The Starvation Myth
Replies
-
Eat until you're full and then STOP. Don't eat just to fulfill some caloric goal of 1500 or whatnot. My opinion.
I 100% agree with this statement, I listen to my body, try to eat as healthy as I can which happens to be mainly low calorie stuff, I do not obsess over the net calorie target, if I am hungry I may eat a bit more, if I am not and I haven't reached my target I am not eating just whatever to get to that number
my weight loss hasn't stalled and I am losing mainly fat not muscle, I have tons of energy and I feel great.
Maybe I am miscalculating my intake or burn, I don't know, all I know is that 1000-1200 calories of healthy good food is working for me, when it stops working I'll reassess .....
I agree with the "eat until your full" statement. While I keep track of my calories and exercise, neither rule what I do for the day. I go by how I feel and how hungry I am and eat/exercise accordingly.0 -
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
That's because other calorie counting plans add the amount of exercise you SAY you'll do into your calorie goal. MFP only adds it to your calorie goal AFTER you do it.
Exercise calories is, as far as I can tell, pretty much unique to this site. Weight Watchers uses points, which is similar, but not as precise as counting calories and macros.
Absolutely correct Lorrina. Some assume them and have you eat a level amount based on what you input. some set a daily allowance without factoring in exercise and you eat more on workout days. MFP is the 2nd type. It's just not that big a point of contention. There are PTs who think you are absolutely doing it wrong it you eat 'em before you earn 'em. Makes sense to me. It's just not as complicated as some make it seem. Set you activity level and weight loss amount. That determines your deficit. Eat back exercise calories to keep a consistent deficit.0 -
The thing that I find ironic is that the person who started the thread called it a myth but quoted an article by weight watchers that actually says that the body does go into a starvation mode. Ironical.
I usually lose one pound per week whenever I stick to my net calorie goals and that includes the fact that I always enter in my exercise calories. The weeks where I regress (before heading in the right direction) is when I go out to eat and eat too much. However, I've had a couple instances where I seemed to stall out for 2-3 weeks. By happenstance, about the time it seems I'm stuck in a rut, I go out of town and eat too much and gain a couple pounds. When I come back and hit the gym and watch calories, I quickly shed the two pounds plus one or two more. What does that mean? I have no idea.0 -
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
That's because other programs either a) are giving you a calorie count based on the generic women-should-eat-1200-calories-to-lose-weight or b) they're accounting for your exercise in the calories you're given (e.g. TDEE -20%), so in actuality you ARE eating back exercise calories but it's already figured in to a set daily amount whereas MFP doesn't believe you're going to exercise x number of days a week at x intensity until you actually do.
*Edit: I see someone already pointed this out.0 -
Sounds about rightI can't speak for the starvation mode thing but in my opinion the reason there is so much talk (or questions) about eating back exercise calories back is because I feel like MPF makes it a big deal. It says "oh hey you earned these calories back!!" Personally, I think people use it as an excuse to eat way more than they need to.0 -
Must be the working out was the common denominator and not the under eating. :huh:
Why is it people understand so clearly that you need a calorie surplus to build up a body yet they believe you can fail to shrink a body at a deficit?
There is no 'retaining calories' and no 'metabolism shutdown' just like you can't build muscles out of thin air.0 -
Last time I went to the gym, I heard a trainer talking about how eating protein before a workout increases fat burning. Also how "Intermitten fasting" burns a lot more fat. Both claims are complete nonsense.
There are some nutritionist on MFP, they advice they say also makes no sense most of the time. Dr's aren't trained in this field either. I'd talk to a dietician if I needed any nutritional information.
I think the best is to learn yourself from actual research.
And that had been my original point earlier on. Read the scholarly journal articles. Talk to people who are in the field. I am a sport and exercise psychology consultant and can work with people who are trying to lose weight. What advice would I be able to give them on weight loss? The rudimentary things that I know (which is more than most on this site) BUT it would be to do the ETHICAL thing and send them to a nutritionist or a sports nutritionist.
Now it is MFP's turn to be ETHICAL and educate people about this stuff instead of these discussion/arguments that develop on the thread by people who many times don't know how how the nutrition will actually help you.
And I don't even listen to the majority of trainers in gyms because many of those certifications can come from online courses. I have friends who do the same thing but have gone through a Masters Program to have the proper education and certifications.0 -
Yes weight watchers does give you activity calories. (whatever they call them). I too would like to know who the
'researchers' were. Magazine are often staffed with people like us who have personal experiences and opinions. but perhaps not a lot of scientific knowledge. Makes for good discussion but use your own judgement. If you stop losing, or if you're hungry, too tired whatever. Take a look at what you're doing and make some changes.0 -
Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)
There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.0 -
Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)
There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.
The question becomes beyond the slowdown you'd expect to see from losing weight ie having lower total mass, how much more will adaptive thermogenesis lower your metabolism from under eating?0 -
http://www.webmd.com/karen-miller-kovach
Karen Miller-Kovach is chief scientist and general manager of research & development for Weight Watchers International. She is responsible for all aspects of the Weight Watchers program on a world-wide basis. Drawing from a Scientific Council made up of top experts in medicine, nutrition, exercise and psychology, Miller-Kovach oversees the program to ensure that it represents the latest scientific thinking in the fields of obesity and weight management. In addition, she coordinates all clinical research initiatives sponsored by Weight Watchers International and the Weight Watchers Foundation. She also serves as a corporate spokesperson on scientific matters.
Prior to joining Weight Watchers, Miller-Kovach spent 14 years at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, a major, tertiary medical facility located in Cleveland, Ohio. As the Foundation's director of nutrition services, she was a health care administrator, nutrition practitioner, and clinical researcher.
Miller-Kovach served as a national spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association from 1986 to 1993 and remains active with the organization as a resource spokesperson. She has authored three books, holds the patent for the POINTS? weight-loss system, and has contributed to numerous articles in leading nutrition and medical journals.
Miller-Kovach became a registered dietitian in 1979. She graduated magna cum laude with a BS degree in technology (1977) from Bowling Green State University, completed her dietetic internship at University Hospitals of Cleveland (1978), and received an MS in nutrition (1979) from Case Western Reserve University. She also holds an MBA in executive management (1991) from Baldwin-Wallace College.0 -
I let my body guide me on this one, I stick to 1200cals... however, there are certain times where I feel a little weak and under nourished and then I boost it up to 1500 for a few days. It doesnt happen very often, but it works for me. Now Im not saying that would work for everyone, but its what works for me.
I had a lengthy conversation with my doc about it, and he thinks its just fine. In fact my blood pressure is awesome and I usually have oodles of energy.0 -
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I must have been under the same rock, never heard of that before I joined MFP and I lost 90 without eating back my workout calories. If I try I gain so I do my very best to stay between 1200 and 1300 calories and fill my day with as much activity as I can.0 -
Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)
There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.
The question becomes beyond the slowdown you'd expect to see from losing weight ie having lower total mass, how much more will adaptive thermogenesis lower your metabolism from under eating?
The article sort of addresses that. It also presents the theory that 'not losing at steep deficits' can be due to binge-ing, presumably without recording.
Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss" pdf says about the same thing as it does, too, I think. I mean, that you may slow down expected losses some but you never stop them.
"Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Center article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint)."0 -
Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)
There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.
The question becomes beyond the slowdown you'd expect to see from losing weight ie having lower total mass, how much more will adaptive thermogenesis lower your metabolism from under eating?
That's a good question, and one worthy of a thread debate. This particular thread and all the other ones like it are mostly people using mismatched definitions of "Starvation Mode" and the argument goes nowhere. I will have to look for sources, but I remember reading that the difference between someone who has dieted and someone who has never been overweight with otherwise equal parameters can be ~20% lower calorie needs for the dieter.0 -
If you must insist on eating at such highly restricted calories please start resistance weight training over cardio.
Study for the reason I say this and article that sites the study.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.abstract
http://fitnessblackbook.com/dieting_for_fat_loss/maintain-muscle-mass-on-800-calories-per-day/Results for the Dieters Who Did Cardio Only
The cardio only group lost most overall weight than the resistance only group, but unfortunately lost a significant amount of lean body mass. They also experienced a decrease in resting metabolic rate. So, obviously if someone is dieting hard they need to more than just cardio to maintain their lean muscle mass.
Results for the Dieters Who Did Resistance Training
This group didn’t lose any muscle mass whatsoever. In fact they lost more body fat than the cardio only group. Also, you have probably heard that “the metabolism slows down if calories are kept too low”. Well…this group actually had a higher resting metabolic rate than when they started. So resistance training is key when you are dieting.
Note that this study disproves all the people saying you do not lose muscle mass until low body fat %. You can lose muscle at anytime if your body feels it is not needed and you are eating at a deficit.0 -
Bump0
-
I personally think those who keep to 1200 calories and less, tend to be more likely to gain the weight back at some point, as their focus is on losing weight only, and not on a sustainable lifestyle change. I noted a few here who claim it worked for them before...well hey, if it worked so well, then why are you here needing to lose weight again ? It seems pointless to keep calories that low unless it is medically advised, as it can make shifting into maintenance and not gaining that much harder. I maintain my weight, with an hour of exercise 6x per week, on 2200-2600 calories a day, and I am not young, and am hypothyroid as well as having had anorexia when much younger(which can supposedly bork up metabolism), so yeah. Go figure that one out
But that is my opinion from personal observation.
As to exercise calories just being an excuse to eat more...and? Your point? What is intrinsically wrong with a human taking enjoyment in eating more, if it is relatively healthy food? Fact of the matter is, the majority of humans enjoy eating and enjoy food, so I see nothing negative in people eating back their exercise calories unless it is genuinely causing them to gain weight having tried it for at least 3-4 weeks.0 -
Notice weight watchers says there is no biological evidence to support lower calories produces starvation mode..in fact starvation mode only begins after 3 days of no calories. Even then true starvation (see Wikipedia or medical texts) only exists when all fat stores are depleted.0
-
/grabs popcorn
this should be interesting
I am also excited. Hopefully, your popcorn has TONS of butter so you get those exercise cals back
0 -
I did WW off and on for years....and had success until points plus came along. Prior to that on momentum, they did allow you to earn exercise points and you cold eat those points. Thus.......eating back your exercise calories. This is not something new and MFP is not the only plan to encourage this idea.0
-
Now I'm going to sit back and watch the show...lol.
