Starvation mode - the daily row!

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.