starvation mode
Replies
-
"Starvation mode" is one of the oldest fitness myths. It can be traced back to the Minnesota Starvation Experiment in which subjects were literally fed only enough to survive. As a result, yes, their bodies broke down protein and bone for emergency sustenance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
Here's another fact that absolutely fascinates me. The lead researcher on the project was Ancel Keys, the very same guy who is responsible for the widespread yet erroneous belief that saturation fat is somehow worse for you that unsaturated fat. This would later become known as "The Lipid Hypothesis," which was quickly demonstrated to be fraudulent.
Sadly, the margarine manufacturers latched onto Keys' baloney research, and used it as a springboard for their business. And that's why people hate saturated fat! Small world right?
Your seriously going to bring up the Starvation Experiment, the same one that resulted in self mutilation, depression and loss of sexual appetite?
*You're
And...yes?
We can go with something more recent if that peels your banana. Studies show that your metabolism doesn't start to slow until 60 - 96 hours of fasting. And even then only by 8%. Here's an extremely well-sourced article on the topic...
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
I would also draw your attention to the thousands upon thousands of people who have had great success with intermittent fasting diets. Are they...what...lying?
The idea that your body starts "burning off" muscle after a few hours without eating is nonsense. Unless you are literally starving, your body is going to use up fat stores. That's what they're there for.
I mean I feel like we sort of agree with each other here. If the average MFP user was really in a true starvation mode, wouldn't they too be self-mutilating and acting all depressed and failing to satisfy their husbands/wives/tissue boxes? None of this passes a common sense check.0 -
As I've said before, there IS such a thing as starvation mode and it is NOT what everyone on here claims it to be.
Can you be in this mode and still eat? YES
It is a medical condition, diagnosable by a physician, and treated with hormone therapy.
I know this because I was diagnosed at 24.
I wrote an extensive blog about it a couple weeks ago because I was so tired of people calling it a myth. It can't be a myth if it's a diagnosable syndrome. It does have a definition in the medical community, and has diagnosing criteria.
People with eating disorder can suffer the consequences... but the reality of it is, the syndrome doesn't develop over days. It takes weeks, months even, of limited to no eating on a regular basis to produce the symptoms.
Can you be in starvation mode and gain weight? YES
Those of us who were anorexic and then binged will tell you, you can gain a ton of weight in a short period of time if you don't rehabilitate properly.
That being said, unless you are diagnosed by a physician, I would stop throwing around the term. It is insulting to those of us that have to handle this issue every day.0 -
The term "Starvation Mode" is indeed an absurd notion.As I've said before, there IS such a thing as starvation mode and it is NOT what everyone on here claims it to be.
Can you be in this mode and still eat? YES
It is a medical condition, diagnosable by a physician, and treated with hormone therapy.
I know this because I was diagnosed at 24.
I wrote an extensive blog about it a couple weeks ago because I was so tired of people calling it a myth. It can't be a myth if it's a diagnosable syndrome. It does have a definition in the medical community, and has diagnosing criteria.
People with eating disorder can suffer the consequences... but the reality of it is, the syndrome doesn't develop over days. It takes weeks, months even, of limited to no eating on a regular basis to produce the symptoms.
Can you be in starvation mode and gain weight? YES
Those of us who were anorexic and then binged will tell you, you can gain a ton of weight in a short period of time if you don't rehabilitate properly.
That being said, unless you are diagnosed by a physician, I would stop throwing around the term. It is insulting to those of us that have to handle this issue every day.
I prefer the nebulous metabolism stifling.
And just answer for yourself.
Which would you rather?
Some are plateauing at 1200 calories per day while I am joyfully eating 3000 + daily and losing weight.
I think life is to be lived, and I have trained my metabolism to burn baby burn!
I may not know the exact science, but my conclusion is that low cal diets just SUCK!0 -
FACT: when your deficit is too high, metabolism is stifled.
Weight loss becomes harder.
More lean body mass is burned away.
This is what it all boils down to.0 -
"Starvation mode" is one of the oldest fitness myths. It can be traced back to the Minnesota Starvation Experiment in which subjects were literally fed only enough to survive. As a result, yes, their bodies broke down protein and bone for emergency sustenance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
Here's another fact that absolutely fascinates me. The lead researcher on the project was Ancel Keys, the very same guy who is responsible for the widespread yet erroneous belief that saturation fat is somehow worse for you that unsaturated fat. This would later become known as "The Lipid Hypothesis," which was quickly demonstrated to be fraudulent.
