Starvatio mode, excerices cals ect...

kmahlee

Thanks for the info..

ironanimal

Also, I honestly think you need to understand how freaking ridiculous your so called "creditentials" are. You sound like a cool guy.

I would never have brought up my credentials unless challenged. I don't think they're very interesting either, however I also told people they could go and do their own research, but hey, it's much easier to sit here and tell me I'm the one that's wrong.

www.leangains.com
www.rippedbody.jp
www.medicalnewstoday.com

There's three places I get my information from to start with.

Rachel_Fontenot

Also, I honestly think you need to understand how freaking ridiculous your so called "creditentials" are. You sound like a cool guy.

I would never have brought up my credentials unless challenged. I don't think they're very interesting either, however I also told people they could go and do their own research, but hey, it's much easier to sit here and tell me I'm the one that's wrong.

www.leangains.com
www.rippedbody.jp
www.medicalnewstoday.com

There's three places I get my information from to start with.

I said nothing about right and wrong. I just think its hysterical that you think your credentials match those of a doctor. Courtney is basing this post on what the doctor has said.

MoreBean13

This is bad- really, really bad.

I'm on a diet break, and yesterday I ate 3k calories, and didn't eat breakfast. No obesity here! It feels GRRRREAT! Y'all should try eating once in a while. You'd be a lot less hangry.

...and I'm short, and I have hypothyroid.

Helloitsdan

I still can't figure out why she brought this to the forum.
If her doctor and nutritionist is right about eating at a VLCD level then do it and stay off the forums.
In 2-3 months time when she can't even eat a decent meal without having water weight issues or CNS fatigue she will post another topic "eating 1200 calories and not losing anything! HELP!"
Type it into the search on the forum then come back with your findings.

You can't just point to 2 overweight people, 1 6 foot tall and the other 5 foot tall and say "eat 1200 calories to lose weight."
It's stupid.
The numbers I posted earler were done on a nutrition calculator using formulas that include age, height, weight, body fat% and activity.
You can't just blanket a number and call it right.
Unfortunately nutritionist and doctors do that and end up screwing people up.

Starvation?
Hardly.
Go 3 days with no food or nutrients and you could be in "starvation mode".
Even then if you have the fat to withstand it and the team if doctors to monitor your vitals like the guy in Scotland who went 250+ days fasted, you would still be doing yourself a disservice.

Why would anyone want to take the most complex and precious machine in the universe and give it the absolute minimum is beyond me.
Sorry I'm a bit passionate about this but after helping so many people and proving that you can lose weight and have sustained weight loss eating at 1600-3200 calories a day I feel the need to speak up about this.
Regular average people.
Some morbidly obese and some looking to gain lean muscle or weight in general.
It just doesn't compute why you would opt for bare minimum.

phoenixjane1

I still can't figure out why she brought this to the forum.
If her doctor and nutritionist is right about eating at a VLCD level then do it and stay off the forums.
In 2-3 months time when she can't even eat a decent meal without having water weight issues or CNS fatigue she will post another topic "eating 1200 calories and not losing anything! HELP!"
Type it into the search on the forum then come back with your findings.

You can't just point to 2 overweight people, 1 6 foot tall and the other 5 foot tall and say "eat 1200 calories to lose weight."
It's stupid.
The numbers I posted earler were done on a nutrition calculator using formulas that include age, height, weight, body fat% and activity.
You can't just blanket a number and call it right.
Unfortunately nutritionist and doctors do that and end up screwing people up.

Starvation?
Hardly.
Go 3 days with no food or nutrients and you could be in "starvation mode".
Even then if you have the fat to withstand it and the team if doctors to monitor your vitals like the guy in Scotland who went 250+ days fasted, you would still be doing yourself a disservice.

Why would anyone want to take the most complex and precious machine in the universe and give it the absolute minimum is beyond me.
Sorry I'm a bit passionate about this but after helping so many people and proving that you can lose weight and have sustained weight loss eating at 1600-3200 calories a day I feel the need to speak up about this.
Regular average people.
Some morbidly obese and some looking to gain lean muscle or weight in general.
It just doesn't compute why you would opt for bare minimum.

I think maybe you need to read things before you start spouting things of sir, your almost as bad as the guy with the list of people he talked to. If you actually read it you would see she posted this because she asked because she was seeing so much conflicting information on here! Maybe you dont know what forums are for but they are to help, you can use constructive critsim as say something different worked for you. But shockingly for you im sure is the news that your body may be different then someone else. For instane my mother at 65 years old rarely eats 1200 calories and guess what she lost 35lbs 14 years ago and she is not struggling to mantain it....So yes for you, you need that many calories too function she never once said she didnt she said that IF your not hungry for them you dont NEED to force yourself to eat more then you want.

ironanimal

Also, I honestly think you need to understand how freaking ridiculous your so called "creditentials" are. You sound like a cool guy.

I would never have brought up my credentials unless challenged. I don't think they're very interesting either, however I also told people they could go and do their own research, but hey, it's much easier to sit here and tell me I'm the one that's wrong.

www.leangains.com
www.rippedbody.jp
www.medicalnewstoday.com

There's three places I get my information from to start with.

I said nothing about right and wrong. I just think its hysterical that you think your credentials match those of a doctor. Courtney is basing this post on what the doctor has said.

O.o

scapez

If you're new to MFP and plug in your stats, you often get the 1200 cals/day recommendation, so naturally you presume 1200 is the magic number, especially if it works initially.

I was that person once - and 1200 did work - for awhile. Then I plateaued.

What broke me out of my plateau? Eating more.

I learned a lot here, probably the most important lesson was that you need to eat to fuel your body...there is no one number that works for everyone, you need to find that number that works for you, but a VLCD works for no one, unless your goal is to waste away and lose lean body mass.

Just because "someone's" doctor or nutritionist told them "something" that does not make it the golden rule for "all". If you're new-ish here, please keep that in mind.

mmapags

Also, I honestly think you need to understand how freaking ridiculous your so called "creditentials" are. You sound like a cool guy.

I would never have brought up my credentials unless challenged. I don't think they're very interesting either, however I also told people they could go and do their own research, but hey, it's much easier to sit here and tell me I'm the one that's wrong.

www.leangains.com
www.rippedbody.jp
www.medicalnewstoday.com

There's three places I get my information from to start with.

I said nothing about right and wrong. I just think its hysterical that you think your credentials match those of a doctor. Courtney is basing this post on what the doctor has said.

I didn't see where he was comparing his credentials to a doctor nor bragging on himself. Bottom line is he is right and doctor's are fallible. Particularly in the area of nutrition as they don't study much of it. Most doctors will refer to a registered dietician as they know they don't have adequate knowledge in this area. The fact that the OP is telling what a doctor said really carries no weight with me.

I am a professional chef with a lot of nutritional training. If you gave me a choice and it was life or death and I had to chose between the info in the OP and what Ironanimal, helloitsdan or psulemon is saying, I'd take them all day long. Their recommedations line up both with my training and all my self study. So you might want to get off the whole deal with Ironanimal's credentials and get back on the topic.

Sarauk2sf

Congrats on failing to understand even the very basic science behind the subject and posting a completely uninformed and wrong summary.

Are you a doctor? Because OP was quoting a doctor.

I agree with everything the OP doctor said.

Starvation mode is a ridiculous myth and numerous studies have been done to show that it only really happens in extreme situations and/or EDs. Here's one such study:

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

There is no reason to stuff yourself and make yourself sick eating back exercise cals either, as someone else mentioned. If I tried to eat back all my exercise cals, I'd probably throw up from being so full.

Everyone should really just use common sense when they eat and exercise. If you are truly hungry (not just bored, craving a flavor etc.) then eat something sensible, if you eat an unhealthy meal or snack once in a while don't freak out-- just move on and if you are finding you don't have enough energy to walk around or function, then eat more and/or see a doctor.

I really wish people would stop quoting this blog. If you actually look at the studies that this is based on you will find that yes, people start to lose muscle primarily at a very low BF%. They DO NOT show that you lose no muscle above that BF%.


http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full which is a study conducted by Freidl et al (which is the group that conducted the studies that blog was based on). What the study actually shows is that you will lose LBM.

