"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

amathis551

relatively new to this site. Can someon please explain what in the world bump means? Sorry if this is common knowledge but i don't read posts so I don't get it.

SHBoss1673

relatively new to this site. Can someon please explain what in the world bump means? Sorry if this is common knowledge but i don't read posts so I don't get it.

bump is just a way to push a topic back to the top of the most recent posts list. It's a way for people who want to talk about a post or get it noticed to bring it back up.

rozzyrasp

This is a really interesting post. However, I am a little confused and would really appreciate your advice please.
According to MFP my daily calories to lose weight should be 1,200. However, my BMR is calculated as 1,614. So what should I go by to lose weight?

SHBoss1673

This is a really interesting post. However, I am a little confused and would really appreciate your advice please.
According to MFP my daily calories to lose weight should be 1,200. However, my BMR is calculated as 1,614. So what should I go by to lose weight?

I'll give you this advice. Then if you can't answer any questions, feel free to follow up and I'll help you figure it out as best I can.

How much of a deficit you should have is really based on how much fat your body has, and in the absence of knowing your body fat %, doing as thorough a job figuring out your maintenance weight as you can. So what you need to find out is your body fat % or where you fall in the body health scale (I.E. are you clinically obese, just overweight, of healthy weight, or underweight). Really this should be the determining factor on your deficit).

MFP will give you a deficit based on what you thought you want to lose when you use the goals wizard. If you say you want to lose 2 lbs a week, it will give you 2 lbs a week regardless of whether that is a good deficit for you individually. The only caveat to this is that MFP will not set your total calories below 1200 using the wizard (you can do this using the custom button if you like, but I caution against that for most people unless you've done careful research into your body and have very good reasons why you are doing this).

So, that being said, if you're obese, odds are you can support a large deficit that usually ends up below your BMR, if you're overweight, being around or even above your BMR is generally where you should be, people in the healthy weight range that just want to lose some fat and become even healthier should be somewhere above BMR, usually in the 85 to 90% of their TDEE calories, and of course, people who are clinically underweight (for women that's a body fat % of less than about 13%, for men that's a body fat % of about 6%) should be at or above their TDEE depending on whether they want to maintain, gain lean mass, or even gain a little fat (yes, there are reasons for doing this last part).

Now, if all this is a bit much to take in, please feel free to private message me and we can work out your individual best guess estimates and tell whether you're on the right track.

hope this helps.

Tiff1124

Bump

BrianSharpe

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

I haven't read all 15 pages of replies and have no disagreement that the body has an adaptive response to long term caloric deprivation but could you cite your source for the evidence that your body stores additional fat while at a caloric deficit?

SHBoss1673

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

I haven't read all 15 pages of replies and have no disagreement that the body has an adaptive response to long term caloric deprivation but could you cite your source for the evidence that your body stores additional fat while at a caloric deficit?

already done so, I've posted my sources. Please go back and look through the 15 pages of responses.

BrianSharpe

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

I haven't read all 15 pages of replies and have no disagreement that the body has an adaptive response to long term caloric deprivation but could you cite your source for the evidence that your body stores additional fat while at a caloric deficit?

already done so, I've posted my sources. Please go back and look through the 15 pages of responses.

Chapter & page number where this assertion is made? (that your body will store fat while eating at a caloric deficit)

As I said before no reasonable person would suggest that our body does not adapt to caloric deficits and will make every effort to conserve energy what I'm specifically questioning is the assertion that the human body is capable of defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and store energy reserves while expending more energy than is being consumed (I'd love a car that could do this......I'd never have to put fuel in the tank......)

bonniejo

I'm currently at 1600-1700 calories a day with cardio (Zumba, step) 4-5 days a week, and planning to add in pilates and weights soon. Does that sound about right?

sonyayoung18

my first ever bump

SHBoss1673

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

I haven't read all 15 pages of replies and have no disagreement that the body has an adaptive response to long term caloric deprivation but could you cite your source for the evidence that your body stores additional fat while at a caloric deficit?

already done so, I've posted my sources. Please go back and look through the 15 pages of responses.

Chapter & page number where this assertion is made? (that your body will store fat while eating at a caloric deficit)

As I said before no reasonable person would suggest that our body does not adapt to caloric deficits and will make every effort to conserve energy what I'm specifically questioning is the assertion that the human body is capable of defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and store energy reserves while expending more energy than is being consumed (I'd love a car that could do this......I'd never have to put fuel in the tank......)

these aren't books, they're research studies, so chapter and verse is not a valid argument. And the statement does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as muscle is an energy supply, as is all lean tissue (protein supplies 4 calories per gram of energy, same as carbohydrates).
I put all the links on page 12 if you want to skip to it (yep, I went back through 12 pages to find where I posted it).
Although if you do want to read a book that covers all of this, check out

Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism (6th edition now, I read 5th but I doubt that much has changed since last year), you can find it at Barnes & Noble. Fair warning, it's expensive, it's a masters level college book and the whole first half is basically advanced organic chemistry and Human Anatomy, so if you don't understand that stuff to a degree, it'll feel like reading a different language.

SHBoss1673

I'm currently at 1600-1700 calories a day with cardio (Zumba, step) 4-5 days a week, and planning to add in pilates and weights soon. Does that sound about right?

Oh, no idea, I'd have to know you individually to be able to answer that.

SHBoss1673

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

I haven't read all 15 pages of replies and have no disagreement that the body has an adaptive response to long term caloric deprivation but could you cite your source for the evidence that your body stores additional fat while at a caloric deficit?

already done so, I've posted my sources. Please go back and look through the 15 pages of responses.

Chapter & page number where this assertion is made? (that your body will store fat while eating at a caloric deficit)

As I said before no reasonable person would suggest that our body does not adapt to caloric deficits and will make every effort to conserve energy what I'm specifically questioning is the assertion that the human body is capable of defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and store energy reserves while expending more energy than is being consumed (I'd love a car that could do this......I'd never have to put fuel in the tank......)

for the record, my favorite and clearest citation of this concept is here
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/41538_60A51E13E935A0A792846B3124C10AB7_journals__PNS_PNS54_01_S0029665195000255a.pdf&cover=Y&code=eea4565808719a54e051a6bcc1b17fc3

and from the section called Energy metabolism in starvation and underfeeding

This is one of the summary paragraphs that targest underfeeding and the conclusions reached

With underfeeding there is also a fall in resting energy expenditure which is manifest in
previously healthy women within 7 d of reducing their energy intake to 2 MJ/d (Mansell
& Macdonald, 1988). This fall in resting energy expenditure during prolonged underfeeding
and starvation is due in part to a reduction in the longer-term aspects of
food-induced thermogenesis, to a reduction in the amount of metabolically-active tissue
(due to mobilization of body protein stores) and a decrease in the metabolic activity of
the remaining tissue. This latter effect was originally described by Keys et al. (1950), who
showed a 16% fall in resting energy expenditure per unit body cell mass, and later
confirmed by Grande et al. (1958). There is some disagreement as to whether there are
similar reductions in resting energy expenditure per unit metabolically-active tissue
occurring in experimental animals; for example, Even & Nicolaidis (1993) failed to see
any reduction in basal energy expenditure of rats severely underfed for 10 d.

bonniejo

I'm currently at 1600-1700 calories a day with cardio (Zumba, step) 4-5 days a week, and planning to add in pilates and weights soon. Does that sound about right?

Oh, no idea, I'd have to know you individually to be able to answer that.

What information do you need? I am 22, female, about 130 pounds, and 5 feet 4 inches tall. I have a 26.5 in waist, 35 in hips, and my body fat changes depending on the calculator I use, but I think it's just under 25%. I just want to make sure I'm doing this right

Danielle817

bump for later!

SHBoss1673

I'm currently at 1600-1700 calories a day with cardio (Zumba, step) 4-5 days a week, and planning to add in pilates and weights soon. Does that sound about right?

Oh, no idea, I'd have to know you individually to be able to answer that.

What information do you need? I am 22, female, about 130 pounds, and 5 feet 4 inches tall. I just want to make sure I'm doing this right

well, that helps a little, but even with those numbers, it's a best guess type of situation. that being said, assuming you are burning 3 to 400 calories with your cardio, that sounds reasonable. I would think your TDEE is somewhere between 1800 and 2000 calories, thus adding cardio you're TDEE is probably about 21 to 2500 calories, assuming you're not on the high end then 1700 would probably work, 1600 might be a bit low, but again, it's really hard to tell without really getting into a more in depth conversation and then testing things out.

dpkasprzak

**Bump**

tracymat

Bump

gingah73

Thank you!

BrianSharpe

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

I haven't read all 15 pages of replies and have no disagreement that the body has an adaptive response to long term caloric deprivation but could you cite your source for the evidence that your body stores additional fat while at a caloric deficit?

already done so, I've posted my sources. Please go back and look through the 15 pages of responses.

Chapter & page number where this assertion is made? (that your body will store fat while eating at a caloric deficit)

As I said before no reasonable person would suggest that our body does not adapt to caloric deficits and will make every effort to conserve energy what I'm specifically questioning is the assertion that the human body is capable of defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and store energy reserves while expending more energy than is being consumed (I'd love a car that could do this......I'd never have to put fuel in the tank......)

for the record, my favorite and clearest citation of this concept is here
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/41538_60A51E13E935A0A792846B3124C10AB7_journals__PNS_PNS54_01_S0029665195000255a.pdf&cover=Y&code=eea4565808719a54e051a6bcc1b17fc3

and from the section called Energy metabolism in starvation and underfeeding

This is one of the summary paragraphs that targest underfeeding and the conclusions reached

With underfeeding there is also a fall in resting energy expenditure which is manifest in
previously healthy women within 7 d of reducing their energy intake to 2 MJ/d (Mansell
& Macdonald, 1988). This fall in resting energy expenditure during prolonged underfeeding
and starvation is due in part to a reduction in the longer-term aspects of
food-induced thermogenesis, to a reduction in the amount of metabolically-active tissue
(due to mobilization of body protein stores) and a decrease in the metabolic activity of
the remaining tissue. This latter effect was originally described by Keys et al. (1950), who
showed a 16% fall in resting energy expenditure per unit body cell mass, and later
confirmed by Grande et al. (1958). There is some disagreement as to whether there are
similar reductions in resting energy expenditure per unit metabolically-active tissue
occurring in experimental animals; for example, Even & Nicolaidis (1993) failed to see
any reduction in basal energy expenditure of rats severely underfed for 10 d.

It states what we've agreed up, that the body adapts to the lower caloric intake by taking measures to conserve energy but I don't see anything in the paragraph quoted (the link doesn't seem to work) that suggests in any way that the body increases fat storage while at a caloric deficit.

Again, the logic is clearly governed by physics - you can't store what you didn't consume.

nerys72

I can prove the OP is correct with simple inarguable anecdotal information.

its easy to gain weight and hard to lose weight. period.

therefore there is clearly a bodily function at play "sabotaging" our efforts. so we must learn to work WITH those bodily function since we lack the technological ability to alter or effect those bodily function direction.

in theory it should be as simple as turning off the function of turning proteins and carbs into fact. simply disable that function.

alas we lack the means to do that.

SO how does one calculate the maximal weight loss path that is the least destructive?

how dos gastric bypass result in so much "fat burning" and not this starvation process? is there a way we can (even in part) simulate the results of this?

no you can not store what you do not consume. but you also can NOT survive (even just laying in bed) on fat stores alone. your body is unable to convert fat stores to energy that quickly.

and you have a lot less control over WHERE you body gets its energy than you think. ie muscles organs etc..

otherwise it would be easy to lose weight. its not. our bodies "ACTIVELY" and "AGGRESSIVELY" resist our attempts to lose weight in any sort of rapid time span.

the trick is to work with those systems. trick some of them if we can and maximize the process.

that is what i want to know how to do. how to figure out.

so what can you suggest for me OP

6'4" male at least 450 pounds (I don't know how much I weigh I lack the means to weigh anything that high)

I plan to do a ton of cycling now that I have a semi recumbent that does not torture me with pain to ride :-)

I have not hugely changed my diet yet and the hours I work are not conducive to eating properly but I am going to start working on that hard core. for now I am sticking to around 2000 calories a day.

I assume that is safe?

SHBoss1673

It states what we've agreed up, that the body adapts to the lower caloric intake by taking measures to conserve energy but I don't see anything in the paragraph quoted (the link doesn't seem to work) that suggests in any way that the body increases fat storage while at a caloric deficit.

Again, the logic is clearly governed by physics - you can't store what you didn't consume.

so you just answered your own question.

that the body adapts to the lower caloric intake by taking measures to conserve energy

not sure what else you are looking for. I think maybe you're missing the forest for the trees here.

