The Science of "Starvation Mode"

ryry_

never use wikipedia as a source.

Wikipedia has very accurate information. Your post is void..

Yep, so good that most reputable sources won't touch it. So good that most college professors don't allow it. So good the the company its self admits it has problems with erroneous information. So good that some "definitions" end up locked because of bad information.

Wikipedia is garbage.

It's not an all or nothing thing. If the sources are sound and the information is presented accurately, it's good. The problem is it doesn't stop some knucklehead from posting some crap info for fun.

That's why you need discernment when evaluating information and not blindly accepting things.

bumblebums

never use wikipedia as a source.

Yep, sorry, OP, but you lost me at "Wikipedia"

CrazyTrackLady

never use wikipedia as a source.

^^^THIS!

I tell my students to avoid wikipedia as a source for any and all research projects they are required to do. ANYONE can go on there and edit ANYTHING they want.

WarriorCupcakeBlydnsr

Excellent post!

CrazyTrackLady

Wikipedia has been proven to be just as reliable as any other encyclopedia. I know it's counter intuitive because the information is editable by anyone, but the fact remains that misinformation doesn't last long on Wikipedia because it is quickly edited out.

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that Wikipedia scientific articles came as close to the level of accuracy as Encyclopedia Britannica and had a similar rate of serious errors. A study conducted by IBM found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"

The reason it's banned from use for school research papers has nothing to do with it's reliability, and everything to do with how easy it would be to write a paper using only Wikipedia as a source. Your teachers want you to have to work harder than that.

I ban it because it is an uncertifiable resource. I tell my students (who are in middle school, btw) that I only want them using websites that contain a .edu or .org suffix on them, as the rest of them (.com or .net) are unreliable and likely can be disputed as to their origin of authenticity and varified facts. I prefer they go directly to the websites that are second sources or primary sources.

ryry_

Did you guys even check out the sources?

Not linked to blogs or news articles but scientific studies. Haven't checked them out extensively but kind of arrogant to dismiss information out of hand because it must be wrong because it's wikipedia.

I'm glad I had a college english professor make us choose a topic on wikipedia and update it.

ipiddock

The conclusion of this thread is that if you read Wikipedia then you will go into Starvation mode.

CrazyTrackLady

Did you guys even check out the sources?

Not linked to blogs or news articles but scientific studies. Haven't checked them out extensively but kind of arrogant to dismiss information out of hand because it must be wrong because it's wikipedia.

I'm glad I had a college english professor make us choose a topic on wikipedia and update it.

I'd rather they go STRAIGHT to the sources, and not start at Wikipedia. If taught properly, they would know what the .edu and the .orgs have to offer. What's the point in starting with wikipedia, if only to get the sources?

ryry_

Wikipedia has been proven to be just as reliable as any other encyclopedia. I know it's counter intuitive because the information is editable by anyone, but the fact remains that misinformation doesn't last long on Wikipedia because it is quickly edited out.

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that Wikipedia scientific articles came as close to the level of accuracy as Encyclopedia Britannica and had a similar rate of serious errors. A study conducted by IBM found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"

The reason it's banned from use for school research papers has nothing to do with it's reliability, and everything to do with how easy it would be to write a paper using only Wikipedia as a source. Your teachers want you to have to work harder than that.

I ban it because it is an uncertifiable resource. I tell my students (who are in middle school, btw) that I only want them using websites that contain a .edu or .org suffix on them, as the rest of them (.com or .net) are unreliable and likely can be disputed as to their origin of authenticity and varified facts. I prefer they go directly to the websites that are second sources or primary sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.org

Wikipedia says anyone can have a .org website, including craigslist.org. Its not reliable information though so I don't know.

And if that is how you like to teach your students to learn I don't really care and I'm not saying you are right or wrong for doing so (no offense). The point is several people dismissed the OP who appears to be trying to post pertinent information regarding a topic that is largely misunderstood and misrepresented on MFP because they saw wikipedia.

LisaMfit4life

I wouldn't recommend Wickipedia as a source of information. The American Medical Association has a lot of reliable and scientifically based sources of information. I have college professors who tell me never to use wikipedia as a source of information. Just saying
Lisa

MinimalistShoeAddict

The conclusion of this thread is that if you read Wikipedia then you will go into Starvation mode.

I find it funny how this topic of this thread has turned into an academic debate on proper citations instead of a discussion about the actual studies referenced.

My goal was not to debate citation format, but provide some well organized resources that contain citations to scientific studies for those that wanted to learn more.

Annette_rose

It seems to me that different things really work differently for everyone. I have seen people who have eaten much less calories and lost weight and seen others who that really didn't work for. For me, I do have to cut back on the junk and eat better, along with exercising even if it is just walking. I saw someone recently who I did not recognize because she was very overweight a little over a year ago and I had not seen her since. For this person, having to cut back to about 1200 calories was the only thing that worked for her and she has found that she has to keep that lifestyle of lower calories in order to keep her weight down. But to be honest, she looks great. I realize that doesn't work for others. I work in a medical clinic and had a woman come in yesterday who I could tell has obviously lost weight but looks very gaunt. I did not tell her that but I did mention that she is losing weight. She says she is on a "water fast" for 40 days. My jaw nearly hit the ground. I asked her how in the world she is surviving with no protein, etc. She says she has learned to ignore the hunger pains and they have diminished, but that she does have periods of weakness/dizziness. There is absolutely no way this woman can sustain this "water diet" and yes, her body is going to go wacko I think once she introduces food back into it, if she doesn't kill herself before eating food again. She did NOT look healthy. The other woman I met who lost by cutting her calorie intake way back DID look healthy and had built up muscle tone as she lost. I still put a lot of stock into my French trip I took where I rarely saw a heavy person. They joked about us Americans and how they see us "eat, eat, eat all the time". My host family sat down to two main meals a day where they took their time eating, both meals included wine, cheeses, meats, and even bread. But they never snacked. It was such a great learning experience.

bumblebums

My goal was not to debate citation format, but provide some well organized resources that contain citations to scientific studies for those that wanted to learn more.

Then it would have been more effective to just include links to the primary sources, even if you used Wikipedia as your starting point for research.

justal313

My goal was not to debate citation format, but provide some well organized resources that contain citations to scientific studies for those that wanted to learn more.

Then it would have been more effective to just include links to the primary sources, even if you used Wikipedia as your starting point for research.

You know when I first heard of Wikipedia I thought that a crowd sourced encyclopedia would be an excellent reference, after all the people who knew about/cared about a topic would provide quality and near instant peer review. Time has revealed that the crowd is full of asshats.

86_Ohms

If you can't see past how Wikipedia can be used a source, then you can stop watching the news. Pay attention next time you're listening in on their sources, and you can see how many times they quote Wikipedia as their information reference. Although, I wouldn't quote Fox news on being reliable anyway.

The articles are built from other sources, just like 99% of competent articles across the web who quote scientific periodicles as their source. That's why there's a medium to huge "Reference" section at the bottom of the page. If you're skeptacle about what you read, then don't be lazy and check the information yourself from their gracious collection.

Also, the education system usually prohibits sources other than those they verify under their accreditation (ie, must have it from a page that directly came from a study, experiment, etc.) so the school doesn't get discredited from items they publish. Just because they are in the stone age doesn't mean you can use that article as a starting point and then quote the same source that the page used as another post had stated.


tl;dr
Thanks for the post OP. It's still informative to those who still think starving themselves would of been the right answer.

joleenl

Excellent post. Thank you.

I just want to add one tiny thing (aside from starvation mode):

I think obese/over weight people who enter diets that extremely low calorie diets, should also consider the substainability of the caloric intake. Many people that eat at extremely low caloric intake do end up undoing their weight-loss and sometimes even gain more back by binge eating. My advice eat at a manageable deficit for slow and steady weight-loss. In the slow process we teach ourselves portion size and calorie approximation which are valuable tools for long term success.

TimeForMe99

Let's try to get back on topic.

I would posit that "starvation mode" is a factor of nutrition, which is not the same as calorie level. A person eating nothing but Ramen noodles, for example, could eat maintenance calories but gain weight. The body responds to the lack of adequate nutrion by storing what it is being given. This is one reason why impoverished people tend to be overweight. They are eating inexpensive carbs with little nutrition and inadequate protein. A person who eats 1200 calories or less but is receiving adequate nutrients of all sorts can lose weight and remain healthy.

No one rule fits all. A lot is due to the size of the person - a 5' woman doesn't need the same nutritients as a 6' man. Genetics also plays a role. A person of Asian descent will metabolize food differently than someone who is German. Races have evolved over millenia to use indigenous food sources - thrive or die. Hence the often cited "French Paradox".

Redheadllena

I really appreciate this post. I was ignorant to what starvation mode really meant and how it works and would sometimes use it as an excuse not to stick to MFP's recommendations as of lately. Knowing that, no, I'm not really starving just because I feel hungry, and no, I'm not going to "plateau due to starvation mode" is extremely empowering so thank you!!

gooteek

Additionally, it has been proven losing more than 2-3 pounds a week can be dangerous due to the toxins that are released. Where he had a medicially supervised fast it is different as they could monitor and flush the system (I suppose control on water and eletrolyte would help), but I would never advise anyone trying a long fast to drop a significant amount of weight without being under doctor supervision. 2-3 pounds a week gracefully with the right foods and exercise will not only change your body, but your day to day habits, so that once you reach your ideal weight, you will actually stay there. Many fast lose plans are followed by quickly putting the weight back on, since the individual never learns to change the habits that got the 300+ lbs on them in the first place.

MinimalistShoeAddict

Excellent response. Thank you for responding to the content of my post and not the citation format!

I actually agree with everything you said. Learning portion control and calorie approximation is absolutely essential to the sustainability of any diet over the long run. Yo-yo dieting is not helpful for anyone and people need to work with a plan that will lead to a lifestyle they can maintain once their weight goals are achieved.

Excellent post. Thank you.

I just want to add one tiny thing (aside from starvation mode):

I think obese/over weight people who enter diets that extremely low calorie diets, should also consider the substainability of the caloric intake. Many people that eat at extremely low caloric intake do end up undoing their weight-loss and sometimes even gain more back by binge eating. My advice eat at a manageable deficit for slow and steady weight-loss. In the slow process we teach ourselves portion size and calorie approximation which are valuable tools for long term success.