The Starvation Myth
Replies
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA0 -
if your body is continuously functioning throughout the day, you need to eat. that makes sense.
if you don't eat enough calories for your body to keep functioning at a HEALTHY rate, isn't that dangerous to some degree? kinda like wanting your car to keep running without fuel?
the fat on your *kitten* is equivalent to the fuel tank in your car.
you don't have an inflight refuelling truck running ahead of your car, and equally you don't need to eat every minute of every day you're alive. You can fast for hours, days, months. Hunger strikers take several months to die.
RIP A broadly useless analogy0 -
600 calories is only 150g of protein, that's a reasonably high amount but not stupidly so. Are you sure ?I sometimes don't get over 600 calories, not cause I'm starving because I am eating a ton of protien. I don't think I am starving. Then again, I just don't know. I am confused. Maybe I should just give up and get lipo.0 -
meh.
my brain doesn't function when i don't eat enough. and i need my brain to make a living. so that's where the argument ends for me.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 MFP already figures in your deficit for you. I'm not sure how other sites work, not being a member of any others, but that is probably why you don't. Most people don't realize/don't understand that the deficit is already there.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 MFP already figures in your deficit for you. I'm not sure how other sites work, not being a member of any others, but that is probably why you don't. Most people don't realize/don't understand that the deficit is already there.
Exactly.0 -
...Eat until you're full and then STOP. Don't eat just to fulfill some caloric goal of 1500 or whatnot. My opinion.
Some people have to be careful with this, though. Namely those like myself who have an unhealthy attachment to food. For us, eating has a soothing effect on our emotions, so we're not always eating because we're hungry. Thus, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference if we are really hungry or just eating to pacify a different kind of hunger. In cases like this, it's very important for us to measure food and stick to a specific calorie goal. It's the only way we know how to determine and regulate how much we're really eating.0 -
600 calories is only 150g of protein, that's a reasonably high amount but not stupidly so. Are you sure ?I sometimes don't get over 600 calories, not cause I'm starving because I am eating a ton of protien. I don't think I am starving. Then again, I just don't know. I am confused. Maybe I should just give up and get lipo.
I'm guessing this is 'netting 600'? Many people here do think exercise somehow negates food intake from a nutrient standpoint, not just a caloric one. So if you eat 1200 and jog 3 miles you're only "really eating 900".0 -
I don't know about starvation mode but I do know that I have lost SOOO much more weight eating a healthy amount rather than back when I used to try to starve myself. I think it has more to do with the fact that I have more energy and can go harder during workouts. On top of that, I LIKE eating so screw eating very little haha.
What is your definition of "starve"? 500 calories a day? Just curious. You look great so whatever you found that works for you works!
I eat 1200 and I feel like I eat constantly, they're just smart decisions (IMO, some might disagree).
I think everyone differs greatly in this respect. MFP shows you the deficit you need to eat in order to lose your suggested amount of weight per week. That is based on your selected level of activity. This means that MFP does NOT account for what else you burn through exercise. The motivational "you have earned __ cals today!" is a way of saying that you have now burned more energy than what you were expected to burn for that day.
If 1200 calories a day minus "exercise cals" is comfortable for you, then that's perfect. You have found success! Congratulations on your success; why would you change?
In the same respect, I am losing weight at a pace I am happy with as well. However, I aim to eat about 1700-1800 calories a day. MFP gives me 1440 for a goal. I aim to burn 500 cals a day. I guess this could be called "eating back my exercise cals". I like to look at it as eating within range of my BMR, and creating a deficit using only exercise.
I think ultimately you are right, everyone has to try several variations in order to find out what works. I haven't started eating less than that range because I haven't felt the need to... but I also don't force myself to eat my goal if I am not hungry. I think too much fuss is placed on "starvation mode" and metabolic rates. Eat when hungry, exercise for your health...weight loss follows. I hope this made sense. If not, have a flower :flowerforyou:0 -
DittoWell 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 -
DANG, you rock!! I'm going to send you a friend request! I hope to god people pay attention to this, it's one of the best examples I've ever seen on MFP!! denise:drinker: :drinker:Come on people the word starvation mode is taken way out of context around here... No one is comparing anything to starving kids in Africa.... The way most use this term is that if you run to high of a caloric deficit your bodies metabolism slows to a crawl and your weightloss stalls... So in essence your body tries to protect itself aka starvation mode.... Then there is the other side "Eating more to lose weight" this comes in to play when you consume those calories burned during exercise. You have to fuel your body for the workouts you ask of it to do... It is as simple as that...
Read the article, though: your metabolism *slows down*, doesn't stop. You will incrementally lose weight slower, but you will still be losing weight at a rapid pace. You don't stop losing weight from fat until you are under 10% bf. and hardly anybody on this forum applies to that.
Note: I'm not saying that eating more than 1200 calories is BAD for you or will make it hard to lose weight (on a case-by-case basis, of course), I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with 1000-1200 calories a day for most people. It's just hard and takes some adjusting. You won't stop losing weight if you eat 1200 cals. You won't gain weight if you eat 1200 cals. And it is not an automatic "well you will lose muscle, then", either.
Hate to burst your bubble but after 37 months of being in a caloric deficit and losing 310 lbs, thru diet and exercise and trial and error coming from not being able to stand and support my own weight to where I am today I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my body did shut down, did stop losing weight and did actually start retaining calories I was putting in causing me to completely stall out because of those high calorie deficits.... After I figured it out everything changed... Now I eat 3200-3400 calories a day presently to lose 1/2 lb. a week.... I had a BMI of 74+ and after 310 lbs. lost I still have a BMI of 33% (still obese by their standards)
Not by mine:
So I respectfully have to disagree..........0 -
if your body is continuously functioning throughout the day, you need to eat. that makes sense.
if you don't eat enough calories for your body to keep functioning at a HEALTHY rate, isn't that dangerous to some degree? kinda like wanting your car to keep running without fuel?
The car analogy only works if you have no body fat to spare. At 20 lbs. overweight, I have 20 x 3500 = 70,000 calories in my tank I'm trying to burn off.
If I top off my tank each day with all my BMR calorie burn plus all my exercise calorie burn, what activity is left to burn off my excess? The calories I expend brushing my teeth and driving to the gym?
No wonder people give up and want to turn to lipo. You don't need to walk this tiny tightrope between what is 'too few calories' vs. what is no longer a deficit.
This is kind of what I was saying. If you want to look at it in these terms, your calculated calories on MFP are at a healthy deficit. If you burn more, you may start to feel tired and your energy expenditure would be lower. When you "earn" more calories, it's MFP recalculating your goal to include what you burned on top of what you originally selected as your daily activity level. That said, you are not *required* to eat what you burn if you are not hungry. Listen to your body. If you don't need food, you don't need food. I just know that for myself, I'd rather eat enough to fuel my body and my workout. If I'm still losing then I'm not really doing anything wrong.
Hopefully there are enough valuable strategies here that everyone can give different options a try and find what works best for them as an individual. Good luck all!0 -
Exercise calories----Eat some, leave some.
So if you work off 400 calories, eat 200.
So then I plan to just work off 200.
Do I eat 100?
Where does that stop? Only eat them back *if you are hungry*. Do not eat them back JUST so you can say you ate them back. Your body will tell you if it needs fuel!
My BMR is 1250. So am I starving myself? no!
Going back to the dude with the before and after pictures:
Dude, I get that you are inspirational, but I've seen your pictures in the other 500 threads you've put them on. I get it! Good job. Cheerio. Toodaloo. But I'm saying that what works for you does *not work for everybody*. Just because it worked for you does not mean it will work for me. Why don't people on this forum get that!? You can only use those pictures for so many examples before it gets annoying. We are different genders, we have different metabolic rates, and we have different heights, genetics-- you name it. We are different. I've lost more than 20 pounds doing it the way I do it, and if you want picture proof there you go.0 -
Exercise calories----Eat some, leave some.
So if you work off 400 calories, eat 200.
So then I plan to just work off 200.
Do I eat 100?
Where does that stop? Only eat them back *if you are hungry*. Do not eat them back JUST so you can say you ate them back. Your body will tell you if it needs fuel!
My BMR is 1250. So am I starving myself? no!
Going back to the dude with the before and after pictures:
Dude, I get that you are inspirational, but I've seen your pictures in the other 500 threads you've put them on. I get it! Good job. Cheerio. Toodaloo. But I'm saying that what works for you does *not work for everybody*. Just because it worked for you does not mean it will work for me. Why don't people on this forum get that!? You can only use those pictures for so many examples before it gets annoying. We are different genders, we have different metabolic rates, and we have different heights, genetics-- you name it. We are different. I've lost more than 20 pounds doing it the way I do it, and if you want picture proof there you go.
Did I say eat half? NO. Eat some of them if you need to. It sounds like you might need to eat a little bit to knock out all that tension you have built up. Lighten up. It was only a suggestion.0 -
Exercise calories----Eat some, leave some.
So if you work off 400 calories, eat 200.
So then I plan to just work off 200.
Do I eat 100?
