This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

Options
1246789

Replies

  • tobnrn
    tobnrn Posts: 477 Member
    Options
    Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that.

    The problem is that you have been reading 'diet books' and not reading articles linked with nutrition and exercise.

    Here is a link that is really good - the fact that it is on bb.com does not change the recommendation for non-bbs

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981

    This one links it to %age, which, if you think about it, is not the right way to look at it - a minimum requirement should not be based on your total calories, but on your bodies requirements which is independent of calories consumed. It does however indicate a 25% - 35% target and references 56 - 77g.

    http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/Weight_Control/hic_Reducing_Fat_Intake.aspx

    There are a bunch more out there also.

    God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

    <3:blushing:
  • SPNLuver83
    SPNLuver83 Posts: 2,050 Member
    Options
    What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

    Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    Well, I do read articles about nutrition and exercise (incl. ones on bb sites, and even have read NROL- both the men's and women's versions) but yeah, given my main interest is weight maintenance, I get more of the 'diet books' overall. Thanks for the edumacation on macros!

    I still think I wouldn't be doing any long term damage to myself if I did choose to temporarily diet on 1000 calories (I only burn about 1800, given my age, size, gender, desk job, etc.). But I would feel too deprived for it to result in long term weight loss, so it's not really anything that I'd do anyway.

    Where does the USDA recommend it? I was looking at stats like you said, 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. I was agreeing with you.
  • BrettPGH
    BrettPGH Posts: 4,720 Member
    Options
    I'm a big fan of science and evidence but in this case I don't even care about it.

    Eating 600-800 calories a day is just a miserable existence. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Well, I do read articles about nutrition and exercise (incl. ones on bb sites, and even have read NROL- both the men's and women's versions) but yeah, given my main interest is weight maintenance, I get more of the 'diet books' overall. Thanks for the edumacation on macros!

    I still think I wouldn't be doing any long term damage to myself if I did choose to temporarily diet on 1000 calories (I only burn about 1800, given my age, size, gender, desk job, etc.). But I would feel too deprived for it to result in long term weight loss, so it's not really anything that I'd do anyway.

    Where does the USDA recommend it? I was looking at stats like you said, 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. I was agreeing with you.

    Sorry - misunderstood what you were saying re USDA. :flowerforyou:

    Totally your choice to do the 1,000 (well. obviously!). As long as people know what the pro's and con's are and approach things with 'eye's wide open' its all good in my book.
  • Crochetluvr
    Crochetluvr Posts: 3,143 Member
    Options
    Depends on the person. I eat between 900 and 1000 calories a day and I am not miserable. What is miserable is being fat.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    Bump to follow. Mostly for laughs.
  • katkel52
    katkel52 Posts: 4
    Options
    i have researches this topic also and what i have found is that to a certain extent this is true. when u drastically cut your calorie intake you will lose weight say about 3lb per week but after a few days your body lowers its metabolic rate 'starvation mode', this just means that you will still loose weight but at a slower rate say 2 lbs per week. the weight will still come off. Also recommended to have a non diet day to give our metabolism a boost. I have never seen a truely starving person who is overweight.
  • Takatora
    Takatora Posts: 10
    Options
    God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

    <3:blushing:

    I have to ditto this person's sentiment. Your posts do a great job of staying on topic, presenting factual and well thought out support for your arguments without being filled with preconceived value judgements.

    This is the difference between people who post contribution and those who post spam.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Bump to follow. Mostly for laughs.

    *blows rasberry*
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Options
    What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

    Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.
    If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis.

    You don't magically regain weight by eating normally.
    It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese.
    If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10.
  • Crochetluvr
    Crochetluvr Posts: 3,143 Member
    Options
    What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

    Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.
    If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis.

    You don't magically regain weight by eating normally.
    It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese.
    If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10.

    My thoughts exactly. I know a LOT about yo-yo dieting...I should after all these years. I didnt gain the weight back eating normally....I gained it back by thinking I could go back to eating exactly the way I had been....eating the junk and larger portions. And, yes....I didnt gain it all back in a couple months....took years.
  • thistimeismytime
    thistimeismytime Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    I'm a big fan of science and evidence but in this case I don't even care about it.

    Eating 600-800 calories a day is just a miserable existence. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?

    ^^agreed!! :drinker:
  • Lasirenn
    Lasirenn Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

    Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.

    But really, how much is your metabolism going to slow down? Probably not as much as people think. People gain the weight back because they fall back into old habits and usually worse than before. Right now, at my weight my BMR is roughly 1700 calories. At my goal weight, it will be around 1400, those 300 calories "lost" almost add up to a meal for me. So, if I don't learn how to slowly shrink my meals or eat more nutrient-dense foods, I will eventually plateau or even start gaining weight again. I've gained and lost weight a bunch of times doing this. And whenever I gained the weight back, I was never heavier than I was before. I'd always return to my same "high" weight and size, because I would return to eating the amount of food that sent me to and kept me at that weight. If being smaller or dieting really damaged my metabolism each time, I'd probably weigh a quarter ton by now.
  • amnski
    amnski Posts: 251 Member
    Options
    "starvation" is misused a lot, but to me, those women (or men) going on so few calories are not making a life style change that they can live with, not to mention the fact that most of the time (there are few exceptions) most of these same people "starving" themselves on 1200 calories or less are eating CRAP food... I have seen diaries filled with pizza, donuts, soda, and other processed junk...just so they can reach that "magical" number.

    People, it's about making a good life style change and eating QUALITY HEALTHY foods, not just empty calories. If you want to eat so few calories, at least make it good food and remember it cannot be a long term solution. JMO
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

    Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.
    If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis.

    You don't magically regain weight by eating normally.
    It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese.
    If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10.

    Amen.

    I think part of what bugs me about the big starvation mode argument I see a lot here is that we're talking about people who totally messed up their bodies by eating the wrong things for years. Myself included. So when we talk about cutting back calories temporarily, suddenly it's de rigeur that we get the recommended amounts of macronutrients every step of the way? I do agree that you have to learn to eat right. But it just seems like the pendulum swings too hard in the other direction for a lot of dieters. They/we go from total "anything goes" eating to overly ordered, micro-managed, 'treat your metabolism like its a fragile China doll' style eating. I just feel like if someone is comfortable at 800-1000 calories or whatever and they're overweight, who are we to lecture? (Not that anyone here is lecturing. I'm referring to other threads, for the most part.)
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that.

    The problem is that you have been reading 'diet books' and not reading articles linked with nutrition and exercise.

    Here is a link that is really good - the fact that it is on bb.com does not change the recommendation for non-bbs

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981

    This one links it to %age, which, if you think about it, is not the right way to look at it - a minimum requirement should not be based on your total calories, but on your bodies requirements which is independent of calories consumed. It does however indicate a 25% - 35% target and references 56 - 77g.

    http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/Weight_Control/hic_Reducing_Fat_Intake.aspx

    There are a bunch more out there also.

    God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

    Lol, and I love both of you =).

    By the way, this was the Sara I was talking about last night.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Lol, and I love both of you =).

    By the way, this was the Sara I was talking about last night.

    I hope you were saying nice things :tongue:
  • amnski
    amnski Posts: 251 Member
    Options
    One can you sustain?
    Two are you getting enough nutrients at the calorie set?
    Three how do you feel emotionally?

    had to add............these low caloric intakes go one of two ways either you sustain for so long your bady starts missing the nutrients it needs or a binge will undo everything your are working hard to accomplish. Slow and steady wins the race.

    Agreed.

Categories