Calling BS on the starvation mode (plz no E/D rants)
Replies
-
There are ways to achieve huge calorie deficits, losing body fat and preserving muscle -- most notably, protein sparing modified fasts (PSMF). It's not especially complicated. It involves eating lean protein sources, taking a multivitamin, and supplementing with magnesium, potassium, and sodium. It's relatively easy to do for those who have been on a ketogenic diet for a month or more.
Alternatively, there is intermittent fasting and alternate day fasting.
If we were as fragile as some would have you believe, the species would have been extinct after 1,000 years. In fact, the sort of things I mention above are being discussed by molecular biologists and biochemists as a likely way to extend human life.
You're right to be cynical about group think.
^This.
who wrote this?
not sure if i cant see or if you pulled if of the web?0 -
I'm finding all of this very interesting/confusing. I'm really trying to figure out the best way to eat healthily so I'm curious what people are considering "crash"; what amount of calories would be considered too little to engage a starvation type response? I'm netting, on average, 1400 which includes an exercise regime akin to circuit training. Should I be aiming for more than that to avoid the cling or is this a reasonable amount?
You're likely to receive umpteen different opinions about what "eating healthy", "crash (diets)", "reasonable", etc. mean.
For my 2 cents, I've always considered eating whole natural foods as much as possible the "best way ro eat healthy", a "crash" diet to be considered going from the average American diet and no exercise to droping to under maintenance calories AND adding in hours of cardio, and a "reasonable" calorie level to be dependent on a person's ability to stick with it in the near-term
I think the answer is, as with many things... too many variables, too many people getting results from seemingly contradictory plans to adopt a cookie-cutter approach.
Yes, I was afraid of that! lol Its a bit of a minefield of information (and sometimes misinformation) so its been quite difficult to sift through it all. Gonna be a bit of trial and error, I think.
Thanks for the reply!
x0 -
The topic that just won't die . . .0
-
Cheers. This was a brave post. If starvation mode were a real thing all of us weight loss surgery patients would be practically dead by now, but that is not the case.0
-
Totally agree with the OP. 1200 cals a days is not "starving yourself" (that's ALOT of vegies!!!!) Someone my size is hardly in danger of starving to death, c'mon!!! And I am not losing muscle, just body fat (it can be checked you know!) If some of you are starving & losing body fat with a low cal programme maybe you need to check your vitamin & mineral intake - could be WHAT you're eating if you ask me...:drinker:0
-
Has ANYONE gained weight on a low calorie deficit diet for a sustainable period of time?0
-
OP you will die if you eat below your BMR for an extended period of time, DEATH!!!
Depending on how low below your BMR, you could die of cancer before you die of starvation. Could be decades. :laugh:0 -
bump for later0
-
OP so you are gaining LBM whilst eating at a large deficit?
Could it not be as amount of bodyfat drops the ratio of LBM (which is decreasing slower) to fat changes?
i.e body fat drops 10% and your muscle 2% the ratios are now somewhat different, are they not?
I find it hard to believe you are gaining anything whatsoever. I'm basing this on coaching dozens of people. None of them gain, most slowly lose a little muscle but much more body fat even tho their bodyfat to muscle ratio changed.
What method do you use state you have gained muscle? Hydrostatic measurements? If not, I call BS on you.0 -
I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.
So I guess then If I start to diet ( wait I am), I will loose my physique and be left a blob on bones??? doesn't seem to add up bro....BTW I'm facing atleast 1000 cal deprivation on most days.....
How much do you weigh? Whats your goal weight? Your total calories are about the same as mine per day. Looks like our macros are kind of close too (except I always exceed my fat macros :ohwell: )
Did you get a bod pod scan or anything like that before you started? Its the only way to know if you are losing muscle or not. I know that i have 165-170 lbs of lean mass. I guess if I get down to 170 (and I am not dead from having 0 percent body fat) that its probably safe to say I lost muscle at that point. I will probably get my after scan, however I need to lose another 30 lbs first. Crossing my fingers that its all fat :bigsmile:0 -
Before I go any further I want to say this, I know eating a low calorie diet is mentally unhealthy to some individuals, particularly those who suffer from eating disorders, and I respect the opinion of those who struggle with them. I am just talking from the perspective of someone with out one who has a mentally sound grasp on their body and eating habits.
This is probably one of the most controversial subjects on this site. I personally think that if you eat to little the only way your body can compensate for that is by slowing your base* metabolic rate down a bit, but quite frankly think it is impossible for you body to just say screw you, I'm gonna take all the food you give me and store it as fat! I've played around with my food consumption and exercise enough to know my own body.
