starvation mode myth
Options
Replies
-
Oh boy, I don't really know why I'm even replying to this thread but here it goes:
Starvation mode: No (wrong terminology)
Conservation mode: YES
I am 5'5 and currently 177 lbs. Very active. Just a short while ago I was consuming a mere 1300 calories max a day for an extended period of time. After a while my body went into CONSERVATION mode. No matter what I ate, how little or how much I exercised I lost NOTHING. My body did not believe that I was going to feed it again because I drastically changed my intake and it held onto everything. Check out the 'Eat more to weigh less' forums. It will explain EVERYTHING! I am now eating 1750 caloires a day (to lose 1 lb. per week) and losing weight steadily.
The end0 -
If 1200 fits you then make it happen!
Sadly it doesnt work for a lot of people.
Science and math just fails.
But see, a lot of people make really condescending comments about people on 1200 calories a day. (I know not everyone in the eat more/eat enough group do.) I'd love to eat more than 1200--I unfortunately just don't lose weight when I do. I do agree that there is no reason for some people to eat that low. It makes more sense to me to eat at your 500 calorie deficit and then keep dropping as you need to so your body doesn't get too used to the low numbers and then have nothing to drop to.0 -
Oh boy, I don't really know why I'm even replying to this thread but here it goes:
Starvation mode: No (wrong terminology)
Conservation mode: YES
I am 5'5 and currently 177 lbs. Very active. Just a short while ago I was consuming a mere 1300 calories max a day for an extended period of time. After a while my body went into CONSERVATION mode. No matter what I ate, how little or how much I exercised I lost NOTHING. My body did not believe that I was going to feed it again because I drastically changed my intake and it held onto everything. Check out the 'Eat more to weigh less' forums. It will explain EVERYTHING! I am now eating 1750 caloires a day (to lose 1 lb. per week) and losing weight steadily.
The end
Did science and math fail you?
How much do you eat now to lose weight?0 -
I'm not in the 1200 club. I'm in the "give people objective, authoritative info so they can make their own decisions" club. Which also happens to be the science club.
A subset of people here choose to believe that mountains of studies, the overwhelming predominance of studies, are wrong and that they're right. And if people want to believe them that's they're prerogative. But half of what you read here is physically impossible. Sure, people believe the hell out of it. But they're wrong. They have taken a kernel of truth and blown it out of proportion. It's a fascinating case of groupthink here. And terrifying. Do your own independent reading, people.0 -
OK, here's my deal. My weight is too much for me to handle cardio right now, I do not have a trainer or belong to a gym for financial reasons, but I believe I am educated enough to lose weight. Here's what I have seen with me personally:
My goal calorie limit is 1200 per day (I am basically in active person for now til I drop 10 more pound at which I can add some low cardio. I have been under my 1200 caloric allowance on most days by 200-300-- calories. i have had slow but steady weight loss. Now, i felt it wasn't coming off fast enough and decided to give my body a "boost" of some sort. I had 20 grapes in 4 days and actually gained 2 pounds!!! It scared me to death. Went right back to my little stay under 1200 calories each day, but still eat between 800 and 900. The weight started to come off again. This is me knowing what works for me and seeing the warning signs of my body holding on to what it can because it thinks I am starving. I am so ecited to start some cardio and up some calories and see how that works. I think I have 10 more pounds before my knees can handle the impact of cardio!!! I am determined and will play with this program and find what works for me!!! Any thoughts are welcome!!0 -
it's not a myth. plenty of science to back up all the harmful things not eating enough does to your body, and PLENTY of personal experiences to show that not eating will eventually slow down your metabolism to the point you will stop losing weight.
not only that, but when you lose weight from not eating enough you are not only losing fat but muscle as well.
you need to read more than one article from weight watchers!0 -
Jokes! I upped mine and started to lose again too. 1200 is too little, body is not getting fuel, so it stalls.
Weight Watchers makes money off keeping people fat. Lose 1 lbs eating our crap food? Sweet! Gain 2 lbs? Your fault. Eat more of our food and come to more of our meetings. BTW, your fees are due. Pay me.
^^^this0 -
Has anyone ever thought that most of this argument really just boils down to muscle composition of the person in particular (regarding weight loss success?)
I'm a new member (only been on the community board for a couple of days) but it seems to me a much higher percentage of the people whom believe that "starvation mode is a myth" tend to be mostly (not all) women or lighter women or males with lighter body frames, whereas the ones whom have lost substantial weight (35+ lbs. or more) whom tend to re-clarify the issue on the often-queried "starvation mode" tend to have more muscular frames (which contrasts directly with the first group as a good number of these are men).
This would make sense as --an earlier poster stated that --a person with less muscle mass would not have the metabolism to burn calories at a rate as fast as when they drop to lower levels of eating (hence weight gain or stall when going above that threshold). Whereas the person with the greater muscle mass- as muscle is metabolically active--would only be invigorated when using a deficit not as exaggerated, enhancing their muscle's ability to work that much harder as well as adding in a psychological component as they would be less likely to stray from the "plan" as the change in their diet isn't so drastic.
Just a theory. Take it easy on me.0 -
I LIKE TO EAT FOOD0
-
I heard on NPR the other day that severe calorie restriction actually does permanently affect your metabolism.
It was a while back, so i can't provide a link.
The basic idea was, you had people that lost a large sum of weight quickly, a large sum slowly, and people that had been that weight normally. Those people that had lost a large sum quickly had to take in much less calories than the others to maintain the same weight.
This is because people who drop tons of weight quickly often lose their muscle mass thereby significantly reducing their BMR. It also makes them far more prone to gaining the weight back because it's so much harder to restrict when their metabolic rate is so low.
Much like people who have gastric bypass surgery. The mind is programmed to eat but the body is now programmed for
portion control.0 -
That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.
What do you consider a VLCD? For me, 1200 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit from my TDEE. While it may be VLC for a different person, it's certainly not for me. I think medically, VLCD is defined as around 800 calories or less.
But in any case, I'm not sure it's fair to call people who are not fans of the eat more method "the echo chamber." I don't see much difference between the two camps in the way they discuss/debate/argue except for the details. I see many people immediately say to posters, "Maybe you need to eat more" or "Eat more! You need to fuel your body" to a lightly active female eating 1700 + calories a day.
I don't dispute the "Eat Enough." I do dispute that 1200 is not enough for some of us.
Also, if you truly care about the people believing the dangerous things, not calling them the echo chamber may help them hear something you have to say.
LIKE IT !0 -
That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.
What do you consider a VLCD? For me, 1200 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit from my TDEE. While it may be VLC for a different person, it's certainly not for me. I think medically, VLCD is defined as around 800 calories or less.
But in any case, I'm not sure it's fair to call people who are not fans of the eat more method "the echo chamber." I don't see much difference between the two camps in the way they discuss/debate/argue except for the details. I see many people immediately say to posters, "Maybe you need to eat more" or "Eat more! You need to fuel your body" to a lightly active female eating 1700 + calories a day.
I don't dispute the "Eat Enough." I do dispute that 1200 is not enough for some of us.
Also, if you truly care about the people believing the dangerous things, not calling them the echo chamber may help them hear something you have to say.
Its not about 1200 cals.
Its about setting up calories according to age, height, weight, body fat and activity.
If you fit the bill and 1200 doesnt slow donw your results.
If you stay strong and continue to stay strong while leaning out.
If you still lose the appropriate amount of weight per month.
Do it by all means!
If 1200 fits you then make it happen!
Sadly it doesnt work for a lot of people.
Science and math just fails.
What Dan said. Additionally, those who have been the vocal advocates of the VLCD on this thread have had the rationale explained to them over and over. They aren't interested in logic and health. Take a look at the posts from alexbusnello. This is what happens when the path of continually reducing calories is followed. I agree that the automatic answer should not be "eat more to lose." As Dan ahs said above, it all depends on your height, current weight and other factors.
I am a firm believer in improving health and not just losing weight. You can improve you health and eat in a healthy way. But it is not a case of less is more. Sometiems a little less combined with some strength training protocols and some cardio are the answer. Matter of fact, there is a body of data that says that can be the answer most of the time.0 -
I'm not in the 1200 club. I'm in the "give people objective, authoritative info so they can make their own decisions" club. Which also happens to be the science club.
A subset of people here choose to believe that mountains of studies, the overwhelming predominance of studies, are wrong and that they're right. And if people want to believe them that's they're prerogative. But half of what you read here is physically impossible. Sure, people believe the hell out of it. But they're wrong. They have taken a kernel of truth and blown it out of proportion. It's a fascinating case of groupthink here. And terrifying. Do your own independent reading, people.
I have a study showing that people believe in magic as long as its a complex ritual.
You can show me study apon study if you want but the truth is most people enjoy food and if I can show them results, science or not, then to hell with your studies!
Go find a small group of practicing ED people and work with them!
If you want to lose weight and eat the foods you like then dont cut cals so deep!
I know you love these so heres another one for you Mcarter!
"I cannot thank you enough! I saw your post at the beginning of July about the road map and decided on a whim to follow your guideline. I upped my calorie intake from 1200 a day to what ended up being recommended to me at 1790. At first I saw nothing move, but then 1.5 weeks into the change I saw the scale moving. In a month's time, I have lost a total of 7 lbs! I am so beyond thrilled right now! I'm full now and not starving, I'm still able to have my glass of wine or adult beverage AND STILL LOSE WEIGHT! Thank you so much Dan for your thread! I don't think that I would have been this successful, would have ended up burnt out and given up. I'm at 45 lbs lost as of today and I've got another 15 lbs to go until I'm at my pre-pregnancy weight (I just gave birth a little over 2 months ago). I'll have another small goal to reach until my final goal weigh and I just cannot tell you THANK YOU enough! I am your champion, I post a link to that thread any chance I can get. Thanks again! Kari"
So here we have a 7lb change in a month eating almost 1800 cals.
Thats 1.75lb per week if you divide it out.
To hell with your math and science.
Get your body in harmony with your food and routine and the sky is the limit.0 -
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/07/26/repetitious-magical-rituals-more-effective-study/.
Heres a study to keep you busy Mcarter.0 -
To hell with your math and science.
Apocryphal half tales win every time for me.0 -
I've posted this before, but here's my experience:
I did a VLCD about 15 years ago. When I started, I was at a normal weight but decided to go for that "French supermodel" look, and ate accordingly (cigarettes, caffeine, ~800 cals a day). I rapidly lost weight, got my BMI down to 18.2. But I also lost hair, stopped getting my periods, was cold all the time, etc. Once I started eating semi-normally again, I quickly regained the weight I had lost plus about another 50lbs (making me overweight for the first time in my life).
Call it "starvation mode" or something else, but the consequences of long-term extreme dieting are very real. Your body can and will fight back.0 -
To hell with your math and science.
Apocryphal half tales win every time for me.
Always room for 1 more brother!
This organism we know as earth has many important parts including you!
PS I have tons of these PMs.
I'm a believer!0 -
I've posted this before, but here's my experience:
I did a VLCD about 15 years ago. When I started, I was at a normal weight but decided to go for that "French supermodel" look, and ate accordingly (cigarettes, caffeine, ~800 cals a day). I rapidly lost weight, got my BMI down to 18.2. But I also lost hair, stopped getting my periods, was cold all the time, etc. Once I started eating semi-normally again, I quickly regained the weight I had lost plus about another 50lbs (making me overweight for the first time in my life).
Call it "starvation mode" or something else, but the consequences of long-term extreme dieting are very real. Your body can and will fight back.
My gut instinct is to say 2 things. First sorry that this is what you went through. I sincerely hope you can find the right combination of eating plan and exercise to restore youself to both a health weight and a healthy relationship to food.
Second, thank you so much for putting your story out there so that others can see what the VLCD can do if it is any more than a very short term thing.
Again, thank you and hopefully others will learn from your experience!0 -
I am down 81lbs eating at a 700-1000 kcal deficit a day (I eat around 1900-2000 now). Any lower than that and I do not have the energy to work out and my weight loss slows down. I have lost an average of 3lbs per week with this method. I am not the only person who has done so either. I would put my method up against anyone doing a VLC diet and gladly compare. Bet I would win
What works for a big guy exercising a lot falls over with someone who uses half the calories. If your TDEE was only 1800 your 700-1000 deficit would have all the banshees wailing at you for eating less than 1200, or less than your BMR, or some other magic number.
If you're a short fat woman that can't or doesn't want to exercise the approach has to be different.0 -
I am down 81lbs eating at a 700-1000 kcal deficit a day (I eat around 1900-2000 now). Any lower than that and I do not have the energy to work out and my weight loss slows down. I have lost an average of 3lbs per week with this method. I am not the only person who has done so either. I would put my method up against anyone doing a VLC diet and gladly compare. Bet I would win
What works for a big guy exercising a lot falls over with someone who uses half the calories. If your TDEE was only 1800 your 700-1000 deficit would have all the banshees wailing at you for eating less than 1200, or less than your BMR, or some other magic number.
If you're a short fat woman that can't or doesn't want to exercise the approach has to be different.
I agree with Yarwell on this.
I did numbers for a lady today whos 4'11" but her body fat falls within a normal range.
She can eat 1600 and lose.
If she was obese II or even obese III she would probably do well at 1200 (below TDEE 1381) for a while.
Once the leptin bottoms out then she can come up for breath for a week or so then resume the diet with full effect.
This is why the Body Fat% is so important to know when asking for advice!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions