Starvation mode?

CoachReddy

Bump. I love a good trainwreck.

I love this post.

It's always enjoyable to see someone think that "In my opinion" is a substitute for science. EccentricDad, is that you?!

i'm actually not sure anyone did that in this thread. The IF'ers claim to be following science, and while I used the words "in my opinion", I did so in the context of it being my choice which science i choose to follow. as i've constantly been saying, you can find studies to support whatever side of the issue you're on.

firstsip

Bump. I love a good trainwreck.

I love this post.

It's always enjoyable to see someone think that "In my opinion" is a substitute for science. EccentricDad, is that you?!

i'm actually not sure anyone did that in this thread. The IF'ers claim to be following science, and while I used the words "in my opinion", I did so in the context of it being my choice which science i choose to follow. as i've constantly been saying, you can find studies to support whatever side of the issue you're on.

Uh. Yeah, lots of people find "science" to back up their claims the world is flat, or its six thousand years old...

Science isn't "this or that"; that's not how science works. It's different studies working constantly towards a scientific truth, while trying to filter through the biases of corrupt funding, biased researching, and claiming nothing as fact until enough differing information is overcome, etc. That being said, there's still much more that's shown the benefits of eating one or two meals a day versus the "three to five" or anything like that (I'm aware you didn't say that specifically, but I'm not sure what you're implying otherwise if you find "one meal a day" so incorrect) being pumped by the FDA or very subjective researching.

solbchgal

Hi Candy,

From everything I have read recently, it is better to have 5 or 6 small meals spread throughout the day. It keeps the fire of your metabolism stoked. Eating a high protein breakfast of say hardboiled eggs, and piece of whole grain toast helps keep you satiated until your next mini "meal". A good idea for you might be making pre made snacks and setting the timer on your watch to go off at regular intervals if you don't have a grumbly angry tummy to remind you to eat (like I do!). You do not gain weight because you are eating more times in the day, it is about WHAT you are eating when you are eating. The idea of starving yourself is old school and not necessary. I hope this helps you!

TArnold2012

Gets the popcorn and pulls up a chair for this debate again !!!

toaster6

You probably are not starving yourself-- if you were you'd have severe reactions to it very quickly. If you are wondering if you are starving, it's a safe bet that you are not. If you're feeling unhealthy (having digestive problems, experiencing lethargy and decreases in energy levels, and/ or severe stomach pain) then you need to eat more. Eat when you are hungry. Have enough so that you are not hungry but are not stuffed full. Your body will you know what you need in terms of food and nutrients. Unless you start feeling/ looking (if you are actually starving yourself it shows up physically, ex. hair loss, ) poorly or your doctor tells you it's a problem, your eating patterns are probably fine. And that weight gain you have when you start eating on a schedule is probably not fat but water weight. Eating on a schedule isn't a problem and will not hinder your weight loss so long as you are still creating a calorie deficit.

Edited to add:
A note on "starvation mode"- The body does not go into starvation mode unless you are taking in LESS than 50% of your BMR (the calories your body needs just to survive; if your BMR is 1300 for example, your caloric intake would have to be less than 650 to count as starving) for a PROLONGED period of time. That is from the Minnesota Semistarvation Study (which this whole starvation mode thing is based off of). According to the study, your metabolic rate will become damaged but only because EVERYTHING about your body is damaged when you are starving. You WILL still lose weight (though at a slower rate than someone who is not starving). Your body WILL NOT touch your lean tissue until it has exhausted your fat reserves. There is no drop in metabolism that will counteract such a severe caloric deficit (which is why you will not see a fat corpse with "starvation" as their cause of death). That is how the body works. You don't just find any actual science to back up any claim you want in nutrition-- you may find a STUDY but that doesn't make it a scientific study.

Camcee

Calorie intake over time is what matters, you can eat one meal a day or fifty.

I have to agree with this. I believe that despite the frequency of meals, total calories are key, it just depends on what type of eater you are and what works best for you.

I had never been able to lose weight, but as soon as I stopped eating constantly, I dropped weight quickly. Now I try to eat one meal a day with a snack to tide me over and I found this is the only method that worked for *me*. Everyone is different of course but I found that I need to eat until I felt very satisfied and eating once a day with a small snack or one other light meal is the only way I feel I can sustain healthy weight loss. I have followed this easily for more than 6 months and it has now become very natural to me - something no other way of eating for me has ever done.

