anorexia.

I disagree. Everyone requires more than 1000 calories, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. This has nothing to do with being "big boned and 5'10" (which I'm not, if that's what you assumed by my weight - I'm merely just a fatass with some bad habits that I'm working on) Annorexia is often characterized by the caloric intake of 900 calories or less on a consistent basis... Throwing in a 100 calorie pack of goldfish (just as an EXAMPLE) doesn't really make that much of a difference, the habit is still unhealthy and promoting that is a disservice to oneself as well as to others.

I was not assuming you were big boned because of your weight. I'm sorry if it came off like that. And I'm not saying it's HEALTHY to eat 1,000 calories. But if you eat the right food it is certainly possible to be FULL off it.

JulieF11

I am not saying we should eat less than our 1200 cals a day.... You need a min of around that (not really a magic number, but an average) to get the nutritional vitamins and minerals you need. But don't think you are doing your body a favor by eating a brownie at night, to keep from going into starvation mode.

Whoaa.... Good Heavens... I'd like to point out the above quote from my original post. I want to make it clear that I don't believe in eating less than 1200 calories since you need the nutrition to function. Please read the post as it was written... not in any way condoning Anorexic eating behaviors.

Angeloftheshore

I can only speak from my own personal experiences. I am 5'3 and at 1200 cals plus exercise I was not losing weight, I was losing muscle and I was becoming tired and weak. I recently upped my cal intake to what my desired goal weight is. I thought I would lose slower but it would be a lifestyle change, not a diet. I hate the word diet. Every diet I have ever been on was a temporary fix. Living on a net of 1200 cals that includes exercise a day is a quick fix and not something that can be a permanent change, not realistic.

Well I did up my caloric intake to my desired weight intake, guess what, I am dropping pounds faster now. I have more energy to do even more exercise. I feel better than I have in years. Losing weight faster is not what I expected, but I am thrilled. I know now I feel stronger and know that I have found a permanent life change which will prevent me from ever gaining the weight again!

Starving (as in not giving my body the nutrients it needs to be healthy) myself to be skinny was not worth it and not realistic for me and my lifestyle. It just seemed pointless since I was looking for a permanent fix not just a quick I need to lose fast fix. And now I can have a treat a day, sometimes two and I AM STILL losing weight and gaining muscle!

Success to all on your journey!

kailyamie

Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.

I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.

So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.

AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!

And I meant under 1000 calories, not 100. Obviously. Because that would be even more absurd.

Yes, there is a way you can be full on 1000 calories. We're not all 5'10" and big boned. Some of us are petite with a few extra lbs we'd like to lose and we require much less food than someone larger. And trying to dispell the starvation mode myth is far different from promoting anorexia.

I disagree. Everyone requires more than 1000 calories, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. This has nothing to do with being "big boned and 5'10" (which I'm not, if that's what you assumed by my weight - I'm merely just a fatass with some bad habits that I'm working on) Annorexia is often characterized by the caloric intake of 900 calories or less on a consistent basis... Throwing in a 100 calorie pack of goldfish (just as an EXAMPLE) doesn't really make that much of a difference, the habit is still unhealthy and promoting that is a disservice to oneself as well as to others.

I was not assuming you were big boned because of your weight. I'm sorry if it came off like that. And I'm not saying it's HEALTHY to eat 1,000 calories. But if you eat the right food it is certainly possible to be FULL off it.

It's all good, I'm not insulted by it by any means. I didn't mean it like that I'm just not speaking from the perspective of someone who IS 5'10 with a large bone frame. No offense taken - I'm fat and I'm cool with that lol It's something to work on, without things to work on life would be boring. I just get irritated when we congratulate each other as a community for unhealthy habits - the goal shouldn't be to be "skinny" the goal should be to be HEALTHY. And that entails taking care of your mental health just as much as physical health

daisymae9801

Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.

I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.

So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.

AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!

And I meant under 1000 calories, not 100. Obviously. Because that would be even more absurd.

Yes, there is a way you can be full on 1000 calories. We're not all 5'10" and big boned. Some of us are petite with a few extra lbs we'd like to lose and we require much less food than someone larger. And trying to dispell the starvation mode myth is far different from promoting anorexia.

