what is up with starvation mode...
Replies
-
I eat all the foodz....and plenty of it!0
-
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.
So you believe your body uses fat first, and then when that's gone (and only after it's gone), muscle?
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
I was trying to research this online the other night.....do you have any studies you can quote or link to regarding this? My thought was that the body would burn fat first and then muscle only when that was gone (or at least burn 95% fat). Honestly just curious, not trying to be an a**0 -
I was trying to research this online the other night.....
I like this guy because he has a no BS approach to the science of fat loss.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-metabolism-overview.html0 -
Can we at least call it something else for awhile its getting on my nerves lol0
-
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.
So you believe your body uses fat first, and then when that's gone (and only after it's gone), muscle?
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
I was trying to research this online the other night.....do you have any studies you can quote or link to regarding this? My thought was that the body would burn fat first and then muscle only when that was gone (or at least burn 95% fat). Honestly just curious, not trying to be an a**
Not readily available, but it's a fair question.
My understanding is that it is actually easier/efficient for the body to convert muscle to energy than fat. Important factors in swaying the ratio more to fat are strength training, a reasonable calorie deficit, and (likely to a lesser extent) macro composition. That said, I will acknowledge that "my understanding" could be more broscience than real science.
Hopefully someone else has a few readily available and can post them...otherwise, I'll try to remember to dig some up when I'm back at the computer for more than a moment later tonight.
(Edit: to encourage someone else to post some links so I don't have to do it later.)0 -
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.
So you believe your body uses fat first, and then when that's gone (and only after it's gone), muscle?
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
I was trying to research this online the other night.....do you have any studies you can quote or link to regarding this? My thought was that the body would burn fat first and then muscle only when that was gone (or at least burn 95% fat). Honestly just curious, not trying to be an a**
Not readily available, but it's a fair question.
My understanding is that it is actually easier/efficient for the body to convert muscle to energy than fat. Important factors in swaying the ratio more to fat are strength training, a reasonable calorie deficit, and (likely to a lesser extent) macro composition. That said, I will acknowledge that "my understanding" could be more broscience than real science.
Hopefully someone else has a few readily available and can post them...otherwise, I'll try to remember to dig some up when I'm back at the computer for more than a moment later tonight.
(Edit: to encourage someone else to post some links so I don't have to do it later.)
Here are some studies done that show compositional changes
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/2/411.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049594900051
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/2/155.short
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/54/1/56.short
http://intl.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049594900051
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200636030-00
Worth noting is that most (if not all of these) are on obese subjects placed on VLCDs (defined as 40% TDEE or 800 calories or less).
Please excuse me if any of these are not relevant. I haven't reviewed them in quite some time and copypasta'd from my previous posts. If they aren't all relevant, I have tons more that are in my post history. When I have some time, I'll go through and figure out what's what.
Also, the body uses primarily fat first because it is specifically stored as energy. There are certain things that the body gets from muscle that it wouldn't get anywhere else (other than protein sources) and the body is in a constant state of break down and rebuilding so if there isn't enough energy for the rebuild, muscle will be lost, definitely. I think that the largest percentage of muscle lost I've found was in the neighborhood of 30% on already lean men on a starvation diet for 6 months. Other than that most are around 25% or less (again that I've found).
Studies have shown that at less than 600 calories per day the body burns up more muscle than would be predicted extrapolating from higher calorie diets. One of the studies I read was used for developing the medically advised VLCDs for at risk/morbidly obese people who need to lose quickly (and bariatric surgery patients) and showed that from 600 calories upward, muscle loss was proportionally the same but once the patients went down to 400 calories, muscle loss was disproportionately high.
The variables in a lot of studies are strength training and protein consumption and those have been shown to have great effect regardless of calorie level.
Anyway, that's all I've got right now. I have to get ready for work.0 -
...i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.
im assuming this is not directed at me, since i am no where near my first month into it?
Correct...but no assumption was really necessary. My post was in response to the last post quoted, which was rosemary. Generally, that's how the MFP forums work. Unless otherwise specified, responses will be to the last post quoted.
Just to be clear I'm not in my first month either, though yes my 1st as a member of MFP. I started this journey about 4 months ago (though I realize you mentioned 6-9+ months).
And I totally acknowledge and accept "...based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...". I very much appreciate the good & valuable info I've read on this site. IMO it's important to spread your point of "...the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress...". That is excellent food-for-thought.0 -
...i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.
im assuming this is not directed at me, since i am no where near my first month into it?