Long story short, after an initial period of a few days to maybe a week or so of extreme underfeeding, the body has no glucose left (or not enough), it tries to make it by mobilizing both protein and fat, the problem is the process requires relatively high amounts of protein, and the results are glucose (among other things). More than the body actually can use, and the only return path of glucose to energy storage is as fat, you can't turn glucose into protein again. So thus, energy is conserved via the re-esterefication of FFA's that aren't used for immediate energy and also lipogenesys (conversion of glucose to fat) from the free flowing glucose that has been generated in the above process.

In other words, the body combines a slow down in overall energy consumption with the increase in protein utilization as a energy source coupled with fat utilization as an energy source which is converted to glucose and/or ketone bodies used for energy. It will also recover any unused energy back into the fat cells if it isn't immediately used.

so you have a multi-pronged attack going on, first the body is canabalizing protein to use as energy, which lowers the RMR and TDEE, and you also have the process of lipogenesys and re-esterefication happening to re-incorporate any unused energy back to fat cells.

BrianSharpe

In other words, the body combines a slow down in overall energy consumption with the increase in protein utilization as a energy source coupled with fat utilization as an energy source which is converted to glucose and/or ketone bodies used for energy. It will also recover any unused energy back into the fat cells if it isn't immediately used.

Which is completely different from the notion that a body in "starvation mode" will increase its fat stores which is the erroneous concept of "starvation mode" that has been promulgated on these boards. A concept reinforced by your own words:

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

Given that the individual is consuming below equilibrium there will be no "unused energy" to store back to fat cells.

Erisad

Bump to read later. I'm sooo frustrated. I lost 8 pounds last month from eating 1700 a day, MFP recommended I drop to 1680 and I did and now I'm up .4 from last month. What the hell? Granted I haven't been eating all the way to 1680 some days because I feel that it takes me eating junk to be able to meet my calories so I end up eating healthy and phooey on if I make the calorie goal or not. Clearly it isn't working. Maybe I should have eaten more candy like I did last month.

first things first, any calorie amount under the 10 pound bubble isn't really relevant because the human body fluctuates up to about 5 lbs up or down on a daily basis. Drink an extra glass of water 2 days earlier and eat a few hundred mg of salt the next day and you could be up 2 lbs without ever knowing why. So forget about numbers under a pound, they're irrelevant.

Second, a 20 calorie increase or decrease is not going to make a difference one way or another.
Here's why.
lets say that eating 20 extra calories per day did put you over the point of gaining weight. OK, so how much would you gain.
Here's how much. 20 X 365 = 7300 (I.E. just shy of 2 lbs)
that means in about 1 year you'd gain 2 lbs. if the world was just and everything happened in the human body the way formulas predict (which they don't).
So in 1 month, with a 20 calorie increase, you'd have added 600 extra calories approximately, to your frame. Or in terms of lbs of fat.... 1 SEVENTH of a pound.

Now, that being said, most bathroom scales (even the really good ones) have a 1 lb margin for error, which means even the ones that give you two places to the right of the decimal point aren't being very accurate about it. So forget about the.4 it's not relevant.

What I really think you're getting at is... why did I not lose? Which is a good question. It's one you should examine. But examine it by using reason, not emotion. Ask yourself, did I measure my food quantity right? Did I really exercise the amount I thought I did and burn the number of calories I thought I did? Is my deficit set to the right amount? Am I taking into account the error factor for calories (a lot higher than 20 on a day's worth of food, even if the labels were 100% accurate, which they're not).

In other words, I'm saying, check your methods before you question the theory. And look at this as a long haul process, don't sweat the small stuff, and try to be healthier, if you do that, the weight will eventually come off.

-Banks

I mistyped, I'm down to 1620 now. So 80 calories a day really shouldn't make that much of a difference either. I may just up it to 1700 again. I'm just mad that I feel like I wasted an entire month of not making any progress. I usually leave a 300 calorie deficit in case I screwed up a measurement or something. Usually I don't but still. So sometimes I'm eating even less. I started in May 2010 with 110 pounds to lose. I have 33 pounds left and I'm getting impatient. I thought I would be done by now so I'm getting sick of stalling. I want to lose 13 by 2013 but with not losing anything this month I'm going to have to really kick it up a notch in the next 3 months. Although I probably won't make that goal either, I seem to really suck at making timed goals.

Ke22yB

Bump for later

SHBoss1673

In other words, the body combines a slow down in overall energy consumption with the increase in protein utilization as a energy source coupled with fat utilization as an energy source which is converted to glucose and/or ketone bodies used for energy. It will also recover any unused energy back into the fat cells if it isn't immediately used.

Which is completely different from the notion that a body in "starvation mode" will increase its fat stores which is the erroneous concept of "starvation mode" that has been promulgated on these boards. A concept reinforced by your own words:

The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

Given that the individual is consuming below equilibrium there will be no "unused energy" to store back to fat cells.

So I'm done with the semantics game you are playing. You're trying to nit pick me to death and it won't work. Because, in my amature but very well researched opinion, Everything I've written is true. You have yet to provide a single piece of science to back up what you say. So again, I've cited my sources, you say what I say is wrong. Back it up with facts, show me what DOES happen instead and cite actual studies or peer reviewed research to back up your statements, and we can continue, otherwise, just stop because saying "you're wrong" over and over without providing proof is something a 5 year old does, and I'll not be part of it any more.

nerys72

boy potentially dangerous topic to get into but here we go.

you say in starvation mode there is no unused energy so nothing to store in fat.

problem is this statement (whether true or not I don't know) appears to be based on the assumption that your energy usage remains unchanged.

I venture to say this is the logical flaw. IE your body will sabotage you to REDUCE the amount of energy you use. you will be lethargic. you will sleep more you will move slower you will be tired more your reflexes will slow down.

IE your energy usage will "go down" not remain the same. if you tried to maintain your energy usage your body might fight you.

this is a possible reason you two don't seem to be able to agree?

Here is a question for both of you since this seems to defy both your arguments.

Gastric Bypass surgery.

how does that work.? these people are living on WELL BELOW starvation dietary levels by the definitions proposed here.

yet they actually do burn crazy amounts of actual fat.

explain. whats going on here? how are THEY burning fat without the "starvation mode" issues displayed here?

and its real fat I know my pop lost 140 pounds. if that was muscle and organs he lost he would be dead. its pretty darned clear it was fat he lost. so what gives?

whats different? from what I understand the surgery does nothing more than simply reduce the physical SIZE of the stomach. no other body changes are made.

SO if I "ate" like a gastric bypass patient ate how and or why would it be any different for me? would it work?

SHBoss1673

boy potentially dangerous topic to get into but here we go.

you say in starvation mode there is no unused energy so nothing to store in fat.

problem is this statement (whether true or not I don't know) appears to be based on the assumption that your energy usage remains unchanged.

I venture to say this is the logical flaw. IE your body will sabotage you to REDUCE the amount of energy you use. you will be lethargic. you will sleep more you will move slower you will be tired more your reflexes will slow down.

IE your energy usage will "go down" not remain the same. if you tried to maintain your energy usage your body might fight you.

this is a possible reason you two don't seem to be able to agree?

Here is a question for both of you since this seems to defy both your arguments.

Gastric Bypass surgery.

how does that work.? these people are living on WELL BELOW starvation dietary levels by the definitions proposed here.

yet they actually do burn crazy amounts of actual fat.

explain. whats going on here? how are THEY burning fat without the "starvation mode" issues displayed here?

and its real fat I know my pop lost 140 pounds. if that was muscle and organs he lost he would be dead. its pretty darned clear it was fat he lost. so what gives?

whats different? from what I understand the surgery does nothing more than simply reduce the physical SIZE of the stomach. no other body changes are made.

SO if I "ate" like a gastric bypass patient ate how and or why would it be any different for me? would it work?

not sure where you would get that statement from me. I never said there would be no unused energy. In fact I said exactly what you tried to say. That the body attempts to conserve energy by decreasing the amount of energy being used. that's the whole point of the starvation mode concept.

As to gastric bypass, most people who get that surgery are obese or morbidly obese, which means they have a lot of internal energy in the form of fat stores. Please note that I did say that the more available energy, the longer it would take to enter any kind of famine response, and the more dramatic the deficit would need to be to get there as well (the combination can mean a up to a month or more before your body recognizes any form of famine response if there's enough energy available). Combine this large store of extra energy with the customized vitamin supplements as well as doctor supervision and you have a viable solution. For most people who have some kind of stomach reduction surgery, their stomachs gradually expand again to accommodate larger volumes, allowing them, over time, to move much closer to a normal level of calories as well.

rosylarose

Bump!

SuperstarDJ

Bump!

Fantastic post by the way. Thanks!