The Starvation Myth

heybales

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.

Yes, that is true.

The problem is many of the studies show a slower than expected metabolism than just loss of weight would indicate.
When coupled with fact in many of those studies it is LBM / muscle loss too - perhaps not that surprising.
But it does mean the metabolism is going down faster than the weight, which of course means the weight loss amount starts to slow.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full

One of many, this one is interesting because the focus was on how long does that lower than expected metabolism last afterwards, especially compared to someone already at healthy weight.

mcarter99

That study is an example of one the WW article mentions, where people were on an 800 calorie diet. I don't think anyone here is advocating 800 calorie diets, and I don't think 1200 is comparable.

WW: "Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day)."

heybales

There's the other study.

Your body to maintain what it needs just seems to slow other functions down.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816

Net effect is slower-than-weight-loss-would-indicate daily energy expenditure levels.

Helloitsdan

According to the math Mcarter....

shouldnt you be near goal by now?

mcarter99

I'm putting you on ignore now, Dan. Take care and good luck in college. :flowerforyou:

mcarter99

There's the other study.

Your body to maintain what it needs just seems to slow other functions down.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816

Net effect is slower-than-weight-loss-would-indicate daily energy expenditure levels.

Does this one say anything in the article itself about calorie reduction levels? The abstract doesn't seem to.

We found that the maintenance of a 10% reduced body weight was associated with significant declines in glycolytic (phosphofructokinase, PFK) enzyme activity and, in particular, in the ratio of glycolytic to oxidative (cytochrome c oxidase, COX) enzyme activity without significant changes in the activities of enzymes relevant to mitochondrial density, respiratory chain activity, or fuel transport; or in skeletal muscle fiber type or glycogen stores. The fractional change in the ratio of PFKICOX activity in subjects following weight loss was significantly correlated with changes in the systemic respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and measures of mechanical efficiency of skeletal muscle at low workloads (pedaling a bicycle to generate 10 or 25 W of power). Thus, predictable changes in systemic skeletal muscle biochemistry accompany the maintenance of an altered body weight and account for a significant portion of the variance in skeletal muscle work efficiency and fuel utilization at reduced body weight.

mmapags

You are purposely being obtuse. Carbohydrate molecule? Really? You need certain vitamins and minerals to be healthy

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 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:

Glad I could be af service! :flowerforyou:

nick1109

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.

Crucifixion sounds painful! Glad you survived it though.

I agree with you. MFP misleads by saying ' you earned 200 calories' then you go and eat 200 when in fact you only burned 50 walking to shop that took 10 mins.

There obviously needs to be common sense but the HR monitors are pretty good, There is also a calculation on the livestrong website that gives much more accuracy and takes into account age, weight and hr etc. Both of which always give me lower values for calories burned than MFP.

I wrote myself an excel spreadsheet based on the livestrong calculation which I now use a lot!

mcarter99

There obviously needs to be common sense but the HR monitors are pretty good,

haybales posted a study the other day that showed that a certain Polar HRM was found to overestimate calorie burn for women by over 30%.

Between that and the temptation to log 'lifestyle' activities (cleaning house, etc.) and the issue of double-counting BMR, there's a lot of potential for overeating there.

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair... :laugh:

nick1109

There obviously needs to be common sense but the HR monitors are pretty good,

haybales posted a study the other day that showed that a certain Polar HRM was found to overestimate calorie burn for women by over 30%.

Between that and the temptation to log 'lifestyle' activities (cleaning house, etc.) and the issue of double-counting BMR, there's a lot of potential for overeating there.

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair... :laugh:

Yeah again- it varies from hr monitor to the next. Wouldn't be surprised to see that people Log things like 'taking a shower' or 'taking a turd' in the hope that they can eat a further 4000 calories that MFP would give them for these activities :laugh:

chezileigh

There are other sites who give you your exercise calories back each day. I think the one I used to use was called weight loss resources, although you have to pay to join.

ZeroWoIf

I went into starvation mode and ate a few human beings cold blooded.

KodAkuraMacKyen

I'm interested in losing FAT, not just weight. It's important to me that my loss not come from lean mass but instead from fat stores. So I choose to strength train and eat more. And for those that said "starvation mode is an excuse for people to eat more", that's offensive and ridiculous but since you started it.... eating at 1200 and not eating back exercise calories is stupid and unhealthy. That sounding a bit judgmental? How does it feel?

rlmadrid

I'm interested in losing FAT, not just weight. It's important to me that my loss not come from lean mass but instead from fat stores. So I choose to strength train and eat more. And for those that said "starvation mode is an excuse for people to eat more", that's offensive and ridiculous but since you started it.... eating at 1200 and not eating back exercise calories is stupid and unhealthy. That sounding a bit judgmental? How does it feel?

:drinker:

marinesweetheart

bump

Dayna5K

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.

^^^Nurse Dayna agrees :-)

Masterdo

If you want to stop all the messing around, just estimate how much exercise you do in a week, set that as your activity level, and don't eat back exercise calories. Miracle, you are now using MFP like every other calorie counter available.

Setting sedentary and counting individual training sessions achieves exactly the same thing. Put a stable caloric deficit on your TDEE in a given day/week/month and getting predictable weight loss.

Of course, if you are a freaking idiot with measuring food and exercise properly, eyeball measure everything you eat and guesstimate workouts, no wonder this won't work. But done properly it has worked for many, and it's used by everyone serious about performance at higher levels of athleticism or bodybuilding.

Heck, for endurance sports, athletes eat DURING the workouts. Properly fueling your body to get results you want out of workouts is not a myth, but hey, if you are the first human being to build muscle eating 250 net calories, by all means, continue on your merry way.

freedomlady

Thank you for posting this. I absolutely agree. When I was losing I consistently ate 800 to 1100 calories a day. It worked great and I lost all my weight and have maintained the weight loss now for 6 months. So so much for the old myth and that you need the 1200 calories a day. I did not need to eat that much, and I did not eat the calories I got from exercise.

sabusby

National Institute of Health--


Food Intake and Starvation Induce Metabolic Changes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22414/

Masterdo

Why bother eating at all then? Just stop eating for the next few weeks, then gradually start eating again. Should work out just fine given this article! This "written by a nobody next to a shake weight ad" article trumped every article written in scientific journals in the last 40 years, I'm shocked!

Something many people don't realize is that this has NOTHING to do with how the diet makes you feel. At all. Human mind is incredibly strong, and if you so desire, there's pretty much nothing you can't endure willingly. Monks fast for weeks at a time and feel zero pain or anything negative from it.

It has everything to do with efficiency. All your motivation and dedication would be much more useful if applied to something that actually works. Good thing you managed to lose weight eating 800 cals, probably 200-500 net. Now what can you do at your new goal weight? When's the last time you ran 8 min/mile on that diet? Or last time you squatted 1.5-2 times your weight? Nothing incredible in those numbers, that's rather average for someone fit.

If your goal was to be a sexy looking coach potato, I guess mission accomplished, but people that give advise on this site assume that the person asking for it wants to be fit! Running greatly reduces bad cholesterol and increases good cholesterol for example; lifting weight increases bone density, which is something every woman alive at the moment should really worry about, given the frequency of osteoporosis after menopause. And there's no way you'll sustain that type of healthy lifestyle at that level of intake.

But yeah, all of this is shallow. 800 calories and fitting in size 4 pants next week is MUCH more important.

Katahna

Weightwatchers don't want you to lose weight, they want you to keep paying =]

jching29

I, personally, believe that starvation mode is utter bull-pucky, unless you've been eating less than 500 calories for several months consistently. People who freak out about their metabolism slowing down drive me nuts...it's like soaking your house in water to prevent fire. Sure, no fire, but now you have mold, lovely.

The entire "starvation mode" myth is moldy as f***

AngelAtkins61

Starvation mode is no myth. If you eat too little, your body goes in to starvation mode to save itself. Your body will start using muscle for energy as you are not eating enough to keep it going.
1200 calories is a basic minimum in many experts opinions. As far as eating back calories, if you eat under 1200 exercise or not it tells you here you are not eating enough. If you eat that as a min, and like me tonight still have MANY calories you earned in exercise, it does not say you did not eat enough. These are calories , again in my opinion, that helps your weight loss.
I used to severly restrict calories to lose weight. Problem is when you go and eat normally, healthy but normally, it immediately converts it to fat to store and use in the future in case it is needed in starvation times.
Look it up. Starvation mode is real and unhealthy

dkweathington

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...

agreed

OnTheReg

I, personally, believe that starvation mode is utter bull-pucky, unless you've been eating less than 500 calories for several months consistently. People who freak out about their metabolism slowing down drive me nuts...it's like soaking your house in water to prevent fire. Sure, no fire, but now you have mold, lovely.

The entire "starvation mode" myth is moldy as f***

Wow bad analogy. So those extra calories I eat are just getting me all moldy up inside and not giving me energy?

It's real, you can't completely stop losing weight but you will slow. It takes a lot less time than several months. Metabolism is controlled by hormones and if you don't get the right nutrition you'll throw everything off, feel like crap and not lose weight as fast.

jnewsome62

my only problem with de-bunking the starvation myth is this: what is considered the cut back of calories is different for each of us. For instance if someone cuts theirs back too much then we start getting into danger of an eating disorder. And no matter how badly you want to lose weight is it really worth ruining your health? Let's please not encourage possibility of this disease by saying..."hey- that is a myth -so starve yourself and lose more weight." Losing weight in a healthy way is not going to be super fast or easy. Just be careful what "advice" you give out on a public forum like this.

Big_Daddy6

You people are confusing the hell out of me........mfp needs a panel of nutritionists to jump in here and unscramble my brains.
I guess the only real way to loose is trial and error. If one don't work do the other.

rubymerryn

Sounds like people cry starvation mode in order to justify eating a little more food. In that case, throw out those funny egg whites in a carton and eat an omelette with real eggs. Put some sugar on your porridge or have a handful of nuts instead of going into drama queen mode.

Haha yes.

apriltrainer

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.

Crucifixion sounds painful! Glad you survived it though.

I agree with you. MFP misleads by saying ' you earned 200 calories' then you go and eat 200 when in fact you only burned 50 walking to shop that took 10 mins.

There obviously needs to be common sense but the HR monitors are pretty good, There is also a calculation on the livestrong website that gives much more accuracy and takes into account age, weight and hr etc. Both of which always give me lower values for calories burned than MFP.

I wrote myself an excel spreadsheet based on the livestrong calculation which I now use a lot!

I have a polar FT60 but I rarely use it nowadays. I really could care less how much I burn now. But back when I was wearing it religiously the Ft 60 would tell me I burned 100 calories, the machine would tell me I burned 300!

I am going to guess that most MFP people are relying on what the machines are telling them. If they are it's no surprise why they aren't losing weight.

Another surprising thing is the BETTER I got at exercising the less I burned where I just stopped doing hardly ANY cardio. PERIOD.

When I started running, I'd burn about 100 cals a mile(per my FT60). Now? I am lucky if I burn 50. (although now if I throw it in there every now and then I will see that I might burn 60 or 70 now that I don't run almost every darn day..)

Seeing how i got so darn efficient...I decided to lower my caloric intake.

Sometimes below 1200!!!

Didn't starve.

Lost weight. Built muscle.

Now off to a thread about why cardio is overrated for weightloss...night all!

mcarter99

I, personally, believe that starvation mode is utter bull-pucky, unless you've been eating less than 500 calories for several months consistently. People who freak out about their metabolism slowing down drive me nuts...it's like soaking your house in water to prevent fire. Sure, no fire, but now you have mold, lovely.

The entire "starvation mode" myth is moldy as f***

Wow bad analogy. So those extra calories I eat are just getting me all moldy up inside and not giving me energy?

The extra calories aren't literally molding you but they might be contributing to the metabolism 'damage' no one here speaks of-- metabolic syndrome. There are many reasons to quit *****footing around and get the weight off. Obesity has serious health consequences in most people. It's so popular here to fly the tortoise flag but most dieters won't stick to a diet for years with painfully slow results. The scale has to move or they give up. And that's a dead tortoise who wins no races.