Starvation mode - the daily row!

SteveTries

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.

gidgeclev

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.

stuey39

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?

naomi8888

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!

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?

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.

I was being sarcastic... haven't you noticed how everyone is scared of starving (even if they're way overweight)?

ArroganceInStep

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.

SteveTries

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.

Dave198lbs

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!

gidgeclev

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.

mariamarchita

You win at life :bigsmile:

yarwell

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.

SteveTries

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.

Sorry but this is just not true. What are your sources? I believe it's actually the case that there is substantial evidence to show that the hunter gatherer lifestyle provided sufficient nutrition to enable a good level of health. Wasn't childbirth the main threat to life expectancy? I have to put your previous instruction back to you - do your research......

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.The evidence suggests that there were

for 95% of the posts we see on this board I personally believe that Starvation Modeis an incorrect diagnosis. The correct one being "you're overestimating your calories burnt and underestimating calories ingested". But people don't want to hear that so they won't listen.

Your theory here might hold out, but we're talking small differences. A couple hundred Cals at most I would think. What people need to remember is that the vast majority of resting energy requirements go to providing for your liver, brain, kidney's & heart etc. - which account for 5 or 6% of body weight. You don't want to be going so low as to affect those.

cmurray234

I don't know if there is a "normal" metabolic rate, except whatever one helps us survive. I can guarantee that the people suffering mightily in the Horn of Africa would consider 1200 calories "underfed".

It's better for Europeans and Americans to burn calories inefficiently, so why not aim for that? I've been on very low-calorie diets. The abundance of delicious food makes sticking to that regiment nearly impossible for me. I want something that works.

waldo56

Whether it is starvation mode or something else, the body is like an airplane when it comes to weight loss.

Climb too steep too long and you will stall (plateau).
However a super steep climb can be done for a very short time (crash diet)
The stall angle decreses as you go higher and the air gets thinner (get to a lower BF% and you can't maintain a higher deficit, for me I lost the ability to hold a 1000 cal deficit @ 12% BF, upping to 750 cal busted the stall and carried me sub 10%)
A higher airspeed will increase the stall angle (food thoughtput rate adjusted by exercise, exercise and eat more and you can support a higher deficit)

If you are eating too little you will plateau. Exercise AND eat more (maintain a higher deficit) or simply eat more (lower your deficit) to bust the plateau.

stuey39

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.

err thanks for correcting my sarcastic nature

gidgeclev

Thank you all for your entertaining responses - I'm always amazed at just how many people get so excited about starvation mode threads. Has whiled away a boring day at work for me folks. Ta ta for now.