Sadly, the margarine manufacturers latched onto Keys' baloney research, and used it as a springboard for their business. And that's why people hate saturated fat! Small world right?
Your seriously going to bring up the Starvation Experiment, the same one that resulted in self mutilation, depression and loss of sexual appetite?
*You're
And...yes?
We can go with something more recent if that peels your banana. Studies show that your metabolism doesn't start to slow until 60 - 96 hours of fasting. And even then only by 8%. Here's an extremely well-sourced article on the topic...
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
I would also draw your attention to the thousands upon thousands of people who have had great success with intermittent fasting diets. Are they...what...lying?
The idea that your body starts "burning off" muscle after a few hours without eating is nonsense. Unless you are literally starving, your body is going to use up fat stores. That's what they're there for.
I mean I feel like we sort of agree with each other here. If the average MFP user was really in a true starvation mode, wouldn't they too be self-mutilating and acting all depressed and failing to satisfy their husbands/wives/tissue boxes? None of this passes a common sense check.
The fact that you are taking the time to correct my spelling is childish at the very least, enough said. And you can spend all night peeling your bananas if you like
Please feel free to correct my spelling and grammar in this post. 0 -
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?0 -
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Because the human body is programmed to hold on to fat as a long term means of storing energy.
Also I sense this is the path this whole topic is taking, yet again.
0 -
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Because the human body is programmed to hold on to fat as a long term means of storing energy.
Also I sense this is the path this whole topic is taking, yet again.
If someone uses their muscle, then their body is not going to willingly give it up. The body will always give up fat over muscle.0 -
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Because the human body is programmed to hold on to fat as a long term means of storing energy.
Also I sense this is the path this whole topic is taking, yet again.
If someone uses their muscle, then their body is not going to willingly give it up. The body will always give up fat over muscle.
Well this statement flies in the face of any medical professional I have ever talked to about the subject. Granted my sources may be wrong but I tend to believe them. Can you please provide sources for this? I would honestly like to read it and bring it up at my next appointment in 2 days.
Important to note I am still talking about the " starvation mode" stage. Not awesome diet and good exercise time.0 -
Think again,I was wondering about eating those "extra" calories back - I am thinking not.
Eat back your exercise calories.
MFP calculates our total daily calorie intake WITHOUT exercise to lose 1 pound or so per week.
And after we log exercises, our daily calorie limit increases.
Why?
Because MFP telling us to eat our exercise calories.
Large deficits are unhealthy, because while you will lose weight, what's the quality of the weight loss?
In many cases you'll lose lean body mass - MUSCLE - which LOWERS your metabolic rate, making weight loss harder.
These crash diets work well for a season -- and sure enough, the pounds melt away. But when you eat so
few calories, you train your metabolism to slow down. Once the diet is over, you have a body that burns calories
more slowly -- and you gain weight.
Be smart.
Exercise well both cardio and resistance, and eat back the calories.
The exercise will RAISE your metabolism and burn more fat at rest.
Great information as well, thank you. I probably dont estimate my calories correctly everyday, my excercise might be off, even my HRM can be off some days (it told me one day I only burned 80 calories for JM 30 DS when the day before was 213). So, I personally try to eat at least half and maybe leave about 1/4 of my exercise calories, just to make myself feel better about eating them back but not too much.0 -
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
[/quote]
Exactly! :happy:0 -
But those calories could be for a 400 lb person which I am not.
I tested this. MFP tells you how many calories you burn based on your weight. I tested this by making two accounts: one with my real weight (120 lbs) and with a much higher weight (200 lbs). I entered the same cardio exercise and the calories burned were different with each weight. So, you can assume that the "calories burned" on MFP is more or less accurate.0 -
The term "Starvation Mode" is indeed an absurd notion.As I've said before, there IS such a thing as starvation mode and it is NOT what everyone on here claims it to be.
Can you be in this mode and still eat? YES
It is a medical condition, diagnosable by a physician, and treated with hormone therapy.
I know this because I was diagnosed at 24.
I wrote an extensive blog about it a couple weeks ago because I was so tired of people calling it a myth. It can't be a myth if it's a diagnosable syndrome. It does have a definition in the medical community, and has diagnosing criteria.
People with eating disorder can suffer the consequences... but the reality of it is, the syndrome doesn't develop over days. It takes weeks, months even, of limited to no eating on a regular basis to produce the symptoms.
Can you be in starvation mode and gain weight? YES
Those of us who were anorexic and then binged will tell you, you can gain a ton of weight in a short period of time if you don't rehabilitate properly.
That being said, unless you are diagnosed by a physician, I would stop throwing around the term. It is insulting to those of us that have to handle this issue every day.
I prefer the nebulous metabolism stifling.
And just answer for yourself.
Which would you rather?
Some are plateauing at 1200 calories per day while I am joyfully eating 3000 + daily and losing weight.
I think life is to be lived, and I have trained my metabolism to burn baby burn!
I may not know the exact science, but my conclusion is that low cal diets just SUCK!
That's great! I am so glad it works for you.
But when I eat more i gain, that's how I gained. But anyway, you sound like an expert, what do you recommend for a female 5'2.5" cw 158 gw 130? Currently I'm eat around 1200 calories & do 60 min cardio 7 days a week, and lift girly free weights 4 days a week. I have lost 25 lbs so far(sw183) tried the eat more & gained back 10, swiched back to 1200 calories. & lost 12 since jan 1st but maybe I should just eat my burned calories back sine it works for everyone.0 -
Here is the connection between these two views, and it has to do with what else is going on along with the diet.
If you are ONLY dieting and creating a huge deficit below your BMR, and your metabolism slows down, your daily routine and method of energy supply isn't going to change much.
At rest, 70% of your reduced energy is from fat, 28/29% from carbs, 1/2$ from protein that was either available after a meal or muscle breakdown just because cells get replaced, so the protein was available.
And actually, that last part is iffy, because as the body has a limited supply of incoming energy to work with, repairing muscle is not likely to be high on the list. Grow hair, nails, or replace muscle, or keep electrolyte levels correct in the cells.
Now, add on exercise. So perhaps not a huge deficit just from diet, but the exercise just made as big a deficit.
At rest will be the same supply of energy.
It's when you start moving that things get interesting, so depending on your effort, now 50-70% or more of your energy could easily come from carbs, 25-45% fat, and 5% protein.
So this person burns 500 calories a day with exercise, lets say accurate estimate.
300 cal from carbs, rest basically from fat.
Eats 1000 calories, say 600 of that carbs, big part is used to top of liver and muscles, used for other energy needs throughout the day. In fact, each time after eating, that is the calories used for energy until they are gone.
So that 600 of carbs is likely NOT topping off the muscle glycogen at all. Depends how badly in deficit.
Do that several days in a row.
Now exercise with low glucose stores. Guess what the body does if it senses running out of glucose required to burn the fat?
It starts breaking down muscle. When approaching and hitting the "wall" in a marathon for recreational runners, your body will now get from 15-25% percent of the energy to replace not making the glucose totally run out, in order to keep burning the fat.
So talking about this metabolism stifled, or BMR suppressed state (leave starvation mode out, as indicated, real illness)
So do you start breaking down muscle inbetween meals - no, of course not.
If doing diet only - do you start breaking it down - no more than usual.
If you are doing diet and exercise, and your diet isn't replacing your glucose stores for use as energy to burn the fat, then yes muscle will be broken down by glycogenesis to make glucose to burn the fat.
So doesn't do it automatically, but you are sure in a better position to make it happen, if you are netting below your BMR on a constant basis.0 -
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Because the human body is programmed to hold on to fat as a long term means of storing energy.
Also I sense this is the path this whole topic is taking, yet again.
If someone uses their muscle, then their body is not going to willingly give it up. The body will always give up fat over muscle.
Well this statement flies in the face of any medical professional I have ever talked to about the subject. Granted my sources may be wrong but I tend to believe them. Can you please provide sources for this? I would honestly like to read it and bring it up at my next appointment in 2 days.
Important to note I am still talking about the " starvation mode" stage. Not awesome diet and good exercise time.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/muscle-loss-while-dieting-to-single-digit-body-fat-levels-qa.html
If you train your muscles and eat adequate protein, then muscle loss should not be a factor. It is really only a factor in lean individuals for the most part.0 -
But when I eat more i gain, that's how I gained. But anyway, you sound like an expert, what do you recommend for a female 5'2.5" cw 158 gw 130? Currently I'm eat around 1200 calories & do 60 min cardio 7 days a week, and lift girly free weights 4 days a week. I have lost 25 lbs so far(sw183) tried the eat more & gained back 10, swiched back to 1200 calories. & lost 12 since jan 1st but maybe I should just eat my burned calories back sine it works for everyone.
No age mentioned, so for 30 yrs old at current weight, your healthy estimated full burning BMR is 1486.
I'm sure by undercutting your BMR that much with diet and exercise, as soon as you gave it ANY extra food, it held on to it, probably had some muscle to repair.
A body with suppressed metabolism has to see that it is not just getting a much needed treat, but a real change of eating, to start going back up.
Sure it can happen. Could take 6 wks as in this case, and even during recovery lose 5 lbs of fat!
http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html
A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender). After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:
Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week
After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.
So her RMR went up over 300 calories. 2100 calories of free burn had been lost each week at the lowered BMR level.0 -
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Because the human body is programmed to hold on to fat as a long term means of storing energy.
Also I sense this is the path this whole topic is taking, yet again.
If someone uses their muscle, then their body is not going to willingly give it up. The body will always give up fat over muscle.
Well this statement flies in the face of any medical professional I have ever talked to about the subject. Granted my sources may be wrong but I tend to believe them. Can you please provide sources for this? I would honestly like to read it and bring it up at my next appointment in 2 days.
Important to note I am still talking about the " starvation mode" stage. Not awesome diet and good exercise time.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/muscle-loss-while-dieting-to-single-digit-body-fat-levels-qa.html
If you train your muscles and eat adequate protein, then muscle loss should not be a factor. It is really only a factor in lean individuals for the most part.
Exactly, if you feed your body correctly, that we can agree on. But when I see people on this site who put their calorie goals at 1200 calories , workout 1000 calories and net 200 a day, there is no way for that to be healthy.0 -
I tested this. MFP tells you how many calories you burn based on your weight. I tested this by making two accounts: one with my real weight (120 lbs) and with a much higher weight (200 lbs). I entered the same cardio exercise and the calories burned were different with each weight. So, you can assume that the "calories burned" on MFP is more or less accurate.
Excellent.
And MFP actually just bought, or perhaps its public domain, the same database a lot of other sites use. Because they all have the same paces and exact descriptions of activities, and same cal burns.
http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/calculat.htm
http://briancalkins.com/caloriecalc.htm0 -
Given your results, keep on doing what works. Your metabolism just hums on low probably as a result of your diet choices. Who knows?
The term "Starvation Mode" is indeed an absurd notion.As I've said before, there IS such a thing as starvation mode and it is NOT what everyone on here claims it to be.
Can you be in this mode and still eat? YES
It is a medical condition, diagnosable by a physician, and treated with hormone therapy.
I know this because I was diagnosed at 24.
I wrote an extensive blog about it a couple weeks ago because I was so tired of people calling it a myth. It can't be a myth if it's a diagnosable syndrome. It does have a definition in the medical community, and has diagnosing criteria.
People with eating disorder can suffer the consequences... but the reality of it is, the syndrome doesn't develop over days. It takes weeks, months even, of limited to no eating on a regular basis to produce the symptoms.
Can you be in starvation mode and gain weight? YES
Those of us who were anorexic and then binged will tell you, you can gain a ton of weight in a short period of time if you don't rehabilitate properly.
That being said, unless you are diagnosed by a physician, I would stop throwing around the term. It is insulting to those of us that have to handle this issue every day.
I prefer the nebulous metabolism stifling.
And just answer for yourself.
Which would you rather?
Some are plateauing at 1200 calories per day while I am joyfully eating 3000 + daily and losing weight.
I think life is to be lived, and I have trained my metabolism to burn baby burn!
I may not know the exact science, but my conclusion is that low cal diets just SUCK!
That's great! I am so glad it works for you.
But when I eat more i gain, that's how I gained. But anyway, you sound like an expert, what do you recommend for a female 5'2.5" cw 158 gw 130? Currently I'm eat around 1200 calories & do 60 min cardio 7 days a week, and lift girly free weights 4 days a week. I have lost 25 lbs so far(sw183) tried the eat more & gained back 10, swiched back to 1200 calories. & lost 12 since jan 1st but maybe I should just eat my burned calories back sine it works for everyone.
I just prefer a program where I can eat twice as much as those doing it your way and achieve the same results.
I love to eat!
Good luck to you; I just would not make it on that program, but again, your results are all that matter.
Results trump anybody's argument:drinker:0 -
And what a totally MISERABLE existence!
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Because the human body is programmed to hold on to fat as a long term means of storing energy.
Also I sense this is the path this whole topic is taking, yet again.
If someone uses their muscle, then their body is not going to willingly give it up. The body will always give up fat over muscle.
Well this statement flies in the face of any medical professional I have ever talked to about the subject. Granted my sources may be wrong but I tend to believe them. Can you please provide sources for this? I would honestly like to read it and bring it up at my next appointment in 2 days.
Important to note I am still talking about the " starvation mode" stage. Not awesome diet and good exercise time.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/muscle-loss-while-dieting-to-single-digit-body-fat-levels-qa.html
If you train your muscles and eat adequate protein, then muscle loss should not be a factor. It is really only a factor in lean individuals for the most part.
Exactly, if you feed your body correctly, that we can agree on. But when I see people on this site who put their calorie goals at 1200 calories , workout 1000 calories and net 200 a day, there is no way for that to be healthy.
Does that sound fun?0 -
Because you won't listen,
No, how about doing some research?I'm quite skeptical when people say they are eating 1200 calories, exercising like crazy, and not losing weight. It doesn't add up to me. The body cannot become exponentially more efficient at doing the same amount of work just because it goes into some starvation mode. If your body goes into starvation mode, then by definition it is not going to be possible to exercise like crazy because it thinks its starving.
People are either 1) underestimating calories consumed, or 2) overestimating exercise, or more than likely both.
When calories are restricted, metabolism slows down in response.
That's universally accepted kind of like the moon not being made of cheese.
Can you still lose weight? Of course!
Is it the healthiest way to go about your diet?
No way!
What is the point to this? Just decide what you really want, then go for it.
And if that included some absurd starvation diet, be my guest.
See for yourself; just COUNT ME OUT!
I choose health as is recommended on this site.
1 pound of weight loss per week folks. It's not a race.
Why don't you explain to me why someone who has an abundance of fat will burn muscle?
Go ahead; do the crash diet, low cal thing if you want. Eat 500 calories per day - really show me how it's done.
And I shall continue to eat fabulous foods that I love and get results on my 3000 calorie diet.
Again I ask others watching this absurd debate: which would you really prefer?0 -
That sucks, I was hoping for info that would work. I did that for 4 months that's when I gained the weight. I guess I'll just stick to waht works for me. 1200 calories consumed in 6 small meals, and my protien/ carb/fat is about the same as your post i'm 40 by the way I don't know if that would change your advice or not.But when I eat more i gain, that's how I gained. But anyway, you sound like an expert, what do you recommend for a female 5'2.5" cw 158 gw 130? Currently I'm eat around 1200 calories & do 60 min cardio 7 days a week, and lift girly free weights 4 days a week. I have lost 25 lbs so far(sw183) tried the eat more & gained back 10, swiched back to 1200 calories. & lost 12 since jan 1st but maybe I should just eat my burned calories back sine it works for everyone.
No age mentioned, so for 30 yrs old at current weight, your healthy estimated full burning BMR is 1486.
I'm sure by undercutting your BMR that much with diet and exercise, as soon as you gave it ANY extra food, it held on to it, probably had some muscle to repair.
A body with suppressed metabolism has to see that it is not just getting a much needed treat, but a real change of eating, to start going back up.
Sure it can happen. Could take 6 wks as in this case, and even during recovery lose 5 lbs of fat!
http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html
A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender). After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:
Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week
After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.
So her RMR went up over 300 calories. 2100 calories of free burn had been lost each week at the lowered BMR level.0 -
I kept hearing over and over about starvation mode in these forums. I don't believe that people are not losing weight because they are in starvation mode.
http://www.sharecare.com/question/weight-loss-plateau-starvation-mode
It should have been logical enough for me, but after hearing it over and over, I started to think it must be true. But after reading these answers about it in the link above, I have to say that it makes sense that if you are truly in starvation, then you are not going to gain weight. So if eating back calories works for you then by all means. But is it possible that your calories burned measurement is off? Or the number of calories you are consuming is not correct?