Where does that stop? Only eat them back *if you are hungry*. Do not eat them back JUST so you can say you ate them back. Your body will tell you if it needs fuel!
My BMR is 1250. So am I starving myself? no!
Going back to the dude with the before and after pictures:
Dude, I get that you are inspirational, but I've seen your pictures in the other 500 threads you've put them on. I get it! Good job. Cheerio. Toodaloo. But I'm saying that what works for you does *not work for everybody*. Just because it worked for you does not mean it will work for me. Why don't people on this forum get that!? You can only use those pictures for so many examples before it gets annoying. We are different genders, we have different metabolic rates, and we have different heights, genetics-- you name it. We are different. I've lost more than 20 pounds doing it the way I do it, and if you want picture proof there you go.
Did I say eat half? NO. Eat some of them if you need to. It sounds like you might need to eat a little bit to knock out all that tension you have built up. Lighten up. It was only a suggestion.
o___O Man I do not suggest a philosophy course for you. It's called a debate. We're not throwing tomatoes at anybody! Well, I might have thrown a small piece of a pickle at the before/after pic guy, but I think it's all in good fun debate. If you get that offended at someone who disagrees, definitely stay away from philosophy, psychology, and most literature classes! We'd debate until the sun went down, then all go out for drinks. Shizz happens, yo! Chill!0 -
Exercise calories----Eat some, leave some.
So if you work off 400 calories, eat 200.
So then I plan to just work off 200.
Do I eat 100?
Where does that stop? Only eat them back *if you are hungry*. Do not eat them back JUST so you can say you ate them back. Your body will tell you if it needs fuel!
My BMR is 1250. So am I starving myself? no!
Going back to the dude with the before and after pictures:
Dude, I get that you are inspirational, but I've seen your pictures in the other 500 threads you've put them on. I get it! Good job. Cheerio. Toodaloo. But I'm saying that what works for you does *not work for everybody*. Just because it worked for you does not mean it will work for me. Why don't people on this forum get that!? You can only use those pictures for so many examples before it gets annoying. We are different genders, we have different metabolic rates, and we have different heights, genetics-- you name it. We are different. I've lost more than 20 pounds doing it the way I do it, and if you want picture proof there you go.
Did I say eat half? NO. Eat some of them if you need to. It sounds like you might need to eat a little bit to knock out all that tension you have built up. Lighten up. It was only a suggestion.
o___O Man I do not suggest a philosophy course for you. It's called a debate. We're not throwing tomatoes at anybody! Well, I might have thrown a small piece of a pickle at the before/after pic guy, but I think it's all in good fun debate. If you get that offended at someone who disagrees, definitely stay away from philosophy, psychology, and most literature classes! We'd debate until the sun went down, then all go out for drinks. Shizz happens, yo! Chill!
Did I say I was offended? NO. Chill? Chill? Who the %$#@ you tellin to Chill? It's all good.0 -
You have to find what works for you. That is all I can truly say.
/\ This is the best advice I've seen on this thread. Obviously, a calorie deficit is necessary to loose weight. How much of a calorie deficit a person needs to yield healthy and consistent weight loss varies from person to person and life situations. I needed to increase my caloric intake when I began a rigorous exercise regime, but I still net less than what MFP recommends. It's an approach of trial and error. If it works for you and you have no side effects (stalled weight loss, tiredness, etc) then it's okay.0 -
Eating low cal seems to work for those folks on the "Survivor" show...
///steps back into the shadows to "watch the show"...0 -
This is why when anorexics are in rehab to gain weight back, they need to do it slower because when they up the calories many will sometimes LOSE MORE WEIGHT.
Did anyone look at who the writers of the article were? Weight Watchers Research. I would like to see this not in a Weight Watchers magazine but in a peer reviewed research journal because those are the only "researchers" that should be heard and it isn't even the laypeople who get to read them.
If you can find something about how it is okay to eat below 1200 calories for an extended period of time in a scholarly research journal and prove me wrong than I will admit defeat. But I am pretty sure I will not. I am in the exercise science industry and I do not believe that it is healthy in any way shape or form to be eating that little for an extended period of time.
Phew. Breath. Sorry I got heated.
Umm sorry, your misinformed somewhere... it is called REFEEDING syndrome... that is why they are careful to up intake fast as it can kill you...
Not because eating more will make them lose MORE weight... god if it was that easy, they would do that wouldn't they!
God... I hate it when people like you try and make a logical medical unsafe argument! You can actually kill people by doing what you suggested, not because they will lose weight but because of a whole lot of other biological chemistry that takes place.. because of the sudden excess of certain elements in the body...0 -
Do what works for you! Simple as that. Until it stops working for you! Then try something different.
I decided that I couldn't keep going in that type of a circle anymore. I eat 2445 a day, 300 of them are for breastfeeding. I lift heavy 3 days a week and only walk once a week. I am losing slow and steady.
I am 44 and have 6 children and cannot afford to be undernourished anymore. Five of my children are boys ages 11 and under, very ACTIVE boys, I need all the energy I can get. I had to do something sustainable and something that would set a good example for my children.
I know some of you don't like this but at times I am one of those who "aren't hungry but have more calories left." You know what I eat them. You know why? I need them for my workouts!!0 -
Do what works for you! Simple as that.
While this is lovely advice it does nothing to stop this from occurring here 10 times a day:
OP: I only lost a pound this week! Am I in starvation mode??? I eat 1200 like MFP says.
Responses 1-50:
OMG! You ARE in starvation mode! You need to eat more if you want to lose!
You need to fuel your body!
If you eat 1200 you will store every calorie you take in as fat!
You will immediately regain everything you lost!
You can't eat 1200 forever!
You are permanently damaging your metabolism!
Your body is eating its own muscle, its own organs! You can't survive on 1200 in a coma!
If you eat below BMR and without 'eating back' you're a car running on empty!
We ALL eat more and lose fine! We have fun! You are stupid! Join this group!
Your metabolism is like a furnace! It needs fuel!
Ad nauseum.
So the poor OP wastes 4-12 weeks eating more and gaining when all she had to do was just learn to be patient. So she decide it's all too complex and gives up.0 -
Do what works for you! Simple as that.
While this is lovely advice it does nothing to stop this from occurring here 10 times a day:
OP: I only lost a pound this week! Am I in starvation mode??? I eat 1200 like MFP says.
Responses 1-50:
OMG! You ARE in starvation mode! You need to eat more if you want to lose!
You need to fuel your body!
If you eat 1200 you will store every calorie you take in as fat!
You will immediately regain everything you lost!
You can't eat 1200 forever!
You are permanently damaging your metabolism!
Your body is eating its own muscle, its own organs! You can't survive on 1200 in a coma!
If you eat below BMR and without 'eating back' you're a car running on empty!
We ALL eat more and lose fine! We have fun! You are stupid! Join this group!
Your metabolism is like a furnace! It needs fuel!
Ad nauseum.
So the poor OP wastes 4-12 weeks eating more and gaining when all she had to do was just learn to be patient. So she decide it's all too complex and gives up.
Sure, some people can eat 1200 forever. Myself, at 5'9" cannot. I did it for a year. Plateau at an 8lb loss for 6 months. This low of a deficit doesn't work for everyone's body type, activity level, muscle/fat composition, etc.
Sometimes there is a touch of truth in the panicked responses. People need to find the sticky topics and the real information and come to terms with their own best method. What is available on this site is just guidance. I agree, it's really sad to see so much spam stemming from bro-science myths.0 -
BUMP!0
-
This is why when anorexics are in rehab to gain weight back, they need to do it slower because when they up the calories many will sometimes LOSE MORE WEIGHT.
Did anyone look at who the writers of the article were? Weight Watchers Research. I would like to see this not in a Weight Watchers magazine but in a peer reviewed research journal because those are the only "researchers" that should be heard and it isn't even the laypeople who get to read them.
If you can find something about how it is okay to eat below 1200 calories for an extended period of time in a scholarly research journal and prove me wrong than I will admit defeat. But I am pretty sure I will not. I am in the exercise science industry and I do not believe that it is healthy in any way shape or form to be eating that little for an extended period of time.
Phew. Breath. Sorry I got heated.
Umm sorry, your misinformed somewhere... it is called REFEEDING syndrome... that is why they are careful to up intake fast as it can kill you...
Not because eating more will make them lose MORE weight... god if it was that easy, they would do that wouldn't they!
God... I hate it when people like you try and make a logical medical unsafe argument! You can actually kill people by doing what you suggested, not because they will lose weight but because of a whole lot of other biological chemistry that takes place.. because of the sudden excess of certain elements in the body...
My suggestion was to look at research...i don't understand how you got that I'd kill someone with that0 -
Sure, some people can eat 1200 forever.
Well, my point in listing that one is that there is a logical leap in there. Eating 1200 now to lose some weight doesn't imply eating 1200 forever.0 -
Do what works for you! Simple as that.
While this is lovely advice it does nothing to stop this from occurring here 10 times a day:
OP: I only lost a pound this week! Am I in starvation mode??? I eat 1200 like MFP says.
Responses 1-50:
OMG! You ARE in starvation mode! You need to eat more if you want to lose!
You need to fuel your body!
If you eat 1200 you will store every calorie you take in as fat!
You will immediately regain everything you lost!
You can't eat 1200 forever!
You are permanently damaging your metabolism!
Your body is eating its own muscle, its own organs! You can't survive on 1200 in a coma!
If you eat below BMR and without 'eating back' you're a car running on empty!
We ALL eat more and lose fine! We have fun! You are stupid! Join this group!
Your metabolism is like a furnace! It needs fuel!
Ad nauseum.
So the poor OP wastes 4-12 weeks eating more and gaining when all she had to do was just learn to be patient. So she decide it's all too complex and gives up.
That's one version of it. Another one is that the OP ups calories, has more energy to fuel workouts, metabolism adjusts and starts fat loss in motion again. There are plenty of stories that indicate that happens as often as not. If people eat more than the minimum but are still in deficit, why would they gain? They may lose slower. Ok, that's fine. but gain? That appears to be a false premise. In other threads when we both post I respect your perspective on many things. On this topic, you come across to me as fanatical. There is a wide gap between the minimum VLCD and over TDEE and gaining weight. And many stops along the way.0 -
I guess I'm fanatical because there isn't a wide gap for a lot of us. And 1200 is not considered "VLCD" anywhere but in this forum.
And I think people are underestimating their intake far more than they're adjusting their metabolism downward by dieting too low. That's what the science like this study in this thread says.
They gain because we don't know our true TDEE. It's an estimate. So when EM2WL begs me to try 1800 calories/day for 12 weeks, if I do, I will gain. It's happened to a lot of people here. Or worse, they get sucked into this rec: Do a 'metabolism reset' by eating AT your est. TDEE for a month or two, then drop to 1800. It's just made up forum stuff.0 -
omg this stuff all just drives me crazy!! i just want not to be fat is that too much too ask??
I'm with you!!!0 -
What do you think happens when you eat at TDEE? You maintain. You do that for 2 months, you have a pretty good starting point for creating a deficit, ie TDEE -20%. How is that made up? I'd say it's a far more sensible approach than starting from a one-size-fits-all, rock-bottom minimum.I guess I'm fanatical because there isn't a wide gap for a lot of us. And 1200 is not considered "VLCD" anywhere but in this forum.
And I think people are underestimating their intake far more than they're adjusting their metabolism downward by dieting too low. That's what the science like this study in this thread says.
They gain because we don't know our true TDEE. It's an estimate. So when EM2WL begs me to try 1800 calories/day for 12 weeks, if I do, I will gain. It's happened to a lot of people here. Or worse, they get sucked into this rec: Do a 'metabolism reset' by eating AT your est. TDEE for a month or two, then drop to 1800. It's just made up forum stuff.0 -
I guess I'm fanatical because there isn't a wide gap for a lot of us. And 1200 is not considered "VLCD" anywhere but in this forum.
And I think people are underestimating their intake far more than they're adjusting their metabolism downward by dieting too low. That's what the science like this study in this thread says.
They gain because we don't know our true TDEE. It's an estimate. So when EM2WL begs me to try 1800 calories/day for 12 weeks, if I do, I will gain. It's happened to a lot of people here. Or worse, they get sucked into this rec: Do a 'metabolism reset' by eating AT your est. TDEE for a month or two, then drop to 1800. It's just made up forum stuff.
So, you chose not to because you don't believe it works for you. You right to make that choice. It has worked for others and that's been documented. Why are you certain the outcome for everyone is that they'll gain? At least that's how it sounds from your posts.
Yes most overestimate burns and underestimate intake. That has been proven in study after study but do you really underestimate the intelligence of most people here to not be able to figure out and adjust. For example, someone shoots at -20% to TDEE. Probably at or above BMR and say 1750 calories a day for a woman. After 2 to 4 weeks minimal loss. Are not most able to take that down 10% and see what happens? Usually, trail and error will get someone there. That's all it all really is anyway no matter what method and if people are going to underestimate intake, they are likely going to struggle and possibly fail no matter what.
You are advocating a wider margin. Nessesary and will work for some. Not for others. Your stance would be like me saying, I eat above BMR(true), I have dropped my body fat 10% (true), the only way is for everyone to eat above BMR. It's always dangerous when we universalize from our personal experience.
PS: That is not all that just made up forum stuff you listed. Many experienced nutritionists and respected authorities like Lyle McDonald and Krieger say the similar things. It is a theory with some scientific basis just as your theory is. People aren't making this stuff up out of thin air to post on a forum. There is not one objective truth in this discussion. Different people will follow different things based on their objective and beliefs just as you do.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
- 423 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