The Starvation Myth
Replies
-
The Starvation Myth
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). 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).
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilized, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
Weight Watchers Approach
The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint.
It's very much real and happened to me. You eat too little, you lose muscle mass. You lose muscle, you lower your metabolism. You lower your metabolism, you gained fat. It's very much real and i stand by very strongly on my comment and beliefs about it. I'm living proof, even if you don't believe me or anyone that disagrees with this post.0 -
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.
Sounds like you haven't tried it for any length of time. Many individuals have done a metabolic reset and have then been able to continue losing while eating more calories than they did previously. Based on how long a person has been eating at such a deficit, it can take time for the body to adjust. It's science, not a myth.
1800 calories is not much, if a person exercises regularly. Though you are correct that a person's exact TDEE can only be calculated with in-person testing (due to actual body fat% and/or hormonal differences), many calculators come realistically close. You can also use one of the variety of tools available in the marketplace to measure your TDEE, such as a BodyMedia Fit or a FitBit.
I think the overall premise is doesn't a person want to be able to eat as much as they need in order to lose weight? If 1200 calories is all you need, super. Scientifically, 1200 calories, even for a small woman, is low. For example, a woman who stands 5'2", 125 lbs, 35 years of age, for example, her BMR is over 1300 calories (BMR being the number of calories a person needs to survive if one laid in bed all day or were in a coma). Add in any activity from the day (all normal activities and workouts) and the TDEE goes up to around 2000 calories. Therefore 1800 calories would be a small deficit and result in about 1/2 lb weight loss a week (or 1/3 a lb).
Folks are just sharing the science. If you feel great at 1200 calories, carry on. But you should probably read a bit more about actual metabolic numbers before criticizing someone who recommends eating more.0 -
I think people get the term "starvation mode" confused with actual "starvation". These forums are FULL of people eating at or less than 1200 calories and complaining about not losing weight. How many times do you read a post that says: "Help I cant lose weight and I'm only eating 1200 calories a day and working out like crazy." There is obviously something wrong with doing this for the long term.
.
I agree with this. For YEARS I barely ate anything (800 - 1000 calories per day) and could not lose weight. Once I maintained 1200-1300 calories, I started losing weight. I don't always eat exercise calories back, but sometimes I do. I have found for me personally, eating more (again, 1200-1300 calories give or take) and exercise 5-6 days per week is the best way for me to lose weight safely (I know my ticker only says 3 lbs, but I did lose 30 pounds 2 years ago, and it was by eating more and exercising).
So I, too must respectfully disagree...0 -
The way I see it I eat when I'm hungry and if MFP tells me that I'm not eating enough I ignore it because my body will tell me if I'm starving. Typically when I work out I feel hungrier so sometimes I eat back those extra calories only because my body was clearly telling me that I need them. And I still lose the weight so listen to your body, it knows best.0
-
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.
So what happens when you start eating more? Absolutely no gain in weight? Not likely... 1200 is considered quite low, and not just on this forum. It's not necessarily unsafe, but it can be a debilitating low for some people. This is why lifestyle change > diet. I hope you didn't think I was trying to generalize.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.
I eat 1800 a day at 5'9" and 153lbs. My weight loss is at a comfortable pace of about 0.5-1 lbs per week. This is something I could easily maintain for the next 17 lbs. I'm not eating more to weigh less or anything like that. I simply eat what I need to fuel the entirety of my day, including a workout. I am still losing therefore I am at a deficit. Dropping to 1200 would not have long term benefit for me.
You may be coming off as fanatical because you are focusing on personal experience. I could just as easily tell everyone that they have to eat 1800 a day or they will starve. It's not any worse of a generalization. Just as you may gain eating more than 1200, I may gain eating more than 1800. EVERYONE is different.0 -
The way I see it I eat when I'm hungry and if MFP tells me that I'm not eating enough I ignore it because my body will tell me if I'm starving. Typically when I work out I feel hungrier so sometimes I eat back those extra calories only because my body was clearly telling me that I need them. And I still lose the weight so listen to your body, it knows best.
^^ THIS0 -
The way I see it I eat when I'm hungry and if MFP tells me that I'm not eating enough I ignore it because my body will tell me if I'm starving. Typically when I work out I feel hungrier so sometimes I eat back those extra calories only because my body was clearly telling me that I need them. And I still lose the weight so listen to your body, it knows best.
For some of us the mind /body/emotion dialog is what got us overweight to begin with. If you are able to do intutive eating and it works for you, great! For me, no way. I would always think that my body would be telling me I was hungry. I have some emotional/ comfort/ stress relief stuff with food. I need to have a plan and stick to it. That takes all the other stuff out of play. I'm not alone. I think that a site like this proves that very few of us are capable or skilled at intuitive eating.0 -
If all of you really want to know the answer of whether restricting calories on a daily basis or just every once in a while works...read this Scholarly reviewed study. http://bit.ly/CalorieRestriction0
-
If all of you really want to know the answer of whether restricting calories on a daily basis or just every once in a while works...read this Scholarly reviewed study. http://bit.ly/CalorieRestriction
Awesome read!
"As for fat mass, similar decreases were noted whenintermittent CR was compared to daily CR. After 8 to 12weeks of treatment, 11–16% reductions in fat masswere reported for intermittent restriction (21–23), while10–20% decreases were demonstrated for daily restriction(8–12). These two diets differed, however, in their effectson lean mass. For instance, a lower proportion of lean masswas lost in response to intermittent CR (90% weight lost asfat, 10% weight loss as fat free mass) (21–23) when com-pared to daily CR (75% weight lost as fat, 25% weight lossas fat free mass) (4,7–16). Therefore, intermittent CR maybe a more effective diet for the retention of lean mass whencompared to daily CR."
This points more towards a cyclical type dieting routine where you have high days, lifting/cardio etc..., and low days.
So from a LBM standpoint having a few refeed days a week/month could benefit as opposed to a straight cut.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.
MFP doesn't need to be better. It's social networking about healthy stuff (for the most part). I'm a fitness and nutrition professional and am in school to get my MS in Nutrition Science...and I won't touch threads like this. When the 1st paragraph is so full of misinformation, incorrect definition of terms etc, it just makes people want to grab some popcorn and read the bickering and opinions (and a little argument with some name calling I think I recall). When I am talking about the science of fitness, starvation mode covers a 4-8 hour window, not 4-8 year lifestyle. And certainly has nothing to do with malnourished children in a 3rd world country. It's easy to drop weight and gain it right back for immediate gratification or to win an office pool. I can't wait for the MFP 20 year reunion. So we can all see who's fitness path worked. And who thought they were fit but developed diabetes or had a heart attack while running their daily 10 miles on the treadmill. Or my favorites are ones who want to cut carbs from their diet. Glucose (carbs) is the brain's ONLY source of energy.
"Dieting will get you fit" is the popular myth. Eating properly, exercise and rest will make you healthy. I know several people who tried several different diets with varying results. People who make the lifestyle change to healthy habits don't pursue different diet plans anymore.0 -
MFP doesn't need to be better. It's social networking about healthy stuff (for the most part). I'm a fitness and nutrition professional and am in school to get my MS in Nutrition Science...and I won't touch threads like this. When the 1st paragraph is so full of misinformation, incorrect definition of terms etc, it just makes people want to grab some popcorn and read the bickering and opinions (and a little argument with some name calling I think I recall). When I am talking about the science of fitness, starvation mode covers a 4-8 hour window, not 4-8 year lifestyle. And certainly has nothing to do with malnourished children in a 3rd world country. It's easy to drop weight and gain it right back for immediate gratification or to win an office pool. I can't wait for the MFP 20 year reunion. So we can all see who's fitness path worked. And who thought they were fit but developed diabetes or had a heart attack while running their daily 10 miles on the treadmill. Or my favorites are ones who want to cut carbs from their diet. Glucose (carbs) is the brain's ONLY source of energy.
"Dieting will get you fit" is the popular myth. Eating properly, exercise and rest will make you healthy. I know several people who tried several different diets with varying results. People who make the lifestyle change to healthy habits don't pursue different diet plans anymore.
Awesome post brother! Just awesome! One thing that strikes me is how the professionals like you and the army dietitian all pretty much say the same things.0 -
This must be an invincible horse! No matter how hard we beat it, it just WON'T DIE...0
-
On the Dr. Oz show there was a discussion similar to this and his suggestion was to rotate between eating 1200 calories one day and 1300 calories the next day. I guess it's worth trying.0
-
Ok, I'll throw my hat in the ring!
1) If you are restricting calories and losing weight successfully, at some point you have to adjust your RMR downward to account for your new improved physique. It takes less energy to run your sorry *kitten* now, so you'll have to eat even less to continue to lose the same rate
2) Weight loss never mattered, only fat loss does. And severely restricting calories will lead to more lean mass loss, which will lower your RMR even faster than fat loss.
3) Unless you are 30% fat or more, you shouldn't be restricting more than 20% of your calories.
4) Taking occasional diet breaks and cheat meals makes sense to avoid some of the physiological rebound that occurs when done dieting. Likewise, eating back at least some of the workout calories. And it may have a physiologic effect of increasing the metabolism, at least temporarily. But this doesn't mean going hog wild at DQ either. Just eat your normal amounts rather than dieting...
Yes, it is a fine line to walk.0 -
If all of you really want to know the answer of whether restricting calories on a daily basis or just every once in a while works...read this Scholarly reviewed study. http://bit.ly/CalorieRestriction
Awesome read!
"As for fat mass, similar decreases were noted whenintermittent CR was compared to daily CR. After 8 to 12weeks of treatment, 11–16% reductions in fat masswere reported for intermittent restriction (21–23), while10–20% decreases were demonstrated for daily restriction(8–12). These two diets differed, however, in their effectson lean mass. For instance, a lower proportion of lean masswas lost in response to intermittent CR (90% weight lost asfat, 10% weight loss as fat free mass) (21–23) when com-pared to daily CR (75% weight lost as fat, 25% weight lossas fat free mass) (4,7–16). Therefore, intermittent CR maybe a more effective diet for the retention of lean mass whencompared to daily CR."
This points more towards a cyclical type dieting routine where you have high days, lifting/cardio etc..., and low days.
So from a LBM standpoint having a few refeed days a week/month could benefit as opposed to a straight cut.
That study actually shows my point better than yours. The seven "Intermittent Calorie Restriction" trials used restriction of these amounts, alternated with 'eat at will' days: 100%, 85%, 100%, 80%, 75%, 75%, 75%
So if you eat at TDEE minus 75-100% alternated with days of eating at will, you lose less lean body mass than by smaller daily deficits.0 -
You may be coming off as fanatical because you are focusing on personal experience.
I'm 100% not focused on personal experience. I used my values as an example is all. I'm not telling anyone how much to eat. Just suggesting they not give out the misinfo that 1200 is VLCD and 'starvation level'.0 -
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.
Where does McDonald say it? I recently read his Rapid Fat Loss Handbook and I would say he takes my stance. He's probably even less conservative. He has people on his plan of 400-800 calories for as long as they feel ok with it.
I browsed his site a little and I do see some mention in some contexts but for the most part he seems to recommend that if your weight loss is slower than expected, you should reduce calories in or increase activity. That's really all I'm saying. He does say some people can't seem to lose at some levels, so maybe that's where a lot of MFPers are.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adjusting-the-diet.html
"If your predicted fat loss is 1-1.5 lbs/week (and you’re not messing up your calories somehow, through mis-measurement or what have you) and you’re not achieving that, you need to reduce calories further (or increase activity to burn the extra).
Clearly, if you’re hitting your goal numbers right on the spot, don’t change anything.
Of course, there are times when the actual weekly weight loss ends up being larger than expected. Some of this can be water or what have you but not always. And that leads me to an explanation of the middle column.
As I discussed in Weight Training for Fat Loss, one of the primary metrics that should be used while dieting (for non-athletes) is the maintenance of poundages in the gym. Now, it’s not always possible to maintain 100% of strength (and this tends to be a bigger issue as folks get to lower and lower body fat levels) but if major dropoffs are being seen and training is correct, that usually indicates that muscle is being lost. In that situation, the deficit must be reduced, either food intake should be increased or some of the extra activity (usually excessive cardio) should be reduced.
Of course, the same would go for athletes who are trying to reduce body fat levels, if some useful metric of their performance (e.g. run time, cycling power output, whatever) is worsening, then the deficit is too aggressive and calories should be increased (with any ‘junk’ or extra activity being reduced if necessary).
I’d note that, strictly speaking, I could have included the performance loss column for any of the weekly fat losses. Some people even doing everything ‘right’ simply can’t achieve optimal fat loss results without performance loss. They will need to use less agressive deficits (again either reducing food intake or increasing activity) to avoid major performance falloffs."0 -
If all of you really want to know the answer of whether restricting calories on a daily basis or just every once in a while works...read this Scholarly reviewed study. http://bit.ly/CalorieRestriction
Awesome read!
"As for fat mass, similar decreases were noted whenintermittent CR was compared to daily CR. After 8 to 12weeks of treatment, 11–16% reductions in fat masswere reported for intermittent restriction (21–23), while10–20% decreases were demonstrated for daily restriction(8–12). These two diets differed, however, in their effectson lean mass. For instance, a lower proportion of lean masswas lost in response to intermittent CR (90% weight lost asfat, 10% weight loss as fat free mass) (21–23) when com-pared to daily CR (75% weight lost as fat, 25% weight lossas fat free mass) (4,7–16). Therefore, intermittent CR maybe a more effective diet for the retention of lean mass whencompared to daily CR."
This points more towards a cyclical type dieting routine where you have high days, lifting/cardio etc..., and low days.
So from a LBM standpoint having a few refeed days a week/month could benefit as opposed to a straight cut.
That study actually shows my point better than yours. The seven "Intermittent Calorie Restriction" trials used restriction of these amounts, alternated with 'eat at will' days: 100%, 85%, 100%, 80%, 75%, 75%, 75%
So if you eat at TDEE minus 75-100% alternated with days of eating at will, you lose less lean body mass than by smaller daily deficits.
1. Thanks for the study! I couldn't log onto Jstor at work and it was driving me nuts.
2. I'm done beating the dead horse. I wish you continued success with the method that best works for YOU.0 -
You don't eat = you die. How is this a myth?0
-
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.
Where does McDonald say it? I recently read his Rapid Fat Loss Handbook and I would say he takes my stance. He's probably even less conservative. He has people on his plan of 400-800 calories for as long as they feel ok with it.
I browsed his site a little and I do see some mention in some contexts but for the most part he seems to recommend that if your weight loss is slower than expected, you should reduce calories in or increase activity. That's really all I'm saying. He does say some people can't seem to lose at some levels, so maybe that's where a lot of MFPers are.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adjusting-the-diet.html
"If your predicted fat loss is 1-1.5 lbs/week (and you’re not messing up your calories somehow, through mis-measurement or what have you) and you’re not achieving that, you need to reduce calories further (or increase activity to burn the extra).
Clearly, if you’re hitting your goal numbers right on the spot, don’t change anything.
Of course, there are times when the actual weekly weight loss ends up being larger than expected. Some of this can be water or what have you but not always. And that leads me to an explanation of the middle column.
As I discussed in Weight Training for Fat Loss, one of the primary metrics that should be used while dieting (for non-athletes) is the maintenance of poundages in the gym. Now, it’s not always possible to maintain 100% of strength (and this tends to be a bigger issue as folks get to lower and lower body fat levels) but if major dropoffs are being seen and training is correct, that usually indicates that muscle is being lost. In that situation, the deficit must be reduced, either food intake should be increased or some of the extra activity (usually excessive cardio) should be reduced.
Of course, the same would go for athletes who are trying to reduce body fat levels, if some useful metric of their performance (e.g. run time, cycling power output, whatever) is worsening, then the deficit is too aggressive and calories should be increased (with any ‘junk’ or extra activity being reduced if necessary).
I’d note that, strictly speaking, I could have included the performance loss column for any of the weekly fat losses. Some people even doing everything ‘right’ simply can’t achieve optimal fat loss results without performance loss. They will need to use less agressive deficits (again either reducing food intake or increasing activity) to avoid major performance falloffs."
You are very consistent in viewing all data you come across through the lense of your bias. This disussion has long gone past the point of constructive dialog. Peace out.0 -
To the author of originating post in this tread: Thanks for taklng the time to explain the truth about this subject.. I study this stuff and I see this over and over the cloud and threat of starvation mode.
There is also further research that has been down that have application in this topic that illustrates that :Starvation Mode" does not have substancial data to back it up.
But then again see over and over all kind of myths that are just as common as this one.0 -
Amen.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 -
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.
In fact, WW lets you roll over the extra points through the week, not just for the day. I appreciate the extra calories, because I exercise hard and if I had to stay at 1200, I would feel as though I'm starving. For example, today I burned about 1300 calories exercising, if I eat only 1200, I'm still in the hole -100. And it doesn't just come down to burning fat to make up the difference.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.
In fact, WW lets you roll over the extra points through the week, not just for the day. I appreciate the extra calories, because I exercise hard and if I had to stay at 1200, I would feel as though I'm starving. For example, today I burned about 1300 calories exercising, if I eat only 1200, I'm still in the hole -100. And it doesn't just come down to burning fat to make up the difference.
That's good to know. Thanks for the info. WW is such a respected weight loss program.0 -
I find it difficult to eat the calories I am supposed to, let alone eat back calories....so I hope this is true.0
-
Lol delusional.
Even the article says both ways help you lose but one way is better.
Enjoy your low cals folks!
My breakfast alone was more than you'll eat in a day and the weight comes off.
*shrugs*0 -
It's pretty well known that fast weight loss has a way of coming back. Beyond 2 lbs. per week you may create some health effects, which include:
Gallstones,Dehydration, Malnutrition, Headaches Irritability Fatigue Dizziness Constipation Menstrual irregularities Hair loss Muscle loss, loss of testosterone.
Sources:
http://women.webmd.com/pharmacist-11/rapid-weight-loss
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18516767
And that's just from a quick glance. Loss of significant muscle mass is a given beyond 2 lbs. per week, and I wouldn't be surprised to see other things on that list.
***This is exactly why you eat back your exercise calories so you maintain no more than a 2 lb. loss per week***
If you want to go through life with no hair, brittle bones, no muscle, and have difficulty taking a dump or getting it up, feel free to shed the weight as fast as you can by not eating backing exercise calories.
Idiots.0 -
Lol delusional.
Even the article says both ways help you lose but one way is better.
Enjoy your low cals folks!
My breakfast alone was more than you'll eat in a day and the weight comes off.
*shrugs*
It had the other interesting observation several times, body just reached a homeostasis and greater restriction didn't lead to greater weight loss, just greater LBM loss as you pointed out.
"No dose–response relationship
between greater degree of energy restriction and
larger amounts of weight loss was identified in the trials
examined here, however (4,9,11–13,15,16). For instance,
similar weight loss (6% from baseline) after 12–13 weeks
of treatment was demonstrated with 16% energy restriction
(13) and 23% energy restriction (12). Moreover, the
trial (4) that reported the greatest degree of energy restriction
(63%) only resulted in slightly greater weight loss
(16% body weight reduction after 22 weeks of treatment),
than a trial (15) that reported 23% energy restriction (13%
weight loss after 20 weeks of treatment)."
Now, for people that have yo-yo dieted their way to MFP to try yet again, would eating at 63% restriction be harder to maintain for a length of time, or 23% restriction?
And the loss was about the same (16% loss in 22 wks or 13% in 20 wks).
Through in their the binges and cheat days because of eating at 63% less, and that 16% may not be so great.
Add exercise and trying to improve the body to the mix, now how bad does the restriction mess things up.0 -
It's pretty well known that fast weight loss has a way of coming back. Beyond 2 lbs. per week you may create some health effects, which include:
Gallstones,Dehydration, Malnutrition, Headaches Irritability Fatigue Dizziness Constipation Menstrual irregularities Hair loss Muscle loss, loss of testosterone.
Sources:
http://women.webmd.com/pharmacist-11/rapid-weight-loss
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18516767
And that's just from a quick glance. Loss of significant muscle mass is a given beyond 2 lbs. per week, and I wouldn't be surprised to see other things on that list.
***This is exactly why you eat back your exercise calories so you maintain no more than a 2 lb. loss per week***
If you want to go through life with no hair, brittle bones, no muscle, and have difficulty taking a dump or getting it up, feel free to shed the weight as fast as you can by not eating backing exercise calories.
Idiots.
Who said anything about >2 lbs/week?
Or did you just need to make something up to preface 'idiots' with, because 'idiots' alone made you sound... like an idiot?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