I know that I personally am not sure of the calories I am burning because often I just use whatever calories are in the database here. But those calories could be for a 400 lb person which I am not. I also don't know that if I select a food in the database here and add it to my food diary that the number of calories that I am consuming is correct. It could be wrong. Unless I weigh/measure everything I eat and calculate the caloric content myself, and unless I have some device that is going to accurately tell me exactly the number of calories i am burning, then it just might be that my math is off.
I probably need to just eat a little less and exercise a little more.
Starvation mode very unlikely unless really abusing yourself.
Suppressed or slowed metabolism very easily done, especially eating even less and exercising even more than safely recommended on a costant basis (oh, MFP is willing to set your goal daily calories below your BMR, while maybe not unsafe, not really smart either).
But you won't starve, you don't burn more muscle, your body just slows down everything all the time, so less calories burned than what could have been burned. Every day.
And if you do a binge here and there after you get discouraged because of the stall, it doesn't raise itself, it just stores it away for future use.
http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html
A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender). After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:
Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week
After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.
So her RMR went up over 300 calories. 2100 calories of free burn had been lost each week at the lowered BMR level.
whoah.... this is very interesting. I am working out several hours 5-6 days a week, consuming the 1000ish calories and not losing either. i am changing my ways and we will see what happens!!!0 -
The human body can ONLY lose so much FAT in a day.
After said fat is exhausted the receptors kick in and start targeting Active Tissue.
This is an act to drop TDEE and slow the body down.
The Active Tissue is lean mass.
This includes skeletal muscle as well as the heart.
Most of the time the body will catabolize damaged tissue.
For people who are into working out this could be the muscle group you just hit hard in the gym but arent recovering with proper nutrition.
Congratulations!
You just failed at dieting!0 -
I have qualms about depending on the totals. I also count calories and don't know that the exercise is accurate. It always reports me with 200-400 calories "to spare" for what my daily intake goal is or should be. However, my weight is pretty stable, and it would be too much I think to eat that much more over the amount I currently consume - though, I have to admit, it would be nice possibly to think of eating to that extent.
But the exercise I do is not strenuous like years ago (before I bought an exercise bike and stopped going to the gym daily); and I don't even sweat, but it states it's something like 150 calories for 1/2 hour.
Anyway, I would gather to guess it's a few hundred calories off between consumption of food with the addition of exercise, for me anyway. I know my food content is pretty accurate for weights and measures - including the guesswork.
Thanks for everyone's posting, it helps me to feel at ease about the "starvation" versus "satiation" versus "saturation" issue with eating and tracking foods.
:flowerforyou:0 -
ok let me just make sure im reading this correctly...so some are saying to boost metabolism and to help with weight loss that if i workout and burn 400 calories...that i SHOULD eat those calories back? just want to make sure because i am working out 5 times a week for about an hour and eating alot better and i am not losing any weight....0
-
Yes to eating back calories!
Heres the deal gang!
After running hundreds of numbers for people of all shapes and sizes i've come up with 1 fact!
If you are 5'3" and work out 3-5 times a week, you must consume 1600-1800 calories a day to provide nutrients to vital organs and fuel the machine!
Period!
Anything lower and sure you can lose 2lbs a week for a while but up to half of that will be lean mass.
Period!
No special exceptions.
No "I'm unique!"
No "If im lifting heavy etc..."
If you come into this game with a body fat of 30%+ and eat low to lose lean mass while losing fat you are doing it wrong!
Period!
Perfect bodies are built in the kitchen and while you sleep!
Everything else is secondary!
There is no such thing as "starving" in any diet book!0 -
bump0
-
I would suggest reading Jillian Michael's new metabolism book. In it she describes how she was a mess, her metabolism had slowed down, many of her hormone levels were way off.... she was always tired. She describes exercising hour upon hour at the gym and having trouble keeping her weight where she wanted it. Her solution was to start eating more of the right kinds of foods.... she also went organic to avoid toxins that were causing her body hormonal problems, and now she only exercises 3 to 5 hours a week, feels so much better, eats tons more food and is keeping off the weight. Food for thought!0
-
There is no standard, scientific definition of "starvation mode".
FACT: when your deficit is too high, metabolism is stifled.
Weight loss becomes harder.
More lean body mass is burned away.
Very few would argue credibly against that.
MFP recommends 1 pound per week for a reason. If you're pushing something else, NO THANK YOU!
I choose optimal health over mere weight loss to go from fat to skinny fat.
What's the point?
^^^^ that. All of that.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