I can eat pretty much what I want by doing this method, it is easy for me to stay within my calorie range as I can chose a higher calorie main meal so I never feel deprived. If I am hungry I chose a healthy low calorie snack and for the first time in my life I have been able to almost forget about food, not constantly planning and thinking about all the healthy snacks and meals I need to prepare to 'stay on track'.

As I said, everyone is different, if you are more of a 'grazer' and enjoy snacking and eating small healthy meals all day within your calorie range, do this. If you need to eat a more substantial meal and are not a big breakfast eater and don't do well when constantly feeding yourself and trying to keep that balance of the right amount of calories - eat less frequently but bigger meals within your calorie range.

The key is to do whatever you can sustain over time, listen to your body, see what you respond to, follow your body's cues and you will do well.

Good luck!

CoachReddy

Bump. I love a good trainwreck.

I love this post.

It's always enjoyable to see someone think that "In my opinion" is a substitute for science. EccentricDad, is that you?!

i'm actually not sure anyone did that in this thread. The IF'ers claim to be following science, and while I used the words "in my opinion", I did so in the context of it being my choice which science i choose to follow. as i've constantly been saying, you can find studies to support whatever side of the issue you're on.

Uh. Yeah, lots of people find "science" to back up their claims the world is flat, or its six thousand years old...

Science isn't "this or that"; that's not how science works. It's different studies working constantly towards a scientific truth, while trying to filter through the biases of corrupt funding, biased researching, and claiming nothing as fact until enough differing information is overcome, etc. That being said, there's still much more that's shown the benefits of eating one or two meals a day versus the "three to five" or anything like that (I'm aware you didn't say that specifically, but I'm not sure what you're implying otherwise if you find "one meal a day" so incorrect) being pumped by the FDA or very subjective researching.

show me.

and research NOT done by IF promoting websites, or people who have written IF books. ACTUAL scientific studies where a hypothesis was tested in controlled experiments.

CoachReddy

Ok so this is just me thinking out loud here. If I'm completely off base, you can let me know, but don't just yell at me - I'm honestly interested in learning more about this since it's such a popular diet plan these days.

I think people are drawn to IF because it's easier - and hear me out:

Eating healthy over many meals a day takes planning, work, and dedication. Eating at a deficit is harder if you space the meals out, because you'll be more likely to eat more than you should at any given meal. It's easier to slip if you give yourself multiple opportunities a day.

When someone does IF, they only ALLOW themselves one meal a day, so there's no danger (or less danger) in slipping. In that one meal they can go NUTS and eat 1500 calories. Obviously they'll be more than full after that. It's like... a crutch for a lack of discipline. (NOT A CRITICISM, just an observation, and again, if I'm wrong, lemme know)

HOWEVER - that's not to say it doesn't work, that's not to say it won't get you results. You'll totally lose weight because you've got a deficit! I just don't think it's SUSTAINABLE over the entirety of someone's life, because when you come OFF intermittent fasting, you won't have the tools and the discipline to go back to eating more often than once a day and keeping it healthy. Or are you IF folks never planning on coming off it?

I'm about to get flamed aren't I?

firstsip

@CoachReddy

Without going too much out of my way, because it seems like there's only so much one can say to your "opinions" here, a big study in the British Journal of Medicine, and followup studies published in New Scientist, showed that there was literally no detriment OR benefit to number of meals; ultimately, calories consumed made the big difference. Further studies have shown that IF HAS shown a range of benefits... at the same time, some anecdotal research on IF sites has shown there's some potential hormonal drawbacks specifically for women. There's pretty unbiased information ON supposedly biased sites. Does that make IF some flaw free principle? No. Does that make NOT doing IF detrimental if you hit the same calories in three meals? No. But does that make eating all your calories in on meal a day bad? No. As many have said here, there are other studies that DO show; the burden of proof lies with the person accusing. YOU said "You really don't think there's a problem with one meal a day?" Please find me; I pointed you to specific titles that I read in print; I'm sure there's online copies out there.