I disagree. Everyone requires more than 1000 calories, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. This has nothing to do with being "big boned and 5'10" (which I'm not, if that's what you assumed by my weight - I'm merely just a fatass with some bad habits that I'm working on) Annorexia is often characterized by the caloric intake of 900 calories or less on a consistent basis... Throwing in a 100 calorie pack of goldfish (just as an EXAMPLE) doesn't really make that much of a difference, the habit is still unhealthy and promoting that is a disservice to oneself as well as to others.

I was not assuming you were big boned because of your weight. I'm sorry if it came off like that. And I'm not saying it's HEALTHY to eat 1,000 calories. But if you eat the right food it is certainly possible to be FULL off it.

It's all good, I'm not insulted by it by any means. I didn't mean it like that I'm just not speaking from the perspective of someone who IS 5'10 with a large bone frame. No offense taken - I'm fat and I'm cool with that lol It's something to work on, without things to work on life would be boring. I just get irritated when we congratulate each other as a community for unhealthy habits - the goal shouldn't be to be "skinny" the goal should be to be HEALTHY. And that entails taking care of your mental health just as much as physical health

Very true!

satousan88

I've been losing weight the healthy and slow way for 1 year now simply by eating healthier and less, and stucking at a plateau for weeks. I might think about increasing my workouts...I did not eat back my excersice calories (for me its more logic to not eat them back)

I know you might think I'm anorexic, but it is easier for me to eat 500~800 calories than eating 1.200. I concentrate on what I eat, and mostly vegetable stuff and protein from salmon and other fish. I'm NOT planning on eating that way for more then a month, but I'm not worried about starvation either, because I'm obviously still not thin and I'm not hungry lol
(and I already read about the so called starvation mode in many posts)

but thank you very much for your consideration...

nikkit321

Thanks - all the starvation mode talk on here can be confusing & intimidating for us newbies.

mynameisnutz

In addition, the men who did the research in the 40's may not have hit actual starvation mode until MUCH weight loss had occurred months into the experiment.... but I'm sure if you dug deeper you would find that MONTHS into that research most of the weight they lost was in muscle, not in fat. I don't know about anyone else, but it's the FAT I'm trying to lose, and the MUSCLE I'm trying to maintain.... something to think about.

I've read the study and cannot find anything that would allow me to come to that conclusion.

Could you be so good as to cite the section in the MN starvation study to back up this claim?

LOL... you're telling me you read the entire two volume 1400 page study regarding the Minnesota starvation experiment? Consider me skeptical.

I think it's fairly clear that much of the weight loss during the semistarvation period of the MN study was muscle mass, considering the rehabilitation period was designed to put muscle mass back on.

You do realize their daily energy expenditure was ~3000 calories, and that they were being fed ~1800 calories per day of almost pure carbs? Please find me any dietitian/nutritionist/MD/PhD who wont tell you that such a dietary situation would cause muscle wasting over a 6 month period.

Considering the point of this study was to actually STARVE the subjects to determine the best method of rehabbing WWII concentration camp survivors, I don't think this study actually applies to anybody here.

TateFTW

I've been losing weight the healthy and slow way for 1 year now simply by eating healthier and less, and stucking at a plateau for weeks. I might think about increasing my workouts...I did not eat back my excersice calories (for me its more logic to not eat them back)

I know you might think I'm anorexic, but it is easier for me to eat 500~800 calories than eating 1.200. I concentrate on what I eat, and mostly vegetable stuff and protein from salmon and other fish. I'm NOT planning on eating that way for more then a month, but I'm not worried about starvation either, because I'm obviously still not thin and I'm not hungry lol
(and I already read about the so called starvation mode in many posts)

but thank you very much for your consideration...

Ok. . .I understand. Know that when you up your intake again you might not lose for a little while as your body gets used to a normal intake again. If anything, you might want to go to maintenance for atleast a few days to get the furnaces going again, then go back to a healthier deficit. Sometimes your body needs a kick in the pants to get moving again, but it doesn't always have to be a bigger deficit. I find I can't lose more than 5 lbs without needing to go back to maintenance for a while.

erickirb

I've been losing weight the healthy and slow way for 1 year now simply by eating healthier and less, and stucking at a plateau for weeks. I might think about increasing my workouts...I did not eat back my excersice calories (for me its more logic to not eat them back)

I know you might think I'm anorexic, but it is easier for me to eat 500~800 calories than eating 1.200. I concentrate on what I eat, and mostly vegetable stuff and protein from salmon and other fish. I'm NOT planning on eating that way for more then a month, but I'm not worried about starvation either, because I'm obviously still not thin and I'm not hungry lol
(and I already read about the so called starvation mode in many posts)

but thank you very much for your consideration...

severely restricting calories, like eating 500 calories a day, is anorexic, you may want to talk to a specialist instead of auguring the merits of your diet to us. You could have busted through your plateau by eating more, not less. Please seek professional help.

satousan88

I've been losing weight the healthy and slow way for 1 year now simply by eating healthier and less, and stucking at a plateau for weeks. I might think about increasing my workouts...I did not eat back my excersice calories (for me its more logic to not eat them back)

I know you might think I'm anorexic, but it is easier for me to eat 500~800 calories than eating 1.200. I concentrate on what I eat, and mostly vegetable stuff and protein from salmon and other fish. I'm NOT planning on eating that way for more then a month, but I'm not worried about starvation either, because I'm obviously still not thin and I'm not hungry lol
(and I already read about the so called starvation mode in many posts)

but thank you very much for your consideration...

Ok. . .I understand. Know that when you up your intake again you might not lose for a little while as your body gets used to a normal intake again. If anything, you might want to go to maintenance for atleast a few days to get the furnaces going again, then go back to a healthier deficit. Sometimes your body needs a kick in the pants to get moving again, but it doesn't always have to be a bigger deficit. I find I can't lose more than 5 lbs without needing to go back to maintenance for a while.

That kick definitly worked! As for maintenance I'm planning slowly on returning to a higher calorie intake and starting to work out again. Because fast weight loss is not the answer anyway... but I wanted to break my plateau, and I succeeded! The deficit is big, but I found that it works best for my body and I'm not planning on ruining my health.

Please seek professional help. ---> I am NOT anorexic LOL! Look at my goal weight!

TateFTW

I've been losing weight the healthy and slow way for 1 year now simply by eating healthier and less, and stucking at a plateau for weeks. I might think about increasing my workouts...I did not eat back my excersice calories (for me its more logic to not eat them back)

I know you might think I'm anorexic, but it is easier for me to eat 500~800 calories than eating 1.200. I concentrate on what I eat, and mostly vegetable stuff and protein from salmon and other fish. I'm NOT planning on eating that way for more then a month, but I'm not worried about starvation either, because I'm obviously still not thin and I'm not hungry lol
(and I already read about the so called starvation mode in many posts)

but thank you very much for your consideration...

Ok. . .I understand. Know that when you up your intake again you might not lose for a little while as your body gets used to a normal intake again. If anything, you might want to go to maintenance for atleast a few days to get the furnaces going again, then go back to a healthier deficit. Sometimes your body needs a kick in the pants to get moving again, but it doesn't always have to be a bigger deficit. I find I can't lose more than 5 lbs without needing to go back to maintenance for a while.

That kick definitly worked! As for maintenance I'm planning slowly on returning to a higher calorie intake and starting to work out again. Because fast weight loss is not the answer anyway... but I wanted to break my plateau, and I succeeded! The deficit is big, but I found that it works best for my body and I'm not planning on ruining my health.

Please seek professional help. ---> I am NOT anorexic LOL! Look at my goal weight!

Actually, I'd recomend against slowly going from one intake to another. Because your metabolism will have slowed, if you go back up slowly you won't be losing, but your metabolism will only speed up very slowly as your intake increases. You'll give your metabolism a nice big shot in the arm if one day you just go straight back to mainenance. All it will take is a few days, and your metabloism will be back up to speed, so that when you go back to a smaller, healthier deficit you'll keep losing at a predictable rate.

