"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

ChappyEight

Great stuff.

ucabucca

I can say this is right from another view point I had some medical problems (bad gallbladder) that caused me to keep vomitting that took a toll on me to the point my body was going into shut down and I developed an eating disorder following that and the brain fog, fatigue, lack of hunger, muscles atrophy etc is all real and I can not tell you how excited I was when I started to feel hunger again. It was the coolest feeling. It has taken me quiet a few months but I am at a healthy weight again and excited to be able to start enjoying my favorite activities like hiking and sports. The scarey part is by the medical charts i was still within normal range on weight but it was not what I need to be at to do the things I loved. The charts are estimates guidelines and that is it. Just as MFP gives a good estimate of calories burned it maybe different per person.

SHBoss1673

I had never heard the term "starvation myth" until I saw this post. But I was so put off by the third paragraph that I didn't want to read the rest - mainly because paragraph 3 was so combative and judgey.

Banks!!!!! I've thought about you a lot since I've been back and you were absent. I've frankly avoided the forums lately because they have become quite 'judgey' - but I've never known you to be. It's great to see that you are still out there - hope you and your wife are both doing well.

avalonwomon: Honestly Banks is not combative or judgey. He is a great guy who has in the past taken a great deal of time to to help many people on here. I understand why you might think that about him. His writing is very authoritative and unless you know him a little you might make that knee jerk assessment of him. (I don't really know him personally - except I feel like I do because I used to read all of his -very long- posts word for word because they were such good advice) If you do get to understand him you will see that he HONESTLY wants to impart good information that he's studied for quite some time. He wants to help people, and not encourage some of the misinformation that is often given around here. Banks is one of the good guys.

As far as the 'sticky' goes, he used to have GOBS of posts stickied. They were my bible when I started this years ago. Didn't even know they were gone.

And THANK YOU BANKS! Your advice made a positive difference in my life. That thank you is long overdue. Don't think that I ever told you before.

aww, thanks lady! I truly appreciate the kind words. Glad I could be a bit of help to you. Although my wife might think I'm an *kitten* some times :ohwell:
I try to keep my judgement to a very technical level. If people get personal with me, I try to do as little retaliation as possible from that personal standpoint. I don't mince words, which some find offensive (I guess), but I don't just blatantly insult either. On the other hand, if I'm attacked, I don't meekly take it. but my defense is usually always to provide technical documentation to support my theories and opinions (although if they're just being an *kitten*, I'll say that as well).

Wecandothis

I try to keep my judgement to a very technical level. If people get personal with me, I try to do as little retaliation as possible from that personal standpoint. I don't mince words, which some find offensive (I guess), but I don't just blatantly insult either. On the other hand, if I'm attacked, I don't meekly take it. but my defense is usually always to provide technical documentation to support my theories and opinions (although if they're just being an *kitten*, I'll say that as well).

Oh I remember well. Just yesterday I read an answer to a post by someone who - by their avatar pic - has been using way too much HCG - and I began to miss you a great deal. The muscle head had not only insulted someone asking a genuine question, but had given them absolutely rotten advice. I must have invoked your name - must have done it three times because here you are.

Go get the muscle heads, Banks. You're the MFP super hero.

(good Lord, I'm starting to sound like the old 'Banks Fan Club' that used to exist....)

SHBoss1673

I try to keep my judgement to a very technical level. If people get personal with me, I try to do as little retaliation as possible from that personal standpoint. I don't mince words, which some find offensive (I guess), but I don't just blatantly insult either. On the other hand, if I'm attacked, I don't meekly take it. but my defense is usually always to provide technical documentation to support my theories and opinions (although if they're just being an *kitten*, I'll say that as well).

Oh I remember well. Just yesterday I read an answer to a post by someone who - by their avatar pic - has been using way too much HCG - and I began to miss you a great deal. The muscle head had not only insulted someone asking a genuine question, but had given them absolutely rotten advice. I must have invoked your name - must have done it three times because here you are.

Go get the muscle heads, Banks. You're the MFP super hero.

(good Lord, I'm starting to sound like the old 'Banks Fan Club' that used to exist....)

I think you mean HGH, not HCG. LOL, too much HCG and they might try to have a baby, but it wouldn't affect their muscles much. LOL.

maurierose

I try to keep my judgement to a very technical level. If people get personal with me, I try to do as little retaliation as possible from that personal standpoint. I don't mince words, which some find offensive (I guess), but I don't just blatantly insult either. On the other hand, if I'm attacked, I don't meekly take it. but my defense is usually always to provide technical documentation to support my theories and opinions (although if they're just being an *kitten*, I'll say that as well).

Oh I remember well. Just yesterday I read an answer to a post by someone who - by their avatar pic - has been using way too much HCG - and I began to miss you a great deal. The muscle head had not only insulted someone asking a genuine question, but had given them absolutely rotten advice. I must have invoked your name - must have done it three times because here you are.

Go get the muscle heads, Banks. You're the MFP super hero.

(good Lord, I'm starting to sound like the old 'Banks Fan Club' that used to exist....)

I think you mean HGH, not HCG. LOL, too much HCG and they might try to have a baby, but it wouldn't affect their muscles much. LOL.

No, she probably really DID mean "HCG" - as mentioned here: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diet/articles/2011/03/14/hcg-diet-dangers-is-fast-weight-loss-worth-the-risk

Have known more than a few folks that have used it, and personally think it's nuts. Eat right.... exercise.... figure out what works, and be willing to DO the WORK. Not rocket science. *shrugs*

:flowerforyou:

geekyjock76

If you visit the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, you can delve into many studies on the varied effects of maintaining a caloric decrement by various populations. Although outcomes are more severe in some cases - like ballet dancers known to engage in very dangerous eating patterns - one common fact results: a depressed Resting Metabolic Rate (which can take quite some time to return to optimal levels if said behavior is continued for too long).

SHBoss1673

No, she probably really DID mean "HCG" - as mentioned here: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diet/articles/2011/03/14/hcg-diet-dangers-is-fast-weight-loss-worth-the-risk

Have known more than a few folks that have used it, and personally think it's nuts. Eat right.... exercise.... figure out what works, and be willing to DO the WORK. Not rocket science. *shrugs*

:flowerforyou:

but for muscle growth? as opposed to weight loss? she was talking about "muscle heads" which would lend more towards HGH than HCG which is being used mostly for weight loss treatment, not muscle growth, admittedly though, I only skimmed the article...

I still have yet to see a negative study on HGH by the way, I haven't taken it, nor have I recommended it, but so far, it seems like a miracle cure for orthopedic issues. Most of the concerns deal with not knowing what long term side effects could be, even though it's been in circulation for almost 4 decades now. Any possible ties to real side effects have been tenuous at best. Other than some joint swelling and skin rashes, there are no confirmed side effects that I'm aware of.

SHBoss1673

If you visit the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, you can delve into many studies on the varied effects of maintaining a caloric decrement by various populations. Although outcomes are more severe in some cases - like ballet dancers known to engage in very dangerous eating patterns - one common fact results: a depressed Resting Metabolic Rate (which can take quite some time to return to optimal levels if said behavior is continued for too long).

agreed, while very technical for the layman, it's a great place.
along with ajcn.org (american journal of clinical nutrition), it's my two main research stops when looking for stuff.

SerenaNatasha

bump

MomMel65

Bump :-)

maurierose

but for muscle growth? as opposed to weight loss? she was talking about "muscle heads" which would lend more towards HGH than HCG which is being used mostly for weight loss treatment, not muscle growth, admittedly though, I only skimmed the article...

I still have yet to see a negative study on HGH by the way, I haven't taken it, nor have I recommended it, but so far, it seems like a miracle cure for orthopedic issues. Most of the concerns deal with not knowing what long term side effects could be, even though it's been in circulation for almost 4 decades now. Any possible ties to real side effects have been tenuous at best. Other than some joint swelling and skin rashes, there are no confirmed side effects that I'm aware of.

Great point - bet it WAS HGH and not HCG with the Muscle Head comment!

vyanadevi

bump

Juliejustsaying

Pretty much follows everything I learned in nursing classes...excellent read.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Bumping to share. Thanks!

Reinventing_Me

bump for later

Marla64

Nice to see you're still around, Banks, trying to drum some sense into people.

I'm still hanging in-- working on being fit in a fatter body. The ol' bod was damaged with the starvation mode for a long time, and then my thyroid went to hell.

Never giving up, though--

thanks for your efforts to get people to make wise choices.

rowdylibrarian

>sings< When the bump bump bumpin' goes bump bump bumpin along...

Kerri81

Bumping to read better later.

SHBoss1673

I made a small error with the BMR calculation guys, it should be mutiply by BMR x 1.25 not by 25%, sorry about that. That one slipped through and now it's too late to edit.

Again, this is only if it's a BMR number, not a TDEE

redredy9

bump

lilacsun

Very informative! Thank you.

kaervaak

What do you mean by underfeeding? Are you saying that people who chronically eat below their TDEE experience adverse health effects? Or when you say underfeeding are you speaking of below BMR?

Also, I really don't understand what you're saying in the last paragraph I quoted. If I go to webMD and use their metabolism calculator to find my TDEE, then why do I need to multiply by 25%?

to answer your first question. Underfeeding is any time you eat below TDEE yes, but as I stated, in order to begin and continue in the process of starvation mode, you must underfeed enough to not be able to maintain the deficit. think of it like this:

if Calories consumed + energy from storage (fat, protein...etc) =TDEE
then
You can maintain the deficit and lose fat.

BUT
If Calories consumed + energy from storage is LESS than TDEE then eventually, your body will continue to use glycogen at a greater rate then it can be created, eventually the body will require a means to balance out, this means adusting the energy burning portions of the body (muscles organs, autonomic functions, heat, immune system...etc)
This is a long slow process, but eventually it can become dangerous.

AND
The more fat you have, the larger the amount of energy the body can pull to make the equation above equal out.
But the body can only use so much fat, because it can't pull fat from unexposed areas (think of a melting ice cube, you can't melt the middle until the top is melted). So there's a finite amount of energy that the body can pull from fat at any one point in time.

as to your second question. I probably should have been clearer on that. WebMD is a TDEE calculator, so no need to multiply by your activity level. If you're using a BMR or RMR calculator then you would, but not if it already asks for your activity level.

Just to add a little piece of data that I found very useful for calculating calorie deficits:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

Abstract
A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted. The transition between these two dietary regions is developed and a criterion to distinguish the regions is defined. An exact mathematical solution for the decrease of the FFM is derived for the case where the fat mass (FM) is in its limited energy transfer mode. The solution shows a steady-state term which is in agreement with conventional ideas, a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM. The average resting metabolic rate of subjects undergoing hypophagia is shown to decrease linearly as a function of the FFM with a slope of (249+/-25) kJ/kgd. This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups. The disagreement is explained in terms of individual metabolic properties as opposed to those of the larger population.

Basically, the maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from fat stores per day is ~290KJ per kg of body fat, or 31 calories / pound of fat. Anything over that deficit will have to come from other reserves and contributes to underfeeding.

SHBoss1673

What do you mean by underfeeding? Are you saying that people who chronically eat below their TDEE experience adverse health effects? Or when you say underfeeding are you speaking of below BMR?

Also, I really don't understand what you're saying in the last paragraph I quoted. If I go to webMD and use their metabolism calculator to find my TDEE, then why do I need to multiply by 25%?

to answer your first question. Underfeeding is any time you eat below TDEE yes, but as I stated, in order to begin and continue in the process of starvation mode, you must underfeed enough to not be able to maintain the deficit. think of it like this:

if Calories consumed + energy from storage (fat, protein...etc) =TDEE
then
You can maintain the deficit and lose fat.

BUT
If Calories consumed + energy from storage is LESS than TDEE then eventually, your body will continue to use glycogen at a greater rate then it can be created, eventually the body will require a means to balance out, this means adusting the energy burning portions of the body (muscles organs, autonomic functions, heat, immune system...etc)
This is a long slow process, but eventually it can become dangerous.

AND
The more fat you have, the larger the amount of energy the body can pull to make the equation above equal out.
But the body can only use so much fat, because it can't pull fat from unexposed areas (think of a melting ice cube, you can't melt the middle until the top is melted). So there's a finite amount of energy that the body can pull from fat at any one point in time.

as to your second question. I probably should have been clearer on that. WebMD is a TDEE calculator, so no need to multiply by your activity level. If you're using a BMR or RMR calculator then you would, but not if it already asks for your activity level.

