The Starvation Myth

Dani_wants_to_be_fit

mjsunshine16

/grabs popcorn

this should be interesting

LMAO!

andreamelo1

and if you really think undereating as never killed anybody think about all the anerexics that have died because yes eventually your organs do give up so it makes sense that you give your body the fuel it needs i know that i would rather lose weight slower and healthier then go to bed on a night with that awful starving feeling in my stomach

missed the boat the article mention nothing of under eating to a point of death

beckajw

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).

Weight watchers encourages eating back 1/2 of your exercise points (calories).

NWCountryGal

:laugh: :bigsmile: eat what you want to and quit gripin because someone has another opinion:drinker: :drinker:

jackflak

bump

Siggy86

At the end of the day I believe that everyone should do what works best for them. I currently eat back most of my calories because I know that is a longer term solution for me to maintain my weight loss goal. People who feel totally fine with netting between 800-1200 calories should continue to do so if they feel that it works for them. No matter what advice is given, all of our bodies respond differently to certain weight loss regimens. I personally tried only eating at 1250 calories a day but I noticed that I became more fatigued in my workouts, and just tired in general throughout the day. Now that I am set to only lose a 1/2 pound per week, I am set up to net 1420 calories a day, and this regimen is something that I feel that I can sustain for a long time. I think that's the most important thing to remember; whatever regimen you are on should be a lifestyle change. If you 're fine with netting 1000 calories a day and can continue to do it for long term without any ill-effects, then by all means keep on doing it. It's our own bodies and we should take most advice with a grain of salt until you personally know that it works for you!

sheila569

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..........

:drinker: :drinker: :flowerforyou:
Well said... your an inspiration to us all

candice382

/grabs popcorn

this should be interesting

BWAHAHAHAHAHA - I know what you mean

ArroganceInStep

*sigh

If you just understood why things were being calculated the way there were, you'd be able to make a more educated decision on the plan you want to follow.

"But I don't understand why they do it this way!" -> Then figure it out...duh

I don't eat my exercise calories back (*gasp), but that's because I recognize what the different calculations signify and made a decision accordingly. I didn't take the estimate that MFP gave me, I ran the numbers myself and figured out what my TDEE was. If you're taking MFP's suggested intake and not eating back calories, all you're doing is eating at a greater deficit than you originally targetted. If you want to do that go ahead, but at least understand what you're doing. Don't just claim to not understand it and then ignore it.

If you think that when you cut more weight your loss rate will stop you're equally misguided. Thermodynamics disagrees with you. Fact is your metabolism does slow, and your activity levels can and do suffer as well. If your deficit is small enough that this reduction in activity will eliminate the deficit than no, you won't lose weight. Otherwise, you will, period. You may see short to long term stalls (weight's a fickle thing), feel like crap, and lose a crapton of muscle mass, but you will lose weight. You can safely sustain a larger deficit the more you have to lose. Eating more (but still at a deficit) is generally a slower, but safer and healthier, course of action. You'll tend to feel better, have better workouts, and get to eat more food (which in my book is a good thing). By all means I highly recommend this as a strategy, but don't lie to others and yourself and say you'll stop losing weight if you don't eat enough, that's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. It also may be inaccurate, however well intentioned, to jump to 'you're not eating enough' as the solution. People tend to grossly underestimate calorie intake and overestimate caloric expenditure when logging. For some folks, not eating there calories back (or only eating a fraction) is an unintentional but effective counter to those kinds of errors. And not all people follow MFP's targets (myself included: I quadruple protein intake and double calorie intake).

Or you could just go back to beating a dead horse since you choose not to take into consideration the opposing side, which is just silly regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

candice382

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

yarwell

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 analogy

yarwell

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.

600 calories is only 150g of protein, that's a reasonably high amount but not stupidly so. Are you sure ?

sobriquet84

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.

PayneAS

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.

ChappyEight

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.

jcstanton

...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.

mcarter99

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.

600 calories is only 150g of protein, that's a reasonably high amount but not stupidly so. Are you sure ?

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".

rlmadrid

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:

NWCountryGal

Ditto

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.