Starvation mode - the daily row!
gidgeclev
Posts: 103 Member
I'm going to turn this whole debate on it's head - I know you all love to discuss this everyday!
What if the normal state for the human body to be in is so called 'starvation mode' ie: a reduced metabolic rate due to eating a 'reduced' number of calories. From an evolutionary point of view it makes far more sense to be able to operate for long periods of time when food is scarce on a smaller amount of calories. Our perception may be completely skewed and what we think of as a normal metabolic rate may in fact be abnormal for the human race as a whole, caused by the fact that we have constant access to food and eat at regular intervals several times a day.
Billions of people in the world survive quite adequately by eating far less calories and at less frequent intervals.
If we, in the developed Western world, could all be in 'starvation' mode permanently and eat only the calories needed to sustain our bodies at that level it would be cheaper to live and would enable more resources in other parts of the world to be directed to feeding their own population rather than exporting to other countries.
Discuss.....and I'm sure you will......probably for the rest of the day.......
What if the normal state for the human body to be in is so called 'starvation mode' ie: a reduced metabolic rate due to eating a 'reduced' number of calories. From an evolutionary point of view it makes far more sense to be able to operate for long periods of time when food is scarce on a smaller amount of calories. Our perception may be completely skewed and what we think of as a normal metabolic rate may in fact be abnormal for the human race as a whole, caused by the fact that we have constant access to food and eat at regular intervals several times a day.
Billions of people in the world survive quite adequately by eating far less calories and at less frequent intervals.
If we, in the developed Western world, could all be in 'starvation' mode permanently and eat only the calories needed to sustain our bodies at that level it would be cheaper to live and would enable more resources in other parts of the world to be directed to feeding their own population rather than exporting to other countries.
Discuss.....and I'm sure you will......probably for the rest of the day.......
0
Replies
-
I love this post and really admire the thinking behind posting it, for what is always a contentious issue.
The OP has made several very good points. Personally my own thoughts on this are that everyone
is different and what works for one might not work for someone else....0 -
exept we do have acces to cheap food, and eating less will make you miserable, tired, overwhelmed.
i rather work hard and eat tons!
my 2 cents0 -
0 -
You ever notice how when people get older they lose their appetites? And they don't need as much sleep? Craziness...0
-
1. Enough food is already produced to feed everyone in the world.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm#Does_the_world_produce_enough_food_to_feed_everyone
2. You may live longer by eating less.
http://www.livescience.com/2666-live-longer-anti-aging-trick-works.html0 -
I'm going to turn this whole debate on it's head - I know you all love to discuss this everyday!
What if the normal state for the human body to be in is so called 'starvation mode' ie: a reduced metabolic rate due to eating a 'reduced' number of calories. From an evolutionary point of view it makes far more sense to be able to operate for long periods of time when food is scarce on a smaller amount of calories. Our perception may be completely skewed and what we think of as a normal metabolic rate may in fact be abnormal for the human race as a whole, caused by the fact that we have constant access to food and eat at regular intervals several times a day.
Billions of people in the world survive quite adequately by eating far less calories and at less frequent intervals.
If we, in the developed Western world, could all be in 'starvation' mode permanently and eat only the calories needed to sustain our bodies at that level it would be cheaper to live and would enable more resources in other parts of the world to be directed to feeding their own population rather than exporting to other countries.
Discuss.....and I'm sure you will......probably for the rest of the day.......
The one thing I want you to keep in mind is the following, yes you may be able to survive on the magic 1200 calorie mark, but what kind of survival would it be. I would much prefer to feed my body the proper nutrition is needed without feeling hungry, tired or sick which is what happens when I drop calories drastically. We are not saying that you will simply drop dead if you eat 1200 calories.
Also keep in mind that many people who are doing this have also radically changed their exercise level in the hopes of losing weight, they are no longer living a sedentary lifestyle and eating 1200 calories, they are exercising a heck of a lot more and still eating low calories, this means they aren't netting the 1200 but substantially less. Your body is a machine and you are pushing it harder, why not fuel it correctly.0 -
Can someone please explain to me where the magic 1200cal figure came from?
As I said before we are all VERY different so who/how/what/when/where was it decided that EVERYONE
must observe the 1200 rule?
Not being sarcastic or pedantic, just curious.0 -
indeed, I don't lose weight on 1200 calories a day. One school of thought will tell me that i have damaged my metabolism by dieting over the last few years to lose 3 stone. I would say that my body is now efficient and does not need so many calories to sustain a healthy existence. I'm happy and healthy on less than that a day and even happier to spend less on my food shopping each week than I used to. These are hard times in the UK and my wages have decreased considerably in real terms over the last 5 or 6 years.0
-
Can someone please explain to me where the magic 1200cal figure came from?
"As a guide to minimum calorie intake, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommends that calorie levels never drop below 1200 calories per day for women or 1800 calories per day for men." - perhaps ?
You can buy 1200 calorie nutritionally complete packs www.essentialpacks.com/emergency-food-ration---1200-calorie-118 or indeed be nutritionally complete with 600 calories http://www.slim-fast.com/products/shake-mixes/ so I think there's a disconnect between calorie intake per se and full nutrition.
Adding 90g of sugar or 40g of olive oil to our daily intake would add 360 calories but that's about all.0 -
Yes, the human race has through its history survived on very low calories and has evolved cope with long periods of complete or partial intermittent fasting. However, for nearly all of our history we died in our 30s at the end of our childbearing years because this way of life was extremely stressful on the body. Too old to breed or catch prey? Time to die. The ready availability of food alongside modern medicine has contributed our current longevity. If we could make healthy habits as widespread as food in the developed world. we'd live even longer.0
-
Actually, not true, we died because we did not have access to antibiotics or because childbirth killed us. If you survived childhood and the childbearing years you could live quite a long life. The average age at death was low because of huge infant mortality which skews the stats.0
-
longevity in centurions is attributed to low caloric intake I believe0
-
This is the whole basis for "caloric restriction". Allegedly if you severely restrict your daily caloric intake you will live longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
ETA: Eating super low calories for the purpose of slowing aging or for "health" reasons is a whole different thing than eating super low calories for the purpose of fat loss.0 -
Billions of people in the world survive quite adequately by eating far less calories and at less frequent intervals.
If we, in the developed Western world, could all be in 'starvation' mode permanently and eat only the calories needed to sustain our bodies at that level it would be cheaper to live and would enable more resources in other parts of the world to be directed to feeding their own population rather than exporting to other countries.
What we don't eat because we choose to eat less -- at the proposed starvation mode level - would not enable more resources to be redirected to those others in other parts of the world in need. That is not how our current sytem for feeding the world works - though sometimes this can help feed our local community members if the communities are so organized.
Next, we could live more cheaply (in terms of choices of food purchases, since that's our focus of discussion in this exercise) by not selecting fast food and eating out at restaurants, but eating at home, creating portions that do not continue to exacerbate weight gain and eating less processed foods, that tend to cost more at the grocery store than unprocessed or minimally processed food. These less expensive choices of food do not necessitate starvation mode levels of food/calories.
FInally, billions of people in the world are forced to survive on less calories on a daily basis and eat less frequently, but at the same time, they are more susceptible to illness/sickness and they do not hae the means to live more productive lives that would require more energy to get them through their day and tasks. In undeveloped and underdeveloped countries (this is what came to my mind when you referred to those surviving at or near "starvation mode", though I am not certain it is these "billions of people" you intended to refer to), there is far less productivity in their lives. While it is true that other nations, developed and not, walk and ride bicycles as a way of life, as a means of transportation, this doesn't mean the "survival" on starvaton-mode levels of calories are to be emulated.
Surviving is not living. Starvation mode level of calories as a way of life leaves you without energy and will a greater suseptibility to illness and depression and fatigue. One is all-around weaker by this extreme. Not a way of survival that is to be emulated.