Just to add a little piece of data that I found very useful for calculating calorie deficits:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

Abstract
A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted. The transition between these two dietary regions is developed and a criterion to distinguish the regions is defined. An exact mathematical solution for the decrease of the FFM is derived for the case where the fat mass (FM) is in its limited energy transfer mode. The solution shows a steady-state term which is in agreement with conventional ideas, a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM. The average resting metabolic rate of subjects undergoing hypophagia is shown to decrease linearly as a function of the FFM with a slope of (249+/-25) kJ/kgd. This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups. The disagreement is explained in terms of individual metabolic properties as opposed to those of the larger population.

Basically, the maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from fat stores per day is ~290KJ per kg of body fat, or 31 calories / pound of fat. Anything over that deficit will have to come from other reserves and contributes to underfeeding.

ooh, that's a great post. Thanks kaervaak! I've been looking for something like this for a while.

onyxgirl17

What do you mean by underfeeding? Are you saying that people who chronically eat below their TDEE experience adverse health effects? Or when you say underfeeding are you speaking of below BMR?

Also, I really don't understand what you're saying in the last paragraph I quoted. If I go to webMD and use their metabolism calculator to find my TDEE, then why do I need to multiply by 25%?

to answer your first question. Underfeeding is any time you eat below TDEE yes, but as I stated, in order to begin and continue in the process of starvation mode, you must underfeed enough to not be able to maintain the deficit. think of it like this:

if Calories consumed + energy from storage (fat, protein...etc) =TDEE
then
You can maintain the deficit and lose fat.

BUT
If Calories consumed + energy from storage is LESS than TDEE then eventually, your body will continue to use glycogen at a greater rate then it can be created, eventually the body will require a means to balance out, this means adusting the energy burning portions of the body (muscles organs, autonomic functions, heat, immune system...etc)
This is a long slow process, but eventually it can become dangerous.

AND
The more fat you have, the larger the amount of energy the body can pull to make the equation above equal out.
But the body can only use so much fat, because it can't pull fat from unexposed areas (think of a melting ice cube, you can't melt the middle until the top is melted). So there's a finite amount of energy that the body can pull from fat at any one point in time.

as to your second question. I probably should have been clearer on that. WebMD is a TDEE calculator, so no need to multiply by your activity level. If you're using a BMR or RMR calculator then you would, but not if it already asks for your activity level.

Just to add a little piece of data that I found very useful for calculating calorie deficits:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

Abstract
A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted. The transition between these two dietary regions is developed and a criterion to distinguish the regions is defined. An exact mathematical solution for the decrease of the FFM is derived for the case where the fat mass (FM) is in its limited energy transfer mode. The solution shows a steady-state term which is in agreement with conventional ideas, a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM. The average resting metabolic rate of subjects undergoing hypophagia is shown to decrease linearly as a function of the FFM with a slope of (249+/-25) kJ/kgd. This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups. The disagreement is explained in terms of individual metabolic properties as opposed to those of the larger population.

Basically, the maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from fat stores per day is ~290KJ per kg of body fat, or 31 calories / pound of fat. Anything over that deficit will have to come from other reserves and contributes to underfeeding.

ooh, that's a great post. Thanks kaervaak! I've been looking for something like this for a while.

Wait let me get this right... 31 calories per pound of fat. I have 50 pounds of fat. Theoretically I could lose 1550 calories from fat a day? That doesn't make sense... that's half a pound virtually.

proudandprejudiced

my BMR is below 1200, so the whole 'eating below 1200 equals starvation mode' isn't appropriate for everyone.

j9riter

bump to read later

kkerri

Save

SHBoss1673

Wait let me get this right... 31 calories per pound of fat. I have 50 pounds of fat. Theoretically I could lose 1550 calories from fat a day? That doesn't make sense... that's half a pound virtually.

That's the the theoretical maximum. Most people won't reach that level, you'd have to have quite a big surface area, but yeah, that's how it goes.

kevinvs

bump for later reading