But either way will work, as long as you up your intake very soon. Your body is not going to be happy with you for a little while, and the longer you do it the greater the chance of serious injury.

satousan88

Actually, I'd recomend against slowly going from one intake to another. You'll give your metabolism a big shot in the arm if one day you just go straight back to mainenance. All it will take is a few days, and your metabloism will be back up to speed, so that when you go back to a smaller, healthier deficit you'll keep losing at a predictable rate.

But either way will work, and I'm glad you're following a strategic approach.

I see!
I will try that then! Thank you so much for your advice and not judging me randomly as anorexic just because my plan looks odd lol.

Seanb_us

Hi,

I figure we are all in this for results over the long term, right? So, moderation is probably the key, and what moderation is probably depends on what our bodies are like.

I suspect a lot of plateauing for me, in the past, yo-yo dieting, has been this:

"Most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30 and attempts to tract exercise and activities levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem tat people are not accurately determining their caloric intake and output"
(http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267).

And, 8x8 water-only has never worked for me (http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/283/5/R993.full) ....

But, I am new to all of this. So I am proceeding under the assumption that the calories MFP gives me for cardio are too high and the calories I report for food intake are too low. That being said, I want this to become a lifestyle change, so am targeting my calorie goal because it is achievable within the confines of my life's schedule.

Cheers.

Sean

erickirb

not sure why that double posted when I went to make an edit???

spitfire1962

I'm so glad to read this. I can't say how many times I get told that I'm going to go into starvation mode. I rarely go under 1200 calories daily. I don't lose weight when I eat back my calories, only when I don't. It makes sense that I would have to burn more than what I consume to lose weight. So I'm going to listen to my body, if my stomach is growling, I'm still hungry, well then I will eat. If I'm too full and can't eat another bite and I'm at 1200 or close, then I'm stopping.

robertf57

I can only speak from my own personal experiences. I am 5'3 and at 1200 cals plus exercise I was not losing weight, I was losing muscle and I was becoming tired and weak. I recently upped my cal intake to what my desired goal weight is. I thought I would lose slower but it would be a lifestyle change, not a diet. I hate the word diet. Every diet I have ever been on was a temporary fix. Living on a net of 1200 cals that includes exercise a day is a quick fix and not something that can be a permanent change, not realistic.

Well I did up my caloric intake to my desired weight intake, guess what, I am dropping pounds faster now. I have more energy to do even more exercise. I feel better than I have in years. Losing weight faster is not what I expected, but I am thrilled. I know now I feel stronger and know that I have found a permanent life change which will prevent me from ever gaining the weight again!

Starving (as in not giving my body the nutrients it needs to be healthy) myself to be skinny was not worth it and not realistic for me and my lifestyle. It just seemed pointless since I was looking for a permanent fix not just a quick I need to lose fast fix. And now I can have a treat a day, sometimes two and I AM STILL losing weight and gaining muscle!

Success to all on your journey!

Post hoc ergo propter hoc:ohwell:

kklindsey

Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.

I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.

So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.

AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!

I am frequently full on 1000 calories a day. How on earth would you know if anyone was full or not?

LorinaLynn

I think the term Starvation Mode is tossed around too much, but I also know that losing weight isn't JUST a matter of eating less.

I see too many people who are afraid of food. Too many "Is it ok if I eat this? How about this?" questions. EAT! You're grownups! You can make decisions for yourself! Your body needs fuel! And too many people who are in a big *kitten* hurry to lose the weight as quickly as possible. It took time to put it on. It'll take time to take it off. No vacation, reunion, wedding or any other event is worth sacrificing your health.

For me, it's about trial and error. I tried eating less. I felt like poop and wasn't losing weight. I tried eating more. The pounds started falling off and I felt phenomenal. I know what works for me. I can't say it'll work for anyone else.

But what will work for everyone is finding your own personal happy place in all this, where you're losing weight, have lots of energy, and aren't paranoid that you're one slice of pizza away from disaster. And that will take your own trials and errors too.