Thanks for the discussion topic. Have a good day, one and all.0 -
I dont think anyone is starving on 1200 calories with no exercise,its when people do alot of exercise on 1200 calories the body is like NO0
-
I dont think anyone is starving on 1200 calories with no exercise,its when people do alot of exercise on 1200 calories the body is like NO
WRONG - you mustn't read all these starvation threads properly. There's heaps of obese people here in starvation mode just from missing breakfast!0 -
exept we do have acces to cheap food, and eating less will make you miserable, tired, overwhelmed.
i rather work hard and eat tons!
my 2 cents
No, that isn't what the OP is getting at.
Besides which, I am one of those that IS on 1200 calories per day and I am not starving, nor have I ever felt that way. The crunch is WHAT you eat, if you eat 1200 calories worth of sweets and chocolate per day, then yes, the body will not receive adequate nutrition. However, eat 1200 calories worth of protein rich foods, lots of fruit and veg, an adequate intake of vitamins, minerals, fats and carbs, then the body will not be starving or anywhere near it on 1200 calories per day.
It all depends on what you eat, simple as.0 -
Actually, not true, we died because we did not have access to antibiotics or because childbirth killed us. If you survived childhood and the childbearing years you could live quite a long life. The average age at death was low because of huge infant mortality which skews the stats.
this ^
A few months ago, I cut my leg and it turned septic. I was given antibiotics, it cleared up and I have a mean scar on my leg to prove it was hurt, however, I do not care. I am eternally grateful for those antibiotics, because if this had happened several hundred years or more ago, I would most likely have ended up with blood-poisoning and gangrene and that would have been my visit to this planet done and dusted.0 -
This is the whole basis for "caloric restriction". Allegedly if you severely restrict your daily caloric intake you will live longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
ETA: Eating super low calories for the purpose of slowing aging or for "health" reasons is a whole different thing than eating super low calories for the purpose of fat loss.
Why is it different? fat loss will lead to improved health.0 -
Sorry... you're trying to say that if you're fat and you're not eating breakfast then that lowers your metabolism??? And which fortune cookie did that nugget of wisdom come from?I dont think anyone is starving on 1200 calories with no exercise,its when people do alot of exercise on 1200 calories the body is like NO
WRONG - you mustn't read all these starvation threads properly. There's heaps of obese people here in starvation mode just from missing breakfast!
There are plenty of folks who don't eat breakfast and lose weight. Just as there are plenty who don't eat breakfast and gain weight because they then eat more at other meal times.
If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight - not necessarily at a steady rate, but you will gain.
Likewise, if you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight and again the rate of weight-loss will vary per person.
The OP's hypothesis is that the natural state is maintenance where the body burns Calories at a slow but steady rate to compensate for irregular meals - and if you consider those less fortunate than ourselves in third-world societies then that is indeed the norm, although as we have seen, when food supplies dry up almost completely, people die of malnutrition.
Most fat people in the world have exceptionally efficient metabolisms which process food quickly and burns many more calories to ensure we do not get too fat, albeit in vain, but therein lies the dichotomy: the more we eat, the more we need to eat as our body craves the higher calorie diet.
That's also why the very over-weight lose weight so rapidly in the beginning when we restrict our calorie intake.
The they get to a point where their metabolism reaches equilibrium again and the so-called plateau kicks in. And that cycle of loss and maintenance can go on for a very long time.0 -
From an evolutionary point of view it makes far more sense to be able to operate for long periods of time when food is scarce on a smaller amount of calories.
Your arguments is based on the premise having sufficient-excess food availability is a recent thing. The majority of the world is green and fertile and full of plant and animal life. I think that's invalid.
I'd suggest that for the majority of the population adequate food sources were not a problem until the population dramatically increased, tens of thousands of years into our evolution.0 -
Please do some research into prehistory. Humans were inhabiting some extreme environments in the last glacial epoch, food was hard to come by in the winter months, hunter gatherers are always at the mercy of the elements and the vagaries of animal migration. It was no garden of Eden.0
-
So let me get this straight....if I don't eat breakfast I go into starvation mode??
