Calling BS on the starvation mode (plz no E/D rants)

AnabolicKyle

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?

Pwrpuff83

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!

x

Cr01502

The topic that just won't die . . .

HolyPeas

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.

leejayem

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:

AQ3107

Has ANYONE gained weight on a low calorie deficit diet for a sustainable period of time?

K_Serz

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:

horses7777

bump for later

Matt_Wild

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.

K_Serz

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:

ladyraven68

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.

714rah714

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."

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.

K_Serz

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?

ArroganceInStep

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?

jesz124

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 ;-))

jesz124

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:

Phat_Bottom_Girl

Bump for.later reading!

da_bears10089

more visible muscles =/= muscle gained

exactly. if i lost a bunch of my excess fat, you could see my muscles a lot easier too.

ladyraven68

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.

MaraDiaz

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.