Sarvation mode is just wishful eating...

Sarauk2sf

There is so much FAIL in the thread.

And OP: I really am not sure what point you are trying to make, except start yet another thread on starvation mode (which always end up the same)

Oh: and BTW love your sweeping assumption about wishful eating. People that have a higher calories target but BELOW TDEE, do not need to do as much wishful eating - they can do more actual eating (and still lose weight).

crisanderson27

Starvation mode doesn't exist? a 300+ man doing 1,300 calories a day for 5 weeks, plus exercise. Speak from "EXPERIENCE" not from some word of mouth.

start


After

This man wins the internet for today (and yeah, I won it in the 'can I have a boyfriend and still have male friends' thread earlier...so it's mine to give).

Well said brother.

crisanderson27

This man wins the internet for today (and yeah, I won it in the 'can I have a boyfriend and still have male friends' thread earlier...so it's mine to give).

Well said brother.

Thanks chris, as you know this used to be our debate. My new saying is, "If you never been in it, you won't believe it."

Yep...it was. It's funny though...we sort of gravitated towards each others thinking. I'm dedicated to IF now. Same deal as you...you don't really have a leg to stand on until you try it.

Amanda_Rae_Rae

I had an abscess removed from my throat when I was 17. I couldn't eat solids for a week, and struggled sipping soup and water for about another week. I went from 150lbs down to 138lbs. Of course as soon as I could eat, however, the weight just flew back on..even with a reasonable diet .

crisanderson27

This man wins the internet for today (and yeah, I won it in the 'can I have a boyfriend and still have male friends' thread earlier...so it's mine to give).

Well said brother.

Thanks chris, as you know this used to be our debate. My new saying is, "If you never been in it, you won't believe it."

Yep...it was. It's funny though...we sort of gravitated towards each others thinking. I'm dedicated to IF now. Same deal as you...you don't really have a leg to stand on until you try it.

Not sure if you remember, but that's where we met. I made a topic of IF and I got bashed for it. People still had the "eat 6x a day mentality."

I do, and that's why I made that point just now lol. Between IF and starvation mode (what a stupid name for it)...we both had it part right.

jonnyman41

I honestly don't know if starvation mode exisists or not!! However, when I started here on 1200 I lost 4lb over the first four weeks (I have not got that much to lose to be a healthy ~BMI but still enough to need to lose it lol) After 4 weeks I stopped and stayed the same weight for 6 weeks so far despite not going over cals and doing exercise that I had not been doing before. After about 4 weeks of no movement I was starting to get upset since I don't know what to do so I increased my cals by between 200-400 but also started adding in more intensive exercise (as compared to walking only) and I am still the same weight , not moving at all, but not gaining having eaten a larger amount!!! I am however a lot less tired than before and I am hoping that the weight loss will start to kick in soon now that I am eating more. I suppose my moral is, eating more is better for me generally even if I am not yet losing more weight.
PS I eat fairly clean anyway if you ignore the glasses of wine and I don't think I was eating that much before I started on here but obviously something was going on as I had gained weight.

theartichoke

Can someone answer this for me please? What happens if you net an average of 1000 calories a day and never move to maintenance? I have to take being concerned about actual health and body composition out of this. People who are concerned about that don't do this or they don't do it for long. Can they just perpetually carry on? If your goal is to be thin and nothing else would netting 1000 cals a day work long term? It's so difficult for me to imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea....unless in this specific way it works. Am I just seeing the beginning phase of yo-to dieters here? If they only want to be thin, or a certain size, could they pull it off for the rest of their lives by never moving to maintenance?

MoreBean13

Can someone answer this for me please? What happens if you net an average of 1000 calories a day and never move to maintenance? I have to take being concerned about actual health and body composition out of this. People who are concerned about that don't do this or they don't do it for long. Can they just perpetually carry on? If your goal is to be thin and nothing else would netting 1000 cals a day work long term? It's so difficult for me to imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea....unless in this specific way it works. Am I just seeing the beginning phase of yo-to dieters here? If they only want to be thin, or a certain size, could they pull it off for the rest of their lives by never moving to maintenance?

I ***think*** that your metabolism will level off at some point to that 1000 calories.First you'll lose fat and muscle, but eventually you won't lose or gain. Probably you would risk developing nutritional deficiencies, since it would be hard to eat a complete and balanced diet with sub-1000 cals/day.

Sarauk2sf

Can someone answer this for me please? What happens if you net an average of 1000 calories a day and never move to maintenance? I have to take being concerned about actual health and body composition out of this. People who are concerned about that don't do this or they don't do it for long. Can they just perpetually carry on? If your goal is to be thin and nothing else would netting 1000 cals a day work long term? It's so difficult for me to imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea....unless in this specific way it works. Am I just seeing the beginning phase of yo-to dieters here? If they only want to be thin, or a certain size, could they pull it off for the rest of their lives by never moving to maintenance?

Bascially, if you do not lose or gain at 1000 - that is your maintenance.

terrigrace

More research . . .

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/31prvrbs/view/the-starvation-experiment-208077

Wonderob

Inb4 OMG STARVATION MODE EXISTS!!!!

Im not saying it doesn't exist, Im just a bit unsure as to it!! Logic would tell you that eating less would result in a bigger loss.......?!?

There is a big variable that lots fail to take into account when looking at it logically. If you eat less then it would result in a bigger loss IF everything else was a constant. It"s not - your metabolism changes and WILL slow down to protect your body if you don"t give it enough fuel. Definitely no myth there.

Also, the goal is not to lose weight, it's to lose body fat. Reduce your calories too much and you're going to burn muscle as well when your body

Just consuming less and less calories to lose weight is unhealthy, a bit lazy, and Ill-educated. Upping your calorie intake to a suitable level is not "an excuse to eat" it's being sensible.

theartichoke

I just wonder if so much of this back and forth, refuting of scientific fact, eating nothing works for me stuff comes from the fact that it's true. Nutritional deficiencies seem to mean little to people whose only goal is to be thin. I feel sad when I see/read about once a day eaters and folks who have to burn damn near everything they give their bodies. I know women who are thin and in their 60's who do this. Are they nutritionally deficient? I assume so. Do they look like it? Yes. I don't personally have a goal of being thin. I'm concerned about overall health and body composition. Is the reason all this advice constantly falls on deaf ears and why we see these same threads with the same responses over and over because what we're saying doesn't apply to them?

MoreBean13

I just wonder if so much of this back and forth, refuting of scientific fact, eating nothing works for me stuff comes from the fact that it's true. Nutritional deficiencies seem to mean little to people whose only goal is to be thin. I feel sad when I see/read about once a day eaters and folks who have to burn damn near everything they give their bodies. I know women who are thin and in their 60's who do this. Are they nutritionally deficient? I assume so. Do they look like it? Yes. I don't personally have a goal of being thin. I'm concerned about overall health and body composition. Is the reason all this advice constantly falls on deaf ears and why we see these same threads with the same responses over and over because what we're saying doesn't apply to them?

Yes.

mixedfeelings

It all depends, although I do believe it's a term that is overused denying it could be said to encourage those that eat way below and are only netting 700 - 800 calories a day. I think there needs to be more clarification rather than just yes it does exist, no it doesn't.
This is a bit of a long story.
10 years ago I first embarked on losing weight, initially I was fairly sensible but when I was nearer my goal weight I wanted results quicker, and I wanted to be thinner. At that point on a good day I would eat 570 calories, I drank a lot of black coffee, I'm a vegetarian but I also went relatively low carb (largely cutting out bread, pasta, rice) and I'm 5'10", I managed to eat this little, sometimes nothing a day. This lasted for two years, there were the odd exception where I would eat out with friends but I wouldn't eat anything else that day. Eventually I had no energy to move and was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. After this I started eating slightly more and was happy at around 1000 calories a day.

Eating what was still relatively little but so much more than what I was previously eating meant that I started to gain weight, and it snowballed. After a around 32lbs had gone back on my eating became erratic again, 700 calories in the week so I could have 1500 at the weekend. I've continued to gain until I started on this site in January. I realised I was still low guessing what I was eating and have instead of what most people do when they want to lose weight, started to eat more calories. Now I eat around 2000 calories which feels like a lot to me but I'm getting into the swing of it and I can't complain, I burn a lot when I exercise so I at least try and get my net to around 1500 (originally 1200). I've started to lose slowly which I'm happy with, if I can lost 2lbs a much, even though I still have a way to go I'm happy with the way it's going.

I mean we all function the same but we can't presume that everyone has treated their body the same.

wackyfunster

Inb4 OMG STARVATION MODE EXISTS!!!!

Im not saying it doesn't exist, Im just a bit unsure as to it!! Logic would tell you that eating less would result in a bigger loss.......?!?

There is a big variable that lots fail to take into account when looking at it logically. If you eat less then it would result in a bigger loss IF everything else was a constant. It"s not - your metabolism changes and WILL slow down to protect your body if you don"t give it enough fuel. Definitely no myth there.

Also, the goal is not to lose weight, it's to lose body fat. Reduce your calories too much and you're going to burn muscle as well when your body

Just consuming less and less calories to lose weight is unhealthy, a bit lazy, and Ill-educated. Upping your calorie intake to a suitable level is not "an excuse to eat" it's being sensible.

IMO it depends on body composition. Someone who is >50% body fat can easily eat <1200 calories per day without losing a substantial amount of muscle mass (I have 3 friends who have done so, under doctor's supervision, two of whom lost >200 lbs., one of whom has done >60 lbs in 2 months, and gone from 'you will be dead within 2 years if you don't change your lifestyle' to almost normal levels of healthiness). People need to take into account the circumstances before making blanket proclamations. I have seen threads here where someone's doctor or nutritionist puts them on a e.g. 1000 cal diet, and people tell them to "get a new doctor" because "that will just make you go into starvation mode". If you are only moderately overweight, then a huge deficit is probably self-defeating. If you are morbidly obese, and having severe health problems as a result, a severe deficit (under medical supervision) is likely to be far better for your health (a less severe deficit won't quickly remove fat deposits from vital organs, apparently).

The biggest health issues people see from low calorie diets is not a result of the caloric intake, but the poor nutritional intake that comes when eating a lot of crappy food is replaced with eating a small amount of crappy food. You can't CR with inadequate nutrition.

estitom

All this 'i cant reach my calories etc etc... we were all fat that is how we got fat by eatng too many calories. Eat less, burn more, be thin!!!

This is all kinds of wrong I don't even know where to begin.

Megdmcda

Not everyone got fat by eating too much.
PCOS can cause weight gain. Cushings can cause weight gain even if you're eating barely anything. Hormone imbalances can affect weight.
It CAN be very hard for people to get enough calories once they start tracking, ESPECIALLY if cutting out high-calorie foods that probably made up most of a person's meals. One burger at Mcdonalds, plus fries and a coke is waywayway more calories, but just as filling as a homemade salad with light dressing and some grilled chicken. People are getting full on healthier low-cal foods and so of course some are going to start having trouble filling the calorie gap with healthy things.

AMEN

Megdmcda

Inb4 OMG STARVATION MODE EXISTS!!!!

Im not saying it doesn't exist, Im just a bit unsure as to it!! Logic would tell you that eating less would result in a bigger loss.......?!?

There is a big variable that lots fail to take into account when looking at it logically. If you eat less then it would result in a bigger loss IF everything else was a constant. It"s not - your metabolism changes and WILL slow down to protect your body if you don"t give it enough fuel. Definitely no myth there.

Also, the goal is not to lose weight, it's to lose body fat. Reduce your calories too much and you're going to burn muscle as well when your body

Just consuming less and less calories to lose weight is unhealthy, a bit lazy, and Ill-educated. Upping your calorie intake to a suitable level is not "an excuse to eat" it's being sensible.

LOVE IT

Amazon_Who

Winner, King of the debate.

Starvation mode doesn't exist? a 300+ man doing 1,300 calories a day for 5 weeks, plus exercise. Speak from "EXPERIENCE" not from some word of mouth.

start


After

Jordant107

Yeah, let's listen to the guy with three posts who joined this month. He must know everything.

So cause you have 3600+ posts you know about everything and we should listen to you??