So then, If I sleep for, say, 8-10 hours with zero fluid intake am I then dangerously dehyrated?0 -
I was being sarcastic... haven't you noticed how everyone is scared of starving (even if they're way overweight)?
Sorry... you're trying to say that if you're fat and you're not eating breakfast then that lowers your metabolism??? And which fortune cookie did that nugget of wisdom come from?I dont think anyone is starving on 1200 calories with no exercise,its when people do alot of exercise on 1200 calories the body is like NO
WRONG - you mustn't read all these starvation threads properly. There's heaps of obese people here in starvation mode just from missing breakfast!
There are plenty of folks who don't eat breakfast and lose weight. Just as there are plenty who don't eat breakfast and gain weight because they then eat more at other meal times.
If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight - not necessarily at a steady rate, but you will gain.
Likewise, if you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight and again the rate of weight-loss will vary per person.
The OP's hypothesis is that the natural state is maintenance where the body burns Calories at a slow but steady rate to compensate for irregular meals - and if you consider those less fortunate than ourselves in third-world societies then that is indeed the norm, although as we have seen, when food supplies dry up almost completely, people die of malnutrition.
Most fat people in the world have exceptionally efficient metabolisms which process food quickly and burns many more calories to ensure we do not get too fat, albeit in vain, but therein lies the dichotomy: the more we eat, the more we need to eat as our body craves the higher calorie diet.
That's also why the very over-weight lose weight so rapidly in the beginning when we restrict our calorie intake.
The they get to a point where their metabolism reaches equilibrium again and the so-called plateau kicks in. And that cycle of loss and maintenance can go on for a very long time.0 -
I think that to the extent that unnecessary bodily functions are being shut down (i.e. hair/nail growth, immune system, etc) your body is not functioning optimally. I don't think that threshold is exactly 1200 for every person on Earth, but I do think it exists. I see no reason to operate in a less than optimal state.
Beyond that, and given the shaky research in the area, I see no reason to argue against intentional slowing of the metabolism.
I personally would not do that, however, because I like being active and I love food. When I eat more I have more energy to do the things I love doing (I'm also eating more of the food I love eating). To the extent that I can do that AND still continue to lose weight, for me at least that's the best possible option.0 -
Please do some research into prehistory. Humans were inhabiting some extreme environments in the last glacial epoch, food was hard to come by in the winter months, hunter gatherers are always at the mercy of the elements and the vagaries of animal migration. It was no garden of Eden.
Fabulous. You've singled out a relatively tiny era in the 250,000-400,000 years of human history and presented it as typical of all time. Well I can't argue with that logic can I.0 -
I dont think anyone is starving on 1200 calories with no exercise,its when people do alot of exercise on 1200 calories the body is like NO
WRONG - you mustn't read all these starvation threads properly. There's heaps of obese people here in starvation mode just from missing breakfast!
LOL....EAT PEOPLE EAT!!!!! every three hours you must STOP whatever you are doing and EAT!0 -
A small period of human history? I think that you will find that the whole of prehistory is a very large span of human existance during which we were mainly hunter gatherers in environments that did not offer plentiful food at all times.
But to turn the theory on it's head which is what I am doing here, let's discuss plateaus.
You eat 1200 calories a day and lose weight, then you stay the same. Perhaps you should welcome this as being evidence that your body is now very efficiently using the food that you eat and so you don't have to buy, cook or eat as much. If you want to lose more weight cut the calories again until you reach a plateau. Splendid... you need even less food to survive. Less cost! You are using less of the worlds finite resources, your carbon footprint is less. From the point of view of the planet, it's a winner! Trust me, you won't be starving or wasting away through loss of muscle mass as long as you have a reasonable BMI. Personally I find the whole philosophy of manic exercising so that you can eat more rather strange indeed. You only need to exercise in moderation to keep healthy.0 -
You win at life :bigsmile:0 -
So let me get this straight....if I don't eat breakfast I go into starvation mode??
So then, If I sleep for, say, 8-10 hours with zero fluid intake am I then dangerously dehyrated?
err, no. There's lots of storage and control systems at work keeping you safe and everything working.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions