The Starvation Myth
Replies
-
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*
Yes, it says that the better way to protect LBM is to alternate all-you-care-to-eat days with TDEE minus 75%-100% days.
But I bow down to your manly big breakfastness. (insert funny animated gif here)0 -
Hopefully your course will get to the bit where they explain that a) glucose is not the brain's only fuel (try ketones) and b) your liver can make glucose.Or my favorites are ones who want to cut carbs from their diet. Glucose (carbs) is the brain's ONLY source of energy.
Fact is there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live.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.
Glucose is the brains only source of energy. :laugh:
My word... for someone about to qualify in nutrition you might want to re-read that module and get your facts right.0 -
Bump0
-
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*
I am wickedly jealous of your big breakfast. Sounds delicious.
0 -
Hopefully your course will get to the bit where they explain that a) glucose is not the brain's only fuel (try ketones) and b) your liver can make glucose.Or my favorites are ones who want to cut carbs from their diet. Glucose (carbs) is the brain's ONLY source of energy.
Fact is there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live.
Actually glucose is the brain's primary source of energy. Your body can make glucose, but that doesn't change the original fact. It is easier for your body to get the glucose from a carbohydrate source. You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live (at least live healthy), not starches (as you seem to assume all carbohydrates are), but carbohydrates. Hopefully, you take a few nutrition courses before you start incorrectly correcting people.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.
O____________________________________O0 -
A man's big breakfast may just be more than I will eat all day. Lucky for him that he can do that. I accept for me that I can't.0
-
Actually glucose is the brain's primary source of energy. Your body can make glucose, but that doesn't change the original fact. It is easier for your body to get the glucose from a carbohydrate source. You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live (at least live healthy), not starches (as you seem to assume all carbohydrates are), but carbohydrates. Hopefully, you take a few nutrition courses before you start incorrectly correcting people.
Firstly the guy said glucose was the ONLY source of energy, which is just wrong. Go learn about epileptic kids on a ketogenic diet to take it to the other extreme for illustration. The brain is adequately fuelled if you fast, that wouldn't work if the 5g of glucose in your bloodstream was its only option.
It may be easier to eat and digest a carbohydrate to get the glucose, but it isn't necessary. In fact if the body uses more energy feeding the brain on ketones that would be an argument in favour of not eating them, from a dieting perspective.
There is no carbohydrate molecule that you need to eat to live. If you believe this is incorrect please share with us the name of the molecule. If you believe it's a "health" issue tell us what goes wrong if this molecule is absent.
Most of the carbohydrates in our diets are starches and sugars, but not all. [ Fibre isn't included in carbohydrates in our labelling system in the UK / EU ]0 -
Actually glucose is the brain's primary source of energy. Your body can make glucose, but that doesn't change the original fact. It is easier for your body to get the glucose from a carbohydrate source. You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live (at least live healthy), not starches (as you seem to assume all carbohydrates are), but carbohydrates. Hopefully, you take a few nutrition courses before you start incorrectly correcting people.
Firstly the guy said glucose was the ONLY source of energy, which is just wrong. Go learn about epileptic kids on a ketogenic diet to take it to the other extreme for illustration. The brain is adequately fuelled if you fast, that wouldn't work if the 5g of glucose in your bloodstream was its only option.
It may be easier to eat and digest a carbohydrate to get the glucose, but it isn't necessary. In fact if the body uses more energy feeding the brain on ketones that would be an argument in favour of not eating them, from a dieting perspective.
There is no carbohydrate molecule that you need to eat to live. If you believe this is incorrect please share with us the name of the molecule. If you believe it's a "health" issue tell us what goes wrong if this molecule is absent.
Most of the carbohydrates in our diets are starches and sugars, but not all. [ Fibre isn't included in carbohydrates in our labelling system in the UK / EU ]
You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources. You need to vegetables.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.
Livestrong.com is built the same way as this, too. Gives you your exercise calories back to eat. "Eating back" calories is frequently discussed on those forums as well.
I kind of wish there was an option on these sites to not have it increase your daily calorie goal because of exercise, especially if you have chosen a weight loss goal of less than 2 pounds/week. I'm at 1 pound/week but I figure any exercise that I do on top of that will increase my weight loss to maybe 1 1/2 pounds or 2 pounds for that week. I just get around it by not tracking any exercise.0 -
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.0 -
1,200 gross could be very low if the person is hitting exercise hard and coming out with something like 200-300 net. I've seen it. Recipe for disaster.0
-
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.
How did this become an argument for/against carbs? Carbs are non-essential, but you can derive a lot of benefits from eating them. Why isn't that explanation sufficient?0 -
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.
Vegetables? Vegetables are classified as carbs....maybe not in the Atkins sense of the word.
And carbohydrates do have a molecular structure. It's CHO or CH20 ( I had to look ithat up bc I couldn't remember it exactly).
Anyway, my two cents....unfortunately nutrition is not yet an exact science. It's not even a precise science. Research is still being done, discoveries are still being made, and opinions are all over the place. There is almost no use arguing bc "One expert said A," will always lead to someone else quoting another expert who said "B". I just say do whatever makes the most sense to you and then adjust as you learn more.
Oh, and to whoever said something about the nutrition student being wrong about glucose being the only source of energy for the brain....they do teach that in universities.0 -
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.
Vegetables? Vegetables are classified as carbs....maybe not in the Atkins sense of the word.
And carbohydrates do have a molecular structure. It's CHO or CH20 ( I had to look ithat up bc I couldn't remember it exactly).
Anyway, my two cents....unfortunately nutrition is not yet an exact science. It's not even a precise science. Research is still being done, discoveries are still being made, and opinions are all over the place. There is almost no use arguing bc "One expert said A," will always lead to someone else quoting another expert who said "B". I just say do whatever makes the most sense to you and then adjust as you learn more.
Oh, and to whoever said something about the nutrition student being wrong about glucose being the only source of energy for the brain....they do teach that in universities.
I did say vegetables. The poster intentionally cut that out, because the poster just wants to argue and is, as I said, intentionally being obtuse.0 -
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.
How did this become an argument for/against carbs? Carbs are non-essential, but you can derive a lot of benefits from eating them. Why isn't that explanation sufficient?
Welcome to the Very Low Calorie, Very Low Carb Diet echo chamber where all the arguments are circular. It's like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave. :noway: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.
^^ THIS. I was a WW member for several years. I lost weight, yes. I maintained for a long while, yes. I was also skinny fat. I was at my perceived "ideal weight" (5'5" and 123 lbs) and I could barely carry my own groceries into the house, much less do substantial strength exercises. During weight-loss and maintenance I was regularly walking briskly and that's about it. I decided I wanted to get more fit and so I began exercising more regularly and vigorously. I followed the WW (and very popular elsewhere) mantra of "eat less, cardio more." I was eating 1200-1300 cal per day, and exercising off at least 400 cal 3-4 days per week. I gained weight.. but it was FAT weight. I was looking worse, feeling worse, and then my hair started falling out. I was weak, tired, irritable and my migraines were coming on more frequently.
This whole series of events put me into a bit of a depression.. I was working out harder and eating less, so why was I gaining FAT? I went to my doctor, who sent me to a nutritionist who told me I was, in fact, in a type of starvation mode. After doing some math that took into account my height, build, activity levels, etc. it turned out that my BMR was 1500 and average TDEE was 2200.. in essence I was netting only a few hundred calories on heavy workout days. The nutritionist told me I needed to increase my calories, gradually. I did.
This is when I joined MFP. I am now eating 2000-2200 cal every day, including 150g of protein. I am not eating fried chicken and burgers in those calories, but instead am focusing on getting plenty of protein and healthy fats and limiting my added sugar and sodium intake. I have a personal trainer who is helping me continue to shape my body. I am getting stronger, smaller and much happier.
I don't want to knock Weight Watchers, they have helped millions of people lose weight over the years and for that, I applaud them. I do, however, feel like there are other options, depending on your ultimate goal. 1200 cal/day did NOT work for me once I started actually exercising. To each their own, of course. But personally, I am much happier and feel much healthier eating more. Sorry, WW.0 -
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.
Vegetables? Vegetables are classified as carbs....maybe not in the Atkins sense of the word.
And carbohydrates do have a molecular structure. It's CHO or CH20 ( I had to look ithat up bc I couldn't remember it exactly).
Anyway, my two cents....unfortunately nutrition is not yet an exact science. It's not even a precise science. Research is still being done, discoveries are still being made, and opinions are all over the place. There is almost no use arguing bc "One expert said A," will always lead to someone else quoting another expert who said "B". I just say do whatever makes the most sense to you and then adjust as you learn more.
Oh, and to whoever said something about the nutrition student being wrong about glucose being the only source of energy for the brain....they do teach that in universities.
I did say vegetables. The poster intentionally cut that out, because the poster just wants to argue and is, as I said, intentionally being obtuse.
Oooh ok then. Well shame on them!0 -
Out of curiosity, what do you do?0
-
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.
[/quote]
EXACTLY!!0 -
bumping for tomorrow. Only got halfway through the thread before bed!0
-
1200 is considered "very low calorie" and "pro-ana"? I mean, seriously? Weight Watchers is "pro-ana", and so is the American College of Sports Medicine, the Mayo Clinic, and virtually all MDs? :noway:0
-
Welcome to MFP!1200 is considered "very low calorie" and "pro-ana"? I mean, seriously? Weight Watchers is "pro-ana", and so is the American College of Sports Medicine, the Mayo Clinic, and virtually all MDs? :noway:
Also, carbs are literally made out of demon flesh, and protein does not spike insulin levels (insulin is the only thing that makes you fat, ASP is a myth invented by the scientists to sell more subscriptions to medical journals).
Glad I could be of assistance!0 -
I 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.
Agree with this. Its not the eating back the calories that poses the problem, Its the fact that people (and MFP for me at least) incorrectly calculate the calories they actually burn during exercise and therefore over eat. This coupled with the fact doing a lot of cardio does make you hungry (again it does for me at least) and I find I grossly overeat any calories burned after doing such activities0 -
I 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.
Agree with this. Its not the eating back the calories that poses the problem, Its the fact that people (and MFP for me at least) incorrectly calculate the calories they actually burn during exercise and therefore over eat. This coupled with the fact doing a lot of cardio does make you hungry (again it does for me at least) and I find I grossly overeat any calories burned after doing such activities
I said the same thing on another thread and got CRUCIFIED FOR IT. I said most people on MFP greatly overestimate calorie burn.
And I was crucified. THat's why i don't even put down my actual workout because if I see MFP telling me I "earned" more cals to eat..I WILL! So I just don't give myself that option.0 -
I am being precise. I said there are no carbohydrates you have to eat to live. You said " You do in fact need some carbohydrates to live" - so what are they ? Put up or shut up.You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy
"You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Vitamins and minerals that don't come from non-carbohydrate sources." - minerals are by definition not carbohydrates, so that's out the window. I can take a 100% RDA mineral & vitamin supplement that has practically no carbohydrates that I can tell from the labels. My chemistry isn't good enough to know if any of the essential vitamins are carbohydrates, but I suspect not.
So you can live without eating carbohydrates and achieve 100% nutrition, unless you can show us otherwise.
Personally I'm quite happy to eat low carb vegetables, berries etc, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if I lived in the Arctic circle where these things are absent I could still live healthily.
How did this become an argument for/against carbs? Carbs are non-essential, but you can derive a lot of benefits from eating them. Why isn't that explanation sufficient?
Welcome to the Very Low Calorie, Very Low Carb Diet echo chamber where all the arguments are circular. It's like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave. :noway:
This made me :laugh:0 -
Thank you, thank you, thank you Andreamelo1. I have read several articles as well regarding this "myth". I am new to this site and when I made comments of my VLCD I got all kinds of ridicule, rude comments, unbelievable things from people who are "supposed to be on a supportive site".
Anyway, I stick to my low calories, I have not had a problem losing, no adverse effects, etc. I obviously lost it a lot faster in the first week, but ya always do with the more you have to lose the faster and easier at FIRST.
Thanks again, and everyone else out there, hush.0 -
1,200 gross could be very low if the person is hitting exercise hard and coming out with something like 200-300 net. I've seen it. Recipe for disaster.
Or if they are over 4'11".
Out of all the calcs i've done i've only come across 2 people this would work for.
They both were below 4'11".
They both lose weight at 1600 cals though.0 -
Fact: A person with a greater weight has a higher metabolism than those with a healthier weight.
So knowing this, wouldn't your metabolism slowing be natural? I mean at the weight I'm at now I burn around 30 calories just brushing my teeth for five minutes, a person my height but a healthy weight burns half that.
I believe starvation mode exists but I don't believe those who are obese have to worry about it unless they plan on continuing eating low calorie diets even after they've dropped 100 pounds.
P.S. I don't trust MFP's calories burned estimates so I don't eat exercise calories back, unless I'm hungry. 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