I mean, I definitely was of the mindset that IF was dangerous, if only because I'm a recovering anorexic who saw people talk and thought, "Oh my god, that's DANGEROUS! What are people doing?!" The difference being, my old habits were eating every other day... with one meal a day being ~200-500 calories. I was fortunate enough to not have people jump on me as some are wont to do, and point out, "Actually, IF is bla bla bla," which in turn made me research more... ignorance is something that grates on my nerves, and I very quickly began doing everything I could to relieve me of my own when it came to principles of fasting in healthy weight loss (not that I intentionally do it, as it's rather triggering... for obvious reasons).

So, going on the 100% subjective claims you made with "it's easy to eat one meal a day," the people that get hungry hour after hour, or can't function well without breakfast, would hardly say it's a lack of "discipline" that makes it for one meal a day.

I'm also just realizing now that you might be thinking IF is just a "diet plan," and not an actual diet...? IF isn't just one meal a day; IF CAN be 3 meals a day, just in different windows of time, with different periods of fasting. At a deficit or at maintenance. Or it can be one meal a day during a certain period of time. Or two. IF isn't too cut and dry, and varies from person to person... really, it's got a specific name more because it sort of bucks back against the "If you don't eat every hour, your body will shrivel!" or "Breakfast or GTFO!"

Ultimately, however, the topic was about "starvation mode," and IF (among the NUMEROUS studies done in the 1940s... both in America and, uh, a sort of controversial database, people...) showcases how not eating for several hours a day does NOT trigger starvation mode... not even sleeping does that (for the "metabolic coma" person... why is it that most people weigh in during the morning? )

firstsip

Holy crap, I realized I wrote a super long post, even for me, but I just want to highlight again what crossed my mind there:

Coach Reddy, I am not trying to flame; I think you're in the boat I was months ago, and have a misunderstanding of WHAT IF is. I recommend you read into it, in general, from IF sites or non-IF sites. IF people DON'T only allow themselves one meal, etc. It's varied, and I think the only reason they came up so much here is because some IFers do follow "one meal" a day, and the OP was concerned that one meal a day was putting her into starvation mode... but it really only would if

But, if she's naturally not hungry after one meal, or until one meal, it may work for her... provided she feels good during the day, it's not causing her personal ill effects (blood sugar issues, energy, etc.), and she's eating a sustainable amount of calories (BMR+)... it actually ISN'T an issue, and as she was so new, it makes sense that one of the first things she'd see on MFP (let alone be concerned about) would be ~starvation mode~

cmriverside

Kumbaya. Different strokes for different folks. I'm a child of the 60s, and it makes sense.


I'm happier and able to maintain on 2 meals a day. Sooooooome people, like the OP, chooses 1 "Big Meal" a day. Coach "chooses" 5-6 a day.

I say, as long as you be eating enough food, not too much, mostly plants - Call It Good.

Camcee

On the topic of IF, I thought the doco by Michael Mosley was interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

CoachReddy

Kumbaya. Different strokes for different folks. I'm a child of the 60s, and it makes sense.


I'm happier and able to maintain on 2 meals a day. Sooooooome people, like the OP, chooses 1 "Big Meal" a day. Coach "chooses" 5-6 a day.

I say, as long as you be eating enough food, not too much, mostly plants - Call It Good.

word.

and @firstsip thanks for all that. lots of really good points and interesting info. I'm definitely going to look over it.

DebbieLyn63

I have a friend, 50 yo male, who has coffee for breakfast, a piece of fruit at lunch, then goes home to a large dinner his wife has made for the family. He has eaten this way for years. It keeps his weight under control and saves money on lunches while at work. It is not a diet for him, but simply a lifestyle.
I have also known some muslims that only eat one meal a day. Not sure if that is a common practice due to their religion, but it was definitely a lifestyle for them.

realdog2usa

Candylips70, Thanks for your post. The first thought I want to pass on is that it is a proven fact that people who lose weight consistently eat breakfast. As an affirmation say to yourself things like... healthy people or thin people or fit people or people that lose weight eat breakfast everyday (because it's true, they do) They also drink several glasses of water everyday... do that too! Find something you like, something healthy for breakfast... and just make it a habit to consistently, everyday ... eat it. even if it's on the run... Just do it... More of my self-talk is saying "How Bad Do You Want It?" If you want it bad enough you will start new habits... and do things differently than you've been doing in the past... The desire to change, must be greater than the desire to remain the same... This is a great time of year to set goals and follow though... Believe me... my eating habits were similar to yours for years... but by dividing my meals up... and doing the food/exercise journal along with my fitness activities... I've become accountable to self to make this work and see results.. I wish you success in whatever goal you set for yourself ...

Finally, I found a cute saying I'll share... "If you don't take care of your body, where are you going to live?"

cmriverside

Candylips70, Thanks for your post. The first thought I want to pass on is that it is a proven fact that people who lose weight consistently eat breakfast. As an affirmation say to yourself things like... healthy people or thin people or fit people or people that lose weight eat breakfast everyday (because it's true, they do) They also drink several glasses of water everyday... do that too! Find something you like, something healthy for breakfast... and just make it a habit to consistently, everyday ... eat it. even if it's on the run... Just do it...

Dammit. All that hard work for, what, 8 pages? We finally get to Kumbaya, and - it's back to square one.

The whole "You must eat breakfast" myth has been thouroughly debunked, years ago

If you like breakfast, eat it.

It is not "a proven fact that people who lose weight consistently eat breakfast." ..oh, why do I bother?

Carry on.

I just love it that everyone else seems to be rational and reasonable.

CoachReddy

the argument isn't simply about losing weight. you'll lose weight whether you eat breakfast or not if you eat healthy foods. the argument - at least from my perspective - is health vs weight loss. the two are not synonymous.

firstsip

Candylips70, Thanks for your post. The first thought I want to pass on is that it is a proven fact that people who lose weight consistently eat breakfast. As an affirmation say to yourself things like... healthy people or thin people or fit people or people that lose weight eat breakfast everyday (because it's true, they do) They also drink several glasses of water everyday... do that too! Find something you like, something healthy for breakfast... and just make it a habit to consistently, everyday ... eat it. even if it's on the run... Just do it...

Dammit. All that hard work for, what, 8 pages? We finally get to Kumbaya, and - it's back to square one.

The whole "You must eat breakfast" myth has been thouroughly debunked, years ago

If you like breakfast, eat it.

It is not "a proven fact that people who lose weight consistently eat breakfast." ..oh, why do I bother?

Carry on.

I just love it that everyone else seems to be rational and reasonable.

Haha, I had the same thoughts. "Finally, we're all respectful and trying to broaden information!" and WHAM, "Breakfast or bust."

cmriverside

the argument isn't simply about losing weight. you'll lose weight whether you eat breakfast or not if you eat healthy foods. the argument - at least from my perspective - is health vs weight loss. the two are not synonymous.

Hey, Coach - That's a really good point. And I think it is an approach that would be fun to explore in depth. Why don't you start a new topic about it?

I don't think that the timing of meals or number of meals is relevant to health.....but obviously you do. It's going to get buried in this thread, though. :yawn:

I'm really really healthy, I've gone through just about every permutation possible when it comes to macros and meal timing, and I finally settled on what is best for me to maintain my caloric intake/weight, and balance my nutrition without supplements. I have zero health problems, and I'm older (in my 50s). So how do you measure this "health" thing you talk about? We (and by "we" - I mean you...) should start a new topic. I'm not going to be swayed, but I would love to see the consensus from the smart people of MFP.

AllTehBeers

the argument isn't simply about losing weight. you'll lose weight whether you eat breakfast or not if you eat healthy foods. the argument - at least from my perspective - is health vs weight loss. the two are not synonymous.

There are so many sides to this, I don't think one can make that huge generalization. First, I think it depends on how over weight the person is. Then, you have to see if they have existing health conditions or have it in their genes for certain types of conditions. Then, you have to figure out if the conditions are based on their weight or if they'd have them if they were a fit, healthy weight. And so on...

I believe that the single biggest factor in most obese people is their weight. I bet a lot of people could have normal tests if they just got down to a normal weight. No matter what they ate to do it.

Is a diet of 2 big macs a day healthy, satiating, or macro friendly? No. If that's all you ate and you lost 75 pounds, and got off all your medications and your blood work came back normal, is that what you mean by healthy? Or is it who can run 5 miles without getting winded, is that what is healthy? Is a person who has diabetes but controls it with medication, diet and exercise unhealthy even though they are at a normal weight?

Who is healthier? The person at a normal weight with diabetes who eats right or the person who ate 2 big macs a day, lost 75 pounds and has all normal blood work?

*I understand this is an extreme example, but I just want to point out all the variables that come into play. The biggest question would be "What equals healthy?"

CoachReddy

ruh roh. riverside i'm with you, but this thread is dangerously close to being derailed... i SO want to answer Rachel's post!

cmriverside

ruh roh. riverside i'm with you, but this thread is dangerously close to being derailed... i SO want to answer Rachel's post!

OP hasn't been back. No one will care if it's further derailed...she's gotten plenty of answers.

AllTehBeers

ruh roh. riverside i'm with you, but this thread is dangerously close to being derailed... i SO want to answer Rachel's post!

This might be the first time anyone has asked to derail a thread! lol

cmriverside

ruh roh. riverside i'm with you, but this thread is dangerously close to being derailed... i SO want to answer Rachel's post!

This might be the first time anyone has asked to derail a thread! lol

True dat.

CoachReddy

This might be the first time anyone has asked to derail a thread! lol

hey i'm not ALL bad.

CoachReddy

There are so many sides to this, I don't think one can make that huge generalization. First, I think it depends on how over weight the person is. Then, you have to see if they have existing health conditions or have it in their genes for certain types of conditions. Then, you have to figure out if the conditions are based on their weight or if they'd have them if they were a fit, healthy weight. And so on...

I believe that the single biggest factor in most obese people is their weight. I bet a lot of people could have normal tests if they just got down to a normal weight. No matter what they ate to do it.

Is a diet of 2 big macs a day healthy, satiating, or macro friendly? No. If that's all you ate and you lost 75 pounds, and got off all your medications and your blood work came back normal, is that what you mean by healthy? Or is it who can run 5 miles without getting winded, is that what is healthy? Is a person who has diabetes but controls it with medication, diet and exercise unhealthy even though they are at a normal weight?

Who is healthier? The person at a normal weight with diabetes who eats right or the person who ate 2 big macs a day, lost 75 pounds and has all normal blood work?

*I understand this is an extreme example, but I just want to point out all the variables that come into play. The biggest question would be "What equals healthy?"

I appreciate the example, but someone eating two big macs a day won't GET clean blood work. Their cholesterol levels will be high even if they're skinny. Heart attacks can happen in thin people too. And as for the diabetic, there are some incredibly healthy diabetics, and regardless of their condition yes I'd consider a diabetic athlete healthy

I do think there is a big difference between the typical person reaching a point where they're happy (maintenance) and just coasting from there - and a person who isn't looking to ever maintain, but constantly improve. There's nothing wrong with either, but personally I think the more elite you're looking to go, the more meticulous you have to be about your food.

If you're just looking to lose weight, get off some meds, etc, then things like IF can absolutely do that for you.

MY question is whether IF can ever get you to a higher level of health/fitness. To be brutally honest, I've never seen someone on here or elsewhere who does IF and is ripped/chiseled/an athlete (this is the part where someone enlightens me!)

AllTehBeers

There are so many sides to this, I don't think one can make that huge generalization. First, I think it depends on how over weight the person is. Then, you have to see if they have existing health conditions or have it in their genes for certain types of conditions. Then, you have to figure out if the conditions are based on their weight or if they'd have them if they were a fit, healthy weight. And so on...

I believe that the single biggest factor in most obese people is their weight. I bet a lot of people could have normal tests if they just got down to a normal weight. No matter what they ate to do it.

Is a diet of 2 big macs a day healthy, satiating, or macro friendly? No. If that's all you ate and you lost 75 pounds, and got off all your medications and your blood work came back normal, is that what you mean by healthy? Or is it who can run 5 miles without getting winded, is that what is healthy? Is a person who has diabetes but controls it with medication, diet and exercise unhealthy even though they are at a normal weight?

Who is healthier? The person at a normal weight with diabetes who eats right or the person who ate 2 big macs a day, lost 75 pounds and has all normal blood work?

*I understand this is an extreme example, but I just want to point out all the variables that come into play. The biggest question would be "What equals healthy?"

I appreciate the example, but someone eating two big macs a day won't GET clean blood work. Their cholesterol levels will be high even if they're skinny. Heart attacks can happen in thin people too. And as for the diabetic, there are some incredibly healthy diabetics, and regardless of their condition yes I'd consider a diabetic athlete healthy

I do think there is a big difference between the typical person reaching a point where they're happy (maintenance) and just coasting from there - and a person who isn't looking to ever maintain, but constantly improve. There's nothing wrong with either, but personally I think the more elite you're looking to go, the more meticulous you have to be about your food.

If you're just looking to lose weight, get off some meds, etc, then things like IF can absolutely do that for you.

MY question is whether IF can ever get you to a higher level of health/fitness. To be brutally honest, I've never seen someone on here or elsewhere who does IF and is ripped/chiseled/an athlete (this is the part where someone enlightens me!)

I didn't mean to infer that being diabetic automatically equals unhealthy, I hope you (or anyone else) realizes I was just trying to make a point.

There are plenty of people who practice IF as a lifestyle. There are different forms of IF. I think the most common is 16-8, where you have an 8 hour feeding window and part of the other 16 is sleeping. There's also a 20-4 version with only a 4 hour feeding window. More intense and a higher level of dedication is needed.

Some of the guys here are into fasted training. I personally don't know all the science there, but you can get some good information from them (Joe?)

I know it's sad I'm even bringing it up, but the Twinkie Diet guy is the square root example of blood markers improving in correlation to dropping weight. You mention cholesterol levels and even with that you have to take into consideration genes and exercise levels. My lineage doesn't have a predisposition to high cholesterol and I'm very lucky that I haven't developed serious health issues being as over weight as I was, but other people who weighed the exact same (even less, or more to the point, skinny fit people) can have high cholesterol, high BP, and diabetes.

ETA: Does the fact that I'm "genetically lucky" make me more healthy then someone of lower weight with these problems?

CoachReddy

ETA: Does the fact that I'm "genetically lucky" make me more healthy then someone of lower weight with these problems?

absolutely! i mean, it's unfortunate, but some people are more genetically per-disposed to being healthy than others - but then again, everyone has something.

i'm incredibly "healthy" but I have LPR (laryngopharyngeal reflux) which is basically a form of acid reflux that isn't treatable by any drugs that have been invented as of yet. It's pretty awful being on the cutting edge of medical science!

So yes, everybody's got their issues, but that just means we all have to do things a little differently to get the results we want. Some have to work harder than others, and that's a bummer, but it's life.

i guess what it comes down to for me is this: I want to physically perform at the highest level i possibly can, and thus i need a lot of food, so i need to space it out a lot over the day. IF would not work at ALL for me, and I feel like for others with my goals it wouldn't work either.

If the goal is purely weight loss, I'll agree with y'all.

KatieJane83

I'm no expert on anything, I was just curious about your request for evidence of people doing IF and attaining more elite/super fit/athletic levels, rather than just weight loss. So I did a 1 minute Google search and found this guy:

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/john_berardis_great_fasting_experiment

It's not any peer-reviewed, published scientific study, just some dude who did it, along with some of his clients.

ETA: Does the fact that I'm "genetically lucky" make me more healthy then someone of lower weight with these problems?

absolutely! i mean, it's unfortunate, but some people are more genetically per-disposed to being healthy than others - but then again, everyone has something.

i'm incredibly "healthy" but I have LPR (laryngopharyngeal reflux) which is basically a form of acid reflux that isn't treatable by any drugs that have been invented as of yet. It's pretty awful being on the cutting edge of medical science!

So yes, everybody's got their issues, but that just means we all have to do things a little differently to get the results we want. Some have to work harder than others, and that's a bummer, but it's life.

i guess what it comes down to for me is this: I want to physically perform at the highest level i possibly can, and thus i need a lot of food, so i need to space it out a lot over the day. IF would not work at ALL for me, and I feel like for others with my goals it wouldn't work either.

If the goal is purely weight loss, I'll agree with y'all.

KatieJane83

http://anthonymychal.com/2012/05/intermittent-fasting-for-athletes/

Bunch of studies linked at the bottom of the page about athletic performance during Ramadan. I didn't read any of them yet, just posting for those who might be interested.