Correct...but no assumption was really necessary. My post was in response to the last post quoted, which was rosemary. Generally, that's how the MFP forums work. Unless otherwise specified, responses will be to the last post quoted.
Just to be clear I'm not in my first month either, though yes my 1st as a member of MFP. I started this journey about 4 months ago (though I realize you mentioned 6-9+ months).
And I totally acknowledge and accept "...based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...". I very much appreciate the good & valuable info I've read on this site. IMO it's important to spread your point of "...the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress...". That is excellent food-for-thought.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.
So you believe your body uses fat first, and then when that's gone (and only after it's gone), muscle?
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
I was trying to research this online the other night.....do you have any studies you can quote or link to regarding this? My thought was that the body would burn fat first and then muscle only when that was gone (or at least burn 95% fat). Honestly just curious, not trying to be an a**
Not readily available, but it's a fair question.
My understanding is that it is actually easier/efficient for the body to convert muscle to energy than fat. Important factors in swaying the ratio more to fat are strength training, a reasonable calorie deficit, and (likely to a lesser extent) macro composition. That said, I will acknowledge that "my understanding" could be more broscience than real science.
Hopefully someone else has a few readily available and can post them...otherwise, I'll try to remember to dig some up when I'm back at the computer for more than a moment later tonight.
(Edit: to encourage someone else to post some links so I don't have to do it later.)
Here are some studies done that show compositional changes
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.full.pdf+html
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/2/411.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049594900051
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/2/155.short
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/54/1/56.short
http://intl.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026049594900051
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200636030-00
Worth noting is that most (if not all of these) are on obese subjects placed on VLCDs (defined as 40% TDEE or 800 calories or less).
Please excuse me if any of these are not relevant. I haven't reviewed them in quite some time and copypasta'd from my previous posts. If they aren't all relevant, I have tons more that are in my post history. When I have some time, I'll go through and figure out what's what.
Also, the body uses primarily fat first because it is specifically stored as energy. There are certain things that the body gets from muscle that it wouldn't get anywhere else (other than protein sources) and the body is in a constant state of break down and rebuilding so if there isn't enough energy for the rebuild, muscle will be lost, definitely. I think that the largest percentage of muscle lost I've found was in the neighborhood of 30% on already lean men on a starvation diet for 6 months. Other than that most are around 25% or less (again that I've found).
Studies have shown that at less than 600 calories per day the body burns up more muscle than would be predicted extrapolating from higher calorie diets. One of the studies I read was used for developing the medically advised VLCDs for at risk/morbidly obese people who need to lose quickly (and bariatric surgery patients) and showed that from 600 calories upward, muscle loss was proportionally the same but once the patients went down to 400 calories, muscle loss was disproportionately high.
The variables in a lot of studies are strength training and protein consumption and those have been shown to have great effect regardless of calorie level.
Anyway, that's all I've got right now. I have to get ready for work.
Thanks guys! I will definitely take a look through those.0 -
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.
So you believe your body uses fat first, and then when that's gone (and only after it's gone), muscle?
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
I was trying to research this online the other night.....do you have any studies you can quote or link to regarding this? My thought was that the body would burn fat first and then muscle only when that was gone (or at least burn 95% fat). Honestly just curious, not trying to be an a**
Not readily available, but it's a fair question.
My understanding is that it is actually easier/efficient for the body to convert muscle to energy than fat. Important factors in swaying the ratio more to fat are strength training, a reasonable calorie deficit, and (likely to a lesser extent) macro composition. That said, I will acknowledge that "my understanding" could be more broscience than real science.
Hopefully someone else has a few readily available and can post them...otherwise, I'll try to remember to dig some up when I'm back at the computer for more than a moment later tonight.
(Edit: to encourage someone else to post some links so I don't have to do it later.)
No, that is not how the body uses energy, this is why there is so much fear on GLP and people are continually worried about their muscles.
The body uses the fat stored first and foremost and that is why it stores it in the first place - because it is surplus to requirements and cannot just disappear so it must be stored.
When there is a deficit in calories for the requirement of the person concerned the body needs to get energy, even if just to function for minimal duties and it will get these from its stores - fat.
Here is an article and this one is not bro-science, it is science:
The short answer is that our bodies convert molecules in fat cells to usable forms of energy, thus shrinking the cells. But getting this to happen isn't just about sweat bands and short shorts. Understanding how our bodies perform this tummy-trimming trick requires a little more detail.
We know that weight loss hinges on burning calories. Calories measure the potential energy in food you eat in the form of fats, proteins and carbohydrates.
If our bodies were cars, energy would be the gas to keep everything running. Lounging in front of the television is like cruising the strip, while sprinting around a track is more like drag racing at maximum speeds. In short, more work means more energy.
The body uses some of those calories to digest food. Once the food is broken down into its respective parts of carbohydrates, fats and proteins, it either uses the remaining energy or converts it to fat for storage in fat cells. Fat cells live in adipose tissue, which basically acts like an internal gas station, storing away fuel reserves.
To lose weight, you must burn more calories, or energy, than you consume to start using up that fuel reserve. Essentially, you're not ingesting enough calories to fuel your additional exercise, so your body must pull from fat stores.
This was from http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/lost-weight.htm0 -
Yes, body fat contributes to the inside of the energy balance equation. It can represent about 30cals per lb of body fat. Basically someone that is obese, lets say they weigh 200 lbs with 35% body fat or about 70lbs that can represent 2100 calories for energy requirements which ultimately will depend on the deficit. Same weight, 200 lbs with 10% body fat can only generate 600 calories and the reason why the depth of the deficit and how much body fat a person has effects a metabolic adaption/slowdown when the body dips into lean mass reserves for any extra energy.......I have been wondering .....???? Now if a person has a lot of extra fat..like me ..then if I eat lets say mmm..1100 cals a day and my body is burning the remainder fat for my fuel..then whats the difference between eating food for fuel and burning fat for fuel? Either way its fuel for the body to run right? Now if you say that i cant get enough nutrition in vlc diet..I beg to differ..as I take natural vitamin powders everyday.
I tried eating 1200 cals at first when I joined in March ..well I was exhausted..so i upped it and read many posts which said eat more and i didnt lose weight after upping cals..So i lowered my cals now and i am not tired and am losing? I prefer eating less now..
who knows whats going on?
^^yep. There is a maximum amount of fat your body can oxidize each day.0 -
I appreciate this thread, bump!0
-
u no t believing starvation mode is real0
-
Proof of starvation MODE BEING REAL_____________________________Photo Credit Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
A lack of food can cause the body to go into starvation mode, or starvation response, according to an article in the March 2006 edition of the journal "Annual Review of Physiology." Starvation mode is a metabolic response to the body being deprived of food, which may occur during periods of famine or economic depression, when using a fad diet, or when suffering from anorexia nervosa. A variety of specific signs and symptoms affect those whose body has gone into starvation mode.
Physiological Symptoms
Reducing calories to a very low level prevents the body from obtaining proper nutrients and energy, according to the "Annual Review of Physiology" article. As a result, fatigue is common because the body does not have ample energy to function. The body breaks down muscles to be used as fuel as it attempts to keep vital organs like the heart and lungs functioning. Vitamin deficiency is another result of a lack of nutrients, and can lead to anemia, diarrhea, rashes, edema and heart failure. Testosterone levels decrease during starvation mode, so sexual drive also decreases. The primary drive in a food-deprived body is to eat to regain energy and nutrition, not to reproduce. In women, irregular menstruation or a complete absence of a menstrual cycle may occur.
advertisement
Sponsored Links
Half-Price Event Tickets Get 50% Off Your Favorite Local Theater, Comedy & Sports Events. www.goldstar.com
Depression and Anxiety
In a landmark study by Dr. Ancel Keys, published in the book "The Biology of Human Starvation", subjects who were place on a starvation diet experienced psychological changes. Depression was one such symptom. Dr. Keys found that those who ate the least calories were the most depressed. Anxiety is another psychological symptom of not consuming enough calories. Dr. Keys noted nervousness and impatience among the participants in the study. Some people even avoided eating because they were fearful of gaining weight.
Food Obsession
Food obsession is another symptom of starvation mode, as found in Dr. Keys' study. The deprived body focuses on food because it needs the energy and nutrients to survive. A person in starvation mode may spend much time talking about food, thinking about food and searching for food. In developed countries, people in starvation mode -- such as dieters or people with anorexia nevosa -- may also spend much time watching cooking shows, looking at recipes or shopping for food.
Weight Regain
According to study in the March 2001 issue of the "British Journal of Nutrition," a reduction in the intake of food leads to a reduced metabolic rate, or a decreased rate in burning calories. This decrease in metabolic rate increases as the person loses weight. Once a person begins to eat more, he often experiences increased appetite while his metabolic rate stays at a low level, according to a study conducted by Dr. Abdul Dulloo that was reported in the March 1997 issue of "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition." As a result, the person often regains all the lost weight and may even gain more weight than when the starvation started. The weight that is put on is mostly fat tissue, noted Dulloo
0 -
Proof of starvation MODE BEING REAL_____________________________Photo Credit Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
A lack of food can cause the body to go into starvation mode, or starvation response, according to an article in the March 2006 edition of the journal "Annual Review of Physiology." Starvation mode is a metabolic response to the body being deprived of food, which may occur during periods of famine or economic depression, when using a fad diet, or when suffering from anorexia nervosa. A variety of specific signs and symptoms affect those whose body has gone into starvation mode.
Physiological Symptoms
Reducing calories to a very low level prevents the body from obtaining proper nutrients and energy, according to the "Annual Review of Physiology" article. As a result, fatigue is common because the body does not have ample energy to function. The body breaks down muscles to be used as fuel as it attempts to keep vital organs like the heart and lungs functioning. Vitamin deficiency is another result of a lack of nutrients, and can lead to anemia, diarrhea, rashes, edema and heart failure. Testosterone levels decrease during starvation mode, so sexual drive also decreases. The primary drive in a food-deprived body is to eat to regain energy and nutrition, not to reproduce. In women, irregular menstruation or a complete absence of a menstrual cycle may occur.
advertisement
Sponsored Links
Half-Price Event Tickets Get 50% Off Your Favorite Local Theater, Comedy & Sports Events. www.goldstar.com
Depression and Anxiety
In a landmark study by Dr. Ancel Keys, published in the book "The Biology of Human Starvation", subjects who were place on a starvation diet experienced psychological changes. Depression was one such symptom. Dr. Keys found that those who ate the least calories were the most depressed. Anxiety is another psychological symptom of not consuming enough calories. Dr. Keys noted nervousness and impatience among the participants in the study. Some people even avoided eating because they were fearful of gaining weight.
Food Obsession
Food obsession is another symptom of starvation mode, as found in Dr. Keys' study. The deprived body focuses on food because it needs the energy and nutrients to survive. A person in starvation mode may spend much time talking about food, thinking about food and searching for food. In developed countries, people in starvation mode -- such as dieters or people with anorexia nevosa -- may also spend much time watching cooking shows, looking at recipes or shopping for food.
Weight Regain
According to study in the March 2001 issue of the "British Journal of Nutrition," a reduction in the intake of food leads to a reduced metabolic rate, or a decreased rate in burning calories. This decrease in metabolic rate increases as the person loses weight. Once a person begins to eat more, he often experiences increased appetite while his metabolic rate stays at a low level, according to a study conducted by Dr. Abdul Dulloo that was reported in the March 1997 issue of "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition." As a result, the person often regains all the lost weight and may even gain more weight than when the starvation started. The weight that is put on is mostly fat tissue, noted Dulloo
First of all, nothing you posted here is proof of starvation mode. Second, cite your sources, PLEASE!
This is specifically referencing the MSE where already lean men were starved for 6 months. That isn't "starvation mode" that is literally starvation. The study was originally done to determine how to best "refeed" holocaust victims subjected to starvation in concentration camps. It was not some overweight people who were put on a reduced calorie diet until they hit healthy body fat levels. Even in the case of the MSE, TDEE was reduced only 10-15% which is not outrageous and certainly not what people around here think is going to happen. This study specifically shows that "starvation mode" as it's referenced around here does NOT happen, ever. These men continued losing fat throughout the study and only at the end after they had gone under critical body fat levels did they experience significant muscle loss. Pretty much everything people around here say about starvation mode is shown to be wrong in this study (where, again, they studied men who were literally starving).0 -
funny since I started this thread I have seen another on starvation mode and why it is complete BS but then I still see people posting that others are in starvation mode when they are eating 1200 cals every day...sighhh0
-
u no t believing starvation mode is real
me no believe starvation mode real, because me no believe in myths..
if you believe in starvation mode then you might as well believe the weight fairy is going to come and leave "raspberry ketone" pills under you pillow that will magically convert all your fat to muscle...0 -
funny since I started this thread I have seen another on starvation mode and why it is complete BS but then I still see people posting that others are in starvation mode when they are eating 1200 cals every day...sighhh
tsk your work is never done OP :flowerforyou:0 -
Yes, body fat contributes to the inside of the energy balance equation. It can represent about 30cals per lb of body fat. Basically someone that is obese, lets say they weigh 200 lbs with 35% body fat or about 70lbs that can represent 2100 calories for energy requirements which ultimately will depend on the deficit. Same weight, 200 lbs with 10% body fat can only generate 600 calories and the reason why the depth of the deficit and how much body fat a person has effects a metabolic adaption/slowdown when the body dips into lean mass reserves for any extra energy.......I have been wondering .....???? Now if a person has a lot of extra fat..like me ..then if I eat lets say mmm..1100 cals a day and my body is burning the remainder fat for my fuel..then whats the difference between eating food for fuel and burning fat for fuel? Either way its fuel for the body to run right? Now if you say that i cant get enough nutrition in vlc diet..I beg to differ..as I take natural vitamin powders everyday.
I tried eating 1200 cals at first when I joined in March ..well I was exhausted..so i upped it and read many posts which said eat more and i didnt lose weight after upping cals..So i lowered my cals now and i am not tired and am losing? I prefer eating less now..
who knows whats going on?
^^yep. There is a maximum amount of fat your body can oxidize each day.
What happens if you are in a calorie deficit greater than that?0 -
Yes, body fat contributes to the inside of the energy balance equation. It can represent about 30cals per lb of body fat. Basically someone that is obese, lets say they weigh 200 lbs with 35% body fat or about 70lbs that can represent 2100 calories for energy requirements which ultimately will depend on the deficit. Same weight, 200 lbs with 10% body fat can only generate 600 calories and the reason why the depth of the deficit and how much body fat a person has effects a metabolic adaption/slowdown when the body dips into lean mass reserves for any extra energy.......I have been wondering .....???? Now if a person has a lot of extra fat..like me ..then if I eat lets say mmm..1100 cals a day and my body is burning the remainder fat for my fuel..then whats the difference between eating food for fuel and burning fat for fuel? Either way its fuel for the body to run right? Now if you say that i cant get enough nutrition in vlc diet..I beg to differ..as I take natural vitamin powders everyday.
I tried eating 1200 cals at first when I joined in March ..well I was exhausted..so i upped it and read many posts which said eat more and i didnt lose weight after upping cals..So i lowered my cals now and i am not tired and am losing? I prefer eating less now..
who knows whats going on?
^^yep. There is a maximum amount of fat your body can oxidize each day.
What happens if you are in a calorie deficit greater than that?
It depends on how depleted you are, but it can some from muscle or other tissue.0 -
Yes, body fat contributes to the inside of the energy balance equation. It can represent about 30cals per lb of body fat. Basically someone that is obese, lets say they weigh 200 lbs with 35% body fat or about 70lbs that can represent 2100 calories for energy requirements which ultimately will depend on the deficit. Same weight, 200 lbs with 10% body fat can only generate 600 calories and the reason why the depth of the deficit and how much body fat a person has effects a metabolic adaption/slowdown when the body dips into lean mass reserves for any extra energy.......I have been wondering .....???? Now if a person has a lot of extra fat..like me ..then if I eat lets say mmm..1100 cals a day and my body is burning the remainder fat for my fuel..then whats the difference between eating food for fuel and burning fat for fuel? Either way its fuel for the body to run right? Now if you say that i cant get enough nutrition in vlc diet..I beg to differ..as I take natural vitamin powders everyday.
I tried eating 1200 cals at first when I joined in March ..well I was exhausted..so i upped it and read many posts which said eat more and i didnt lose weight after upping cals..So i lowered my cals now and i am not tired and am losing? I prefer eating less now..
who knows whats going on?
^^yep. There is a maximum amount of fat your body can oxidize each day.
What happens if you are in a calorie deficit greater than that?
It depends on how depleted you are, but it can some from muscle or other tissue.
That sounds like a Bad Thing™.0 -
A pound of muscle only contains 600 calories, so if you have to dip into muscle tissue to supply your body with energy, that's bad over time.
That happens in small amounts every day, but long term is very bad.
Edit: And I do agree with the OP, starvation mode is severely overused here.
Fact, most people suck at counting calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions