starvation mode myth

*pops popcorn* this should be exciting!

But I will continuing to take my 500 calorie deficit to lose a pound a week off my BMR and continue to eat 800-1000 calories over that same BMR (2160) and yes that is eating back my exercise calories and I will continue to add to my weight loss ticker below.... Good Luck......

Pretty hard to argue with over 300lbs lost!

"starvation mode" or not, you have to be on heavy drugs to think putting yourself into a malnutritional state is in any way good for you, regardless of weight loss. You are robbing your body of the building blocks it needs to go about it's daily business, such as, healing wounds, replacing lost cells, generating enzymes, etc.

... to any considering VLC diets, just stop looking for shortcuts and gimmicks and lose weight like you know you are supposed to.

I am eating 200 to 300 calories more a day than I have over the past 7 years. Over those 7 years I gained weight. I am now losing weight.

Science says you're way more likely to be counting things wrong than to lose on more than you gain on, assuming no change in your burn levels.

"The only scientifically proven method for losing weight involves burning more calories than are taken in.2 This fact, often called the "law of thermodynamics," has been shown time and time again in decades of rigorous scientific studies. One example of the hundreds of studies that exist was done in Switzerland. Fifty-four obese people had their calories restricted to 1,100 per day. Different combinations of foods and meal timing were tested. There was no difference in weight losses; it came down to the number of calories, not how they were provided, that accounted for the weight loss that the participants experienced.3

At the end of the day, the only true way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories in food and/or burn more calories. Yet only 1/3 of Americans trying to lose weight try to do so by using the recommended method of eating less and exercising more; the fundamental foundation of weight loss."

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=20781&tabnum=1&sc=801&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss

Gonna go completely out there and say this....starvation myth? How about people with ED's ie, anorexia ...with a very very low calorie intake, yet they still lose weight?


I think there is something to this 'myth' but i think people really over estimate/over think it, seriously !

At very low body fat and very low calorie intake, fat loss actually can grind to a halt and muscle catabolism and associated water weight decrease can become the primary reasons for continued weight loss.

I heard on NPR the other day that severe calorie restriction actually does permanently affect your metabolism.
It was a while back, so i can't provide a link.

The basic idea was, you had people that lost a large sum of weight quickly, a large sum slowly, and people that had been that weight normally. Those people that had lost a large sum quickly had to take in much less calories than the others to maintain the same weight.

I lost about 50 pounds extremely rapidly when I was 20 years old and I maintained it for about 4 years. I lost it through severe calorie restriction and in order to maintain it, only ate a 'real' meal every three days or so and otherwise subsisted on diet coke, crackers, coffee with splenda, and apples. I had an extremely active job and also worked out most days very hard. I would say I had an eating disorder.

At 24, I gained back the 50 plus an additional 20 or so during an extremely stressful period in my life. I would say from my own personal experience that my metabolism was DEFINITELY altered and I can only hope not permanently. My weight has been stuck within 5 pounds of my current weight of 217 for years now (I am 33). This despite various serious attempts to work out, reduce calories, cut carbs, all sorts of things I've tried.

Sometimes it almost seems like my body retains a 'memory' of those 4 years and refuses to give up any of the padding it gained. But I'm here to try again!

There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

Because you can lose more faster.

I didn't. I lost weight PAINFULLY slow on lower calories. Felt like a failure because it was so slow. Thought I was doomed to be chunky forever.

On the RIGHT amount of calories, the weight fell off. Effortlessly.

There is more to the weight loss equation than just continually reducing calories. Calories in an out is the primary factor but when people get to the point of adaptive thermogenesis, what you are calling starvation mode, they stall. As the term implies, the body adapts. The hormones that control appetite and lipolysis get out of whack. These factors can be normalized and get weight loss moving again by increasing calories. So there is a sweet spot where there is a deficit and good hormonal factors. If you have any awareness of this it is not evident in your posts.

But there is no science that agrees with this hypothesis. The studies say the more the deficit, the more you lose, though there is a smallish adaptive thermogenesis component. It never comes near overcoming the reduction in calories. So if you predict you'll lose 3 lbs/week at a given deficit, you might only lose 2.5. But you don't ever get to where your body 100% counteracts your deficit, which is what is implied here.

There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

Because you can lose more faster.

I didn't. I lost weight PAINFULLY slow on lower calories. Felt like a failure because it was so slow. Thought I was doomed to be chunky forever.

On the RIGHT amount of calories, the weight fell off. Effortlessly.

Water retention is a big factor on higher caloric deficits. You will still lose weight faster, but it won't show up on the scale as rapidly (it tends to fall off in large 'chunks' as the body flushes out excess water periodically, the scale can stay steady for weeks at a time as a result, but actual body comp changes are much faster than on a higher calorie diet).

There is more to the weight loss equation than just continually reducing calories. Calories in an out is the primary factor but when people get to the point of adaptive thermogenesis, what you are calling starvation mode, they stall. As the term implies, the body adapts. The hormones that control appetite and lipolysis get out of whack. These factors can be normalized and get weight loss moving again by increasing calories. So there is a sweet spot where there is a deficit and good hormonal factors. If you have any awareness of this it is not evident in your posts.

But there is no science that agrees with this hypothesis. The studies say the more the deficit, the more you lose, though there is a smallish adaptive thermogenesis component. It never comes near overcoming the reduction in calories. So if you predict you'll lose 3 lbs/week at a given deficit, you might only lose 2.5. But you don't ever get to where your body 100% counteracts your deficit, which is what is implied here.

To someone who stalls, you telling them that there are no studies suggesting that they shoudlnt be losing is a slap in the face.

If you were trying to lose weight as fast as possible youd be at 18-30lbs lost by now Mcarter but hey!
Science says it works!
Right?
LOL
RIGHT!

The Starvation Myth
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department

Thanks. You'he made my day.