The show that I would want to watch would be exercise physiologists and nutritionists and other people who have gone to school for a long time argue about things like this.
This is where MFP could be so much better. Get some of those people and have EXPERTS giving advice on this kind of stuff. I am in the exercise science industry but not a nutritionist nor a personal trainer (will have that soon tho)...and these threads infuriate me at times. Yes. It is important to gain advice and support from others. But when it comes to things that may in the end harm your body, if you are going to post things about how there is no such thing as "starvation mode" or eating too little then don't write it on MFP...join a pro-ana website.
I disagree.
The beautiful thing about MFP is we are all just in it to lose weight. It is very, very simple. There is plenty of information out there for weight-loss, plenty of research about everything you can dream of-- but there is no definitive clear answer here. You will always have people that chose to follow what they believe is working for them. Always. No matter how terrible it might be for them. The only thing MFP is maintained to do, is to create an environment to support and talk to one another about our choices. It doesn't make them right, but for those that chose to eat below their caloric intake for the day--not your problem, and if you disagree with their choices, unfriend them. Simple. Let them do their own research, that's not what the website is about.
As far as MFP goes, it is made to do exactly what it's doing. It isn't a research site, it simply is a collection of people working towards the same goal. We are here to encourage each other, not give solid data on how to lose weight. We are all different. What worked for me, may not work for someone else. That's the beauty of the website. The diversity. I am a group fitness instructor, I have more certifications than awards, however- People have a right to post whatever they want to post. I could post a thread about how eating pineapple for the rest of your life is going to let you live until you are 200 years old. If you are ignorant enough to believe it, that's your own problem. From a personal stand-point, directing people to a pro-ana website is not only ridiculous and out of line, but it's dangerous.0 -
Again, WW 'eating back' is optional and maxes at half your exercise calories.
And there is no 'you HAVE TO fuel your workouts' advice. Stored calories fuel workouts just fine. The Activity Points thing is just an optional means to eat more for those who wish to. I recall most WWers either didn't or ate half or some portion of them.0 -
That's a good question, and one worthy of a thread debate. This particular thread and all the other ones like it are mostly people using mismatched definitions of "Starvation Mode" and the argument goes nowhere. I will have to look for sources, but I remember reading that the difference between someone who has dieted and someone who has never been overweight with otherwise equal parameters can be ~20% lower calorie needs for the dieter.
I don't know the scientific reference for the ~20% lower calorie needs but I've also seen this. I think it was on the HBO show "Weight of the Nation" and I was completely intrigued by this.0 -
For me doing the same workout I lose weight the same eating at 1200 or 1400.0
-
I saw it on that HBO show too and the show lost some credibility with me for it. It's not possible to be that high, unless they're counting into that the normal reduction in BMR from being smaller. I mean, an average woman burns around 2000 in a day. So the average woman who's dieted now burns 1600? And if she's dieted twice, it's 1280? 20% is just too big a number.
The original article implies the reduction in calorie burn is temporary. That would make sense to me. Why would a mechanism for survival in a famine remain in times of plenty?0 -
Not true that MFP is the only "program" that promotes eating your workout calories. Weight watchers gives you "activity points" to use during the week for certain amount of exercise.
This!! Weight Watchers didn't do this many moons ago when I first tried it. And I was starving all the time and working out like a maniac. Now things have changed.0 -
Eat until you're full and then STOP. Don't eat just to fulfill some caloric goal of 1500 or whatnot. My opinion.
yes! i hate people that are like, "oh i'm not hungry but i have 200 cals left for today..what should i eat?!"
don't eat if you're not hungry!0 -
Well OP taking a look at your diary your eating is pretty horrible (no offense I only looked at a few days and my past few days are horrifying so perhaps it's just a recent thing) but what I saw is loaded with fat and you go over on saturated fat quite often, which is the worst kind of fat for you... So I suppose if you're eating less then 1200 calories of that kind of food you'll be malnourished but you won't be starving...
But if you have someone whose actually consuming less then 1200 calorie a day and burning 600 at the gym...well then that person is doing some pretty serious damage. If you're eating 1350 and burning off 300 at the gym you'll probably be okay. But if you ever go into negative or extremely low net you're def screwing up your body really bad. I'm not saying eat back every exercise calorie but you should at least keep your net to about 800 (and that's pretty damn low) which isn't at all unreasonable because if you went to the gym and burned 400 you would only need to eat 1200 calories to have an 800 net...but honestly if you go to the gym you'll probably be hungrier and eat more. I'm not saying eat 800 extra calories every time you have a big work out but you shouldn't have these insanely low nets. It's important to at least drink a protein shake if you want to actually gain muscle.
Believe me skinny fat isn't all that attractive and that;s what you'll get without enough protein/nutrition in your diet.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