From the same series of studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10797147


<snip> After 8 wk, most of group 1 achieved a minimum body fat, serum 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T(3)) was below normal (78 +/- 20 ng/dl), testosterone (T) approached castrate levels (4.5 +/- 3.9 nmol/l), insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) declined by one-half (75 +/- 25 microg/l), and cholesterol rose from 158 +/- 31 to 217 +/- 39 mg/dl<snip>

I particularly like the castrate levels of testosterone!

Edited to fix typos

yarwell

If you're new to MFP and plug in your stats, you often get the 1200 cals/day recommendation

Indeed. it is utterly brain dead to apply an "if answer < 1200 then answer = 1200" algorithm and then start the "eating back" nonsense from 1200. Some real flaws in what MFP does.

Hence you get people recommending different approaches, like Dan''s -20% or fat2fit's eat for the person you want to be, and the innocent observer is left completely confused. A bigger mess I've yet to find.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

this was such a pointless thread and added nothing to the debate on starvation mode. I'm glad it helped you OP but seriously...nothing about it actually refuted the concept of starvation mode.

Courtney_7790

Thank you everyone for your opionons, I want reiterate that I was not pin pointing anyone of you as being wrong or saying your method was wrong, I joined this website a week ago I saw alot of conflicting information, Some which i thought i knew about but i wanted to be sure so I simply asked someone who had the credentials to give me an informed answer. I also want to say that I was saying she said some people do not need 1200 calories and went on to say that if eating less then that is sunstainable for the rest of your life and you are not just doing it for fast results, Just showing the all people are different and they is no one sure fire thing.

IronPlayground

Congrats on failing to understand even the very basic science behind the subject and posting a completely uninformed and wrong summary.

Are you a doctor? Because OP was quoting a doctor.

I agree with everything the OP doctor said.

Starvation mode is a ridiculous myth and numerous studies have been done to show that it only really happens in extreme situations and/or EDs. Here's one such study:

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

There is no reason to stuff yourself and make yourself sick eating back exercise cals either, as someone else mentioned. If I tried to eat back all my exercise cals, I'd probably throw up from being so full.

Everyone should really just use common sense when they eat and exercise. If you are truly hungry (not just bored, craving a flavor etc.) then eat something sensible, if you eat an unhealthy meal or snack once in a while don't freak out-- just move on and if you are finding you don't have enough energy to walk around or function, then eat more and/or see a doctor.

I really wish people would stop quoting this blog. If you actually look at the studies that this is based on you will find that yes, people start to lose muscle primarily at a very low BF%. They DO NOT show that you lose no muscle above that BF%.


http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full which is a study conducted by Freidl et al (which is the group that conducted the studies that blog was based on). What the study actually shows is that you will lose LBM.

From the same series of studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10797147


<snip> After 8 wk, most of group 1 achieved a minimum body fat, serum 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T(3)) was below normal (78 +/- 20 ng/dl), testosterone (T) approached castrate levels (4.5 +/- 3.9 nmol/l), insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) declined by one-half (75 +/- 25 microg/l), and cholesterol rose from 158 +/- 31 to 217 +/- 39 mg/dl<snip>

I particularly like the castrate levels of testosterone!

Edited to fix typos

Wait? You're not a doctor! How dare you post science! Who do you think you are? Oh, I know... Someone who is logical and can read. It all makes sense now!

theartichoke

You have Iron, mma, Dan and Sara on here doing their dead level best to not allow yet another misguided, ill-informed post on this topic ooze its way onto the forums unchecked. They're right and for the life of me I can't understand how they can still be arsed enough to care. Consider yourselves lucky. Learn something.

Courtney_7790

this was such a pointless thread and added nothing to the debate on starvation mode. I'm glad it helped you OP but seriously...nothing about it actually refuted the concept of starvation mode.

Im sorry that it wasnt helpful to you, It was very helpful for me so I shared it. She stated that starvation mode is not something that just happens if your not getting 1200 calories because maybe your particular body doesnt need them. Starving is a real thing however people who are really starving and have been are not gaining weight, the weight gain come from when you are eating less then your body needs because you are trying to lose weight fast then returning to many more calories therefore your body gains weight because it is used to a low amount of calories. Meaning if you truly dont need 1200 calories you wont need them in a year either and you wont gain weight because you wont start eating more.

And you can disagree once again i was just clarifing since you seemed to not understand what i was trying to say.

mmapags

You have Iron, mma, Dan and Sara on here doing their dead level best to not allow yet another misguided, ill-informed post on this topic ooze its way onto the forums unchecked. They're right and for the life of me I can't understand how they can still be arsed enough to care. Consider yourselves lucky. Learn something.

I would add SHBoss, Usedtobehusky and psulemon to your list also. Gotta fight BS where you find it!

Lkatinas

Awesome! I really appreciate that you provided expert advice and reliable information instead of critical and demeaning comments that other people like to post on here. Very beneficial Thank you!!!

wendyskyegger

thank you for sharing

theartichoke

You have Iron, mma, Dan and Sara on here doing their dead level best to not allow yet another misguided, ill-informed post on this topic ooze its way onto the forums unchecked. They're right and for the life of me I can't understand how they can still be arsed enough to care. Consider yourselves lucky. Learn something.

I would add SHBoss, Usedtobehusky and psulemon to your list also. Gotta fight BS where you find it!

Added.

meeper123

Thanks for posting this I have never been able to eat back my calories and now I can stop trying so hard lol I have even lost friends over this nice to know she was just overreacting and well being a bit of a ***** lol

zaph0d

Thanks for posting this I have never been able to eat back my calories and now I can stop trying so hard lol I have even lost friends over this nice to know she was just overreacting and well being a bit of a ***** lol

Lol glad you can rationalize your 0 net calorie diet based on a nonsensical forum post. Good luck on your "journey", I'm sure you will lose the weight and keep it off. :flowerforyou:

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

this was such a pointless thread and added nothing to the debate on starvation mode. I'm glad it helped you OP but seriously...nothing about it actually refuted the concept of starvation mode.

Im sorry that it wasnt helpful to you, It was very helpful for me so I shared it. She stated that starvation mode is not something that just happens if your not getting 1200 calories because maybe your particular body doesnt need them. Starving is a real thing however people who are really starving and have been are not gaining weight, the weight gain come from when you are eating less then your body needs because you are trying to lose weight fast then returning to many more calories therefore your body gains weight because it is used to a low amount of calories. Meaning if you truly dont need 1200 calories you wont need them in a year either and you wont gain weight because you wont start eating more.

And you can disagree once again i was just clarifing since you seemed to not understand what i was trying to say.

yeah. again, none of that actually refutes the idea behind "starvation mode." starvation mode is simply a depressed metabolism--as in your example of "you are trying to lose weight fast then returning to many more calories therefore your body gains weight because it is used to a low amount of calories" ...the "used to a low amount of calories" is what people are referring to when they warn others of starvation mode. no, it's not something that magically happens because you eat less than 1200 calories but odds are that 1200 calories IS TOO LOW and that's why people use that number as a "red flag" for potential "starvation mode."

auroranflash

I still can't figure out why she brought this to the forum.
If her doctor and nutritionist is right about eating at a VLCD level then do it and stay off the forums.
In 2-3 months time when she can't even eat a decent meal without having water weight issues or CNS fatigue she will post another topic "eating 1200 calories and not losing anything! HELP!"
Type it into the search on the forum then come back with your findings.

You can't just point to 2 overweight people, 1 6 foot tall and the other 5 foot tall and say "eat 1200 calories to lose weight."
It's ****ing stupid.
The numbers I posted earler were done on a nutrition calculator using formulas that include age, height, weight, body fat% and activity.
You can't just blanket a number and call it right.
Unfortunately nutritionist and doctors do that and end up screwing people up.

Starvation?
Hardly.
Go 3 days with no food or nutrients and you could be in "starvation mode".
Even then if you have the fat to withstand it and the team if doctors to monitor your vitals like the guy in Scotland who went 250+ days fasted, you would still be doing yourself a disservice.

Why the **** would anyone want to take the most complex and precious machine in the universe and give it the absolute minimum is beyond me.
Sorry I'm a bit passionate about this but after helping so many people and proving that you can lose weight and have sustained weight loss eating at 1600-3200 calories a day I feel the need to speak up about this.
Regular average people.
Some morbidly obese and some looking to gain lean muscle or weight in general.
It just doesn't compute why you would opt for bare minimum.

Thank you Dan for your contribution and your patience. It is beyond me how the "#1 nutritionist in the state" can give out dangerous, blanket advice like this.

It's silly to eat back your exercise calories? Really? When losing weight, a calorie deficit is all you need. You can achieve this through diet, exercise, or both. A larger deficit is not always better. Read:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

Then go:

http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

Figure out your numbers. Give yourself a modest calorie deficit, a little larger if you have much to lose. Find an eating plan and a workout plan you can adhere to, whatever that may be. Adhere to it. Weight loss is not linear. Do not expect to weigh less every day or every week.

The more time and care you put into your body, the more it will show.

The less time and care you put into your body, and the more you try to look for shortcuts, and ignore your own needs (emotionally/phsyically/psychologically) while fighting to reach some bright red number on a digital scale, the less it is going to work.

Only honest dedication, planning, and effort will pay off in the end.

Find yourselves some fit friends and listen to what they have to say. You may learn a lot. You probably won't end up doing exactly what they did, because everyone lives a bit differently and this is a trial and error game, but you will see it is much more about their routine and habits and less about some magical numbers they're hitting or the Shake Weight they just bought from CVS.

Lkatinas

Congrats on failing to understand even the very basic science behind the subject and posting a completely uninformed and wrong summary.

Wow, really?

svelt123

THANK YOU!:drinker:

mmapags

An awesome thread from Steve Troutman who was referenced earlier in this thread. He is a highly respected fitness and nutrition expert and he discusses some things specifically related to adaptive thermogenesis and the long term consequences. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/746654-diet-breaks-and-loosening-the-reigns

Courtney_7790

You do not have to agree with what i say, And i do enjoy feedback thats postive and helpful which some of your defintley gave. Im not saying im right im not claiming to be an expert. As i said i just joined so i havent had the trail and errror of this website yet. If you have something to say or completly disagree thats fine but their is no need to get rude about it, we all have the right to share what we have learned. I shared what my dr shared with me and has helped 1000's of people in our community lose weight and mantain a healthy lifestyle in a way that works for them! Each and everyone of us are different in the way our bodies function i understand that, I was sharing what my dr who has a PH.D in nutritional science shared with me. you may choose to believe or choose to do your own thing, but please go about it in a way that is constructive as we are all adults.

Courtney_7790

An awesome thread from Steve Troutman who was referenced earlier in this thread. He is a highly respected fitness and nutrition expert and he discusses some things specifically related to adaptive thermogenesis and the long term consequences. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/746654-diet-breaks-and-loosening-the-reigns

This is what im talking about! I am so thankful for someone who has an artical and wants to actually explain their arguement, Just as he doesnt have to think im right none of you have to think my dr is right, but it is not uneducated and at least he has a reason to believe what he does. and I have no problem reading this as well.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

you do realize that losing weight does little to prove that it's "sustainable" and "works for them" right? You do know the statistics regarding weight regain, right? Yeah, people can lose weight while not eating back their exercise calories but guess what...EVENTUALLY THEY WANT TO EAT MORE. And like you already conceded, that's when the weight regain starts. So yeah, maybe "starvation mode" is a little dramatic but the adaptive thermogenesis, that is very real, causes individuals to burn far less than one would predict and they become predisposed to weight regain once they've achieved their goal weight. read about that--there are lots of studies BY PEOPLE WITH PhDs that support the idea behind "starvation mode." Semantics aside...this is a well supported physiological principle and it would serve you well to read up on it instead of taking any/all advice simply because someone has the title "Dr." Many doctors are actually quite oblivious to the physiological consequences of eating a restricted calorie diet--overexercising--or a combination of the two. Yeah, they kinda know but unless they've studied it and have proven themselves knowledgeable in the field then having a PhD means very little. I know you said this Dr. is well respected in the community--well then I'd like their name, surely they've published in peer reviewed journals, right?