It's a scientific fact that when a person goes with out food the body first uses any available carbs in the system, then the fat reserve's, and finally it starts to break down its own muscle tissue (mainly from voluntary muscles) to supply the essential organ functions with energy to survive. So that goes to say that starvation mode, in the sense of muscle wasting, is only obtained by complete starvation and complete fat reservoir depletion, only then I would think, the body would start to use critical tissue to survive.
So please someone put this hype to rest and try to convince me of the contrary. I wanna know how having too big of a caloric deficit while still having an above "very lean" b/f% is somehow making people more fat? It just doesn't make sense to me at all?
OK, that is fine for just weight loss, but what about health
The BMR calories are what your body uses to carry out it's basic functions, grow hair, nails, breathe, repair/regenerate cells, pump blood, maintain our organs.
What happens when we eat far below that BMR ? Why do some people's nails stop growing, hair falls out etc ?
If the body isn't getting it's nutritional needs it will have to stop some of the basic functions listed above - for some it's just hair and nails, for others it's a lot worse.
Yes, I can lose weight on 1000 calories a day, but I can also lose weight on 1600 calories a day and still enjoy myself, so why would I want to eat only 1000?
If anyone decides to eat a VLCD after doing all the research into pros and cons, that's their individual choice, but it's definitely not for me.0 -
and the National Council on Strength and Fitness should know because they certify personal trainers, which means that are just stating an opinion just like the rest of us.Your assertion that "when a person goes with out food the body first uses any available carbs in the system, then the fat reserve's, and finally it starts to break down its own muscle tissue (mainly from voluntary muscles)" is NOT scientific fat, but rather wishful thinking.
A low calorie diet or cardio exercise is going to cause you to lose muscle alongside fat, especially if you're not doing resistance training as well. This web page--http://www.livestrong.com/article/187596-does-your-body-burn-muscle-before-fat/ --has a concise explanation of several of the issues you bring up, including links to reputable sources.
Sneak preview: "According to the National Council on Strength and Fitness, or NCSF, those who fast or skip meals start to lose mainly lean muscle tissue."0 -
Sneak preview: "According to the National Council on Strength and Fitness, or NCSF, those who fast or skip meals start to lose mainly lean muscle tissue."
What do they finish losing?0 -
It's a scientific fact that when a person goes with out food the body first uses any available carbs in the system, then the fat reserve's, and finally it starts to break down its own muscle tissue (mainly from voluntary muscles) to supply the essential organ functions with energy to survive. So that goes to say that starvation mode, in the sense of muscle wasting, is only obtained by complete starvation and complete fat reservoir depletion, only then I would think, the body would start to use critical tissue to survive.
So you're saying fat is always the first to go before muscle? Why aren't all former fat people who are now skinny ripped to shreds then?0 -
Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?
From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.
So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.
So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.
All that statment proves is that muscle is more energy demanding then fat, it doesn't say a thing about where the needed calories are taken from first.
and no offense but my strong opinion on the matter is based moreso on personal experience, rather then forum articles...which brings me back to my question how am I gaining muscle mass while cutting with on a 1500 cal diet while working out 3-6 hrs a week? all while my waist is shrinking considerably and everyday I'm seeing more definition not just muscle volume?
Your losing body fat and maintaining your muscle mass whilst on a cut. That's why you look more defined. Your reducing the layer of fat over your muscle. Simplezzzz ;-))0 -
OP so you are gaining LBM whilst eating at a large deficit?
Could it not be as amount of bodyfat drops the ratio of LBM (which is decreasing slower) to fat changes?
i.e body fat drops 10% and your muscle 2% the ratios are now somewhat different, are they not?
I find it hard to believe you are gaining anything whatsoever. I'm basing this on coaching dozens of people. None of them gain, most slowly lose a little muscle but much more body fat even tho their bodyfat to muscle ratio changed.
What method do you use state you have gained muscle? Hydrostatic measurements? If not, I call BS on you.
You said it so much better than me, but yes, this is what I was getting at. lol. I
you Matt :blushing: 0 -
Bump for.later reading!0
-
more visible muscles =/= muscle gained
exactly. if i lost a bunch of my excess fat, you could see my muscles a lot easier too.0 -
Before I go any further I want to say this, I know eating a low calorie diet is mentally unhealthy to some individuals, particularly those who suffer from eating disorders, and I respect the opinion of those who struggle with them. I am just talking from the perspective of someone with out one who has a mentally sound grasp on their body and eating habits.
This is probably one of the most controversial subjects on this site. I personally think that if you eat to little the only way your body can compensate for that is by slowing your base* metabolic rate down a bit, but quite frankly think it is impossible for you body to just say screw you, I'm gonna take all the food you give me and store it as fat! I've played around with my food consumption and exercise enough to know my own body.
It's a scientific fact that when a person goes with out food the body first uses any available carbs in the system, then the fat reserve's, and finally it starts to break down its own muscle tissue (mainly from voluntary muscles) to supply the essential organ functions with energy to survive. So that goes to say that starvation mode, in the sense of muscle wasting, is only obtained by complete starvation and complete fat reservoir depletion, only then I would think, the body would start to use critical tissue to survive.
So please someone put this hype to rest and try to convince me of the contrary. I wanna know how having too big of a caloric deficit while still having an above "very lean" b/f% is somehow making people more fat? It just doesn't make sense to me at all?
This is the way I understand it from what I have read. There is something called, "sarcopenic obesity" where the body will consume its muscle mass (because of too few calories) and yet preserve its fat stores reasonably well. It happens mostly to old people but, it could really happen to anyone who has a poor appetite and is extremely sedentary. It simulates the situation of those who have been well fed in the past but suddenly experience prolonged hunger. Women, because of the influence of estrogen (which always "wants" to preserve fat stores) will often have the frustrating experience of losing muscle as they diet while a large proportion of their fat deposits stay stubbornly resistant to budging. That is why exercise is crucial for everyone who seeks to reduce body fat. But too much cardio (which is catabolic) without resistance training (which is anabolic) can have a tendency to tear down muscle as well--especially if the caloric deficit is too large. Muscle takes a lot of calories to maintain--fat not so much. When the person is under too much of a calorie deficit, the body "assumes" that food is scarce and goes into survival mode. The body then "makes the decision" to get rid of that which takes more calories to maintain (saving the less "expensive" fat to supply calories to internal organs as a survival mechanism). It will ultimately burn the fat reserves up too, in order to survive, but it will dip into the musculature for energy long before that point is reached--especially if the person is not working the muscles.
"There is something called, "sarcopenic obesity" where the body will consume its muscle mass (because of too few calories) and yet preserve its fat stores reasonably well. It happens mostly to old people but, it could really happen to anyone who has a poor appetite and is extremely sedentary"
This is what is currently happening to my Grandmother - she is in hospital following a bout of Pneumonia, and after hardly eating anything, she now looks exactly like the "melted candle" someone described yesterday.
She was quite a large lady, but is now just 43kg. After being in a hospital bed for 4 weeks, her body has thought, hey, she's not using these muscles so we might as well use those first and keep this fat for later.
Anyone on a LCD needs to keep up their intake of protein and use their muscles, or they will not be happy with the skinny fat body they end up with.0 -
There are ways to achieve huge calorie deficits, losing body fat and preserving muscle -- most notably, protein sparing modified fasts (PSMF). It's not especially complicated. It involves eating lean protein sources, taking a multivitamin, and supplementing with magnesium, potassium, and sodium. It's relatively easy to do for those who have been on a ketogenic diet for a month or more.
Alternatively, there is intermittent fasting and alternate day fasting.
If we were as fragile as some would have you believe, the species would have been extinct after 1,000 years. In fact, the sort of things I mention above are being discussed by molecular biologists and biochemists as a likely way to extend human life.
You're right to be cynical about group think.
^This.
Let me fix this for you. If you were as fragile as some would have you believe DURING YOUR CHILD BEARING AND RAISING YEARS WHICH STARTED AT AROUND AGE 14 AND LASTED UNTIL YOU DIED IN CHILD BIRTH OR UNTIL MENOPAUSE the species would have been extinct after 1000 years.
The side effects of severe dietary restriction might not kill you in your 20s and 30s. But the fact that anorexia is considered by many to be the most lethal disorder in part due to deaths from the long-term results of starvation leads me to believe that humans become more fragile as we age. So why set ourselves up for shortened lifespans with calorie deficits that are simply too large when we could lose weight more slowly but with less risk?
Don't get me wrong, I don't freak when I'm under 1200 by 100 calories. I don't always eat exercise calories back anymore, either. But my days of <500 calorie crash diets are long over. It might even kill me if I tried it now, and who knows what damage I did in my teens and twenties? Plus many of these diets are achieved using drugs, legal or illegal, prescribed or not, and that is a whole other layer of damage potential.0 -
Some of you might find this interesting.
I don't know about the whole starvation mode but I can tell you what has happened to me over the course of the last 5 months. I started going to a dietician in October in frustration. she did the impedance test and worked out I should eat 1300 cals that included my exercise. I had my BMR tested a it was fairly low at 1548 most calculators had me at about 1600 -1700. I was previously eating at 1600, 1700 and even 1800 and my weight had stalled. I started the new routine in October eating the 1300 calories and was only doing 30mins a day walking on the treadmill 6 days a week for exercise.
In the first 2 week period
Lost 1.5 kilo in weight
Lost 800gms muscle
Lost 700mls water.
My BMR also dropped to 1513.
Next 2 weeks, same calories and exercise
lost 700gms weight
gained 400gms muscle
lost 1.6 kilo in fat
gained 500mls water.
BMR 1533
Next 2 weeks same calories and exercise
lost 1 kilo weight
lost 200gms muscle
lost 700gms fat
lost 1L water
BMR 1525
next 6 weeks same calories, started Stronglifts and stopped all cardio
lost 1.2kg weight
lost 1.2kg fat
stable muscle
stable water
BMR 1526
next 4 weeks same calories same exercise as above
lost 1.5 kg weight
lost 1.5kg fat
stable muscle
stable water
BMR 1527
although the weight has dropped slower on the scale I have maintained my muscle mass for the last 2 months eating under my BMR, lifting weights with no cardio. I am due to go back on Thurs to the dietician and plan to add back in cardio on the days I don't lift to see what happens for the next month.0 -
^ your bmr or your tdee?0
-
^ your bmr or your tdee?
And how is it measured?0 -
^ your bmr or your tdee?
BMR, I still have about another 13 kilos of fat to lose.0 -
Thanks for that Mads1997 - at last, some actual evidence of something!
Your numbers confirm what I figured all along, and support much of the wealth of anecdotal evidence around - that yes, given the chance, your body will burn muscle as well as fat in a calorie deficit - it may even burn it for preference (look at how people's muscles waste when in a leg caste). But if you actually work your body to build or maintain muscle, then it will try to do that using what available calories it can get, which means from fat reserves (if you have any), if you are eating a deficit. Anything else wouldn't make sense - your body is not going to stop repairing damaged muscle (i.e. building it) when there is ample energy available to fuel that process.
I imagine that you'd have to be pretty thorough in doing an 'all-body' workout to try to maintain muscle mass all over, or your system may 'rob Peter to pay Paul' and burn muscle in an un-exercised part of the body to help maintain it elsewhere.0 -
^ your bmr or your tdee?
And how is it measured?
Its an InBody machine. BioImpedance
Edited to add initially to find out my bmr I had to get a breath test done.0 -
^ your bmr or your tdee?
And how is it measured?
Its an InBody machine. BioImpedance
Edited to add initially to find out my bmr I had to get a breath test done.
When do you train/eat/drink around these tests?0 -
^ your bmr or your tdee?
And how is it measured?
Its an InBody machine. BioImpedance
Edited to add initially to find out my bmr I had to get a breath test done.
When do you train/eat/drink around these tests?
I am pretty boring and have the same breakfast of cereal and a cup of tea before the test, never train beforehand. test is always 3 hours after my breakfast.0 -
I think that most people have their minds made up on MFP, and they are looking to verify their own beliefs, and everyone else to them is a troll.
Secondly, I think calling someone with a different view a troll is the lowest form of discourse.
Third, I think that nobody has refuted the theory based on numbers that I presented.
But more importantly, the premise behind my theory is that the body KNOWS that you will come out of your binge diet one day, based on past experiences, and based on your surroundings. You went yoyo once, and the body remembers that. That is why the body will hold onto the fat. Of course if you never ever get a proper meal again, the body will eventually give up the fat stores and you will look like those pics from Ethiopia of people dying of hunger.
But if you live in a modern country, your surroundings such as bed comfort, clean water, mental health, tell your body that you are OK, even when you are going into a 1000 calorie deficit a day. Moreover, if you went yo-yo in the past, the body knows that it will eventually get that ice cream and steak pizza it so craves. So it holds onto the fat stores. Its more convenient for it to burn the gas guzzling muscle.
Just remember my mantra which I just took a patent out on:
muscle = gas guzzling SUV
fat = corolla
Which one you gonna get son?0 -
NormInv
1) Most people are looking to verify their own beliefs, including you. It is called cognitive bias.
2) I think it's the condescending tone and the "mmmmkay"s that make you seem like a troll. Not your ideas which are common on this board.
3) It isn't a theory. It is a hypothesis. That basically means that it is conjecture. It seems reasonable to you but not to us.
Your premise assumes that your body is a sentient being different from your own mind. I do not think that is the case. I don't think my body makes predictions.
Also, your analogy is ridiculous because muscle is useful and moves you around while fat just has weight and stores energy. So it would be more accurate to say you are on the island with
Muscle: a vehicle (we'll have it run on food for this to work)
Fat: a bag of food
Doesn't it make sense to eat the food and use it to fuel the vehicle to drive around looking for more food?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions