Bad Calories Vs. Starvation Mode: Which is Better?
Options
Replies
-
haha nice!
Ohh boy, here we go... Lets make fun of the guy who uses science and common sense.
LOL! Riiiiight!0 -
If you are talking about one day, do what you like. If you are not hungry, don't eat. If you are a little hungry, have the salad. If you are very hungry, have a burger. It's not going to make much difference in the big picture.0
-
OP:
Generally speaking, over the course of time you should be doing your best to -
1) Hit your desired calorie and macronutrient totals
2) Eat a varied diet with nutrient dense foods when you can
3) It would probably be in your best interest to not eat a ton of heavily refined foods but at the same time there's no need to become orthorexic about any particular macronutrient or food item
Now having said all of that and as it pertains to your questions, you're not going to be perfect.
Stuff like what you wrote, that happens. The decision you make isn't going to matter much at all provided we are talking about "once in a while" and not "every other night".
Lastly, starvation mode is, for the most part, a bunch of nonsense as it gets used on this site.
"Bad Calories" is a term thrown around by Gary Taubes and I'd suggest staying away from anything with his name on it unless you want your head to get filled full of nonsense.
In the context of a nutrient dense diet, cheeseburgers, pizza, chips, and even *gasp* cake is FINE. Just don't make it the majority of your intake and if those "treats" are preventing you from hitting your nutrient goals then you've got a problem. Until then, if you can eat some of that stuff once in a while then you probably should.
I could honestly high-5 you on a daily basis.
There are a few people on this site that give educated responses. You are one of them.0 -
I had not planned my day today too well and ended up eating about 500 calories total by 9pm. When it gets to that point, you have to go to sleep by 10, and the nearest food joints available are small-portioned happy hour bar menus, it seems that you have limited options:
- Eat nothing at all
- Eat a small portioned salad or another healthy yet limited calorie meal, which would get you 400 calories max, which would come to a total of 900 for my day, i.e. still in starvation mode territory.
- Eat a good portioned burger (white bread buns) with fries, which would definitely get you to your goal of 1200 calories plus.
I chose the latter, but I know I will pay for it internally and externally.
My question is, which is better to do in a dire situation:
a) Go into starvation mode but save your body from harmful calories, or
b) Eat stuff that will prevent you from going into starvation mode but is definitely bad for your well being?
This again..
Ok. Let me make this simple.
There is no such thing as starvation mode.
There are no foods that will make you starve. That would not be food.
Metabolism doesn't change or have dramatic shifts.
The idea of eating more to lose more is ignorant.
There are foods that make you fat. That is a different discussion about Insulin, several other hormones and more.
My biggest piece of advice is to educate yourself. Stat asking How and Why. Put those questions into Google. Go from there. This forum is full of misinformation and bad advice. Get educated and help yourself.
Good questions to ask.
"What is the biological process for fat storage?"
"What is insulin and what does it do?"
That's a good start.
Ah the insulin is the devil rationale again. You are really a one trick pony clobbercow. This is your pat answer to anything. Too bad it ignores the data. Maybe you ought to be the one educating yourself??
OP, don't mind poor clobbercow here. He has reading comprehension issues. :flowerforyou:
Since I have such reading comprehension issues, can you please explain the biological process for fat storage that doesn't involve insulin?
Ohh, That's right. Insulin is THE fat storage hormone. It's also a hormone that suppresses Leptin, that aids in appetite reduction. Insulin also blunts our reaction to Ghrelin, the hormone that keeps us feeling satiated.
Wait a minute. My reading comprehension skills really must be lacking. I'm surly incorrect. Or maybe you simply don't understand it's importance. Maybe you simply don't understand how powerful hormones are in the body and how they drive behavior.
If you control insulin, by carb control, you also control appetite. The allows for people to become fasted (the single requirement for burning fat) easier to lose the weight.
If you can explain the biological process that says it's good to eat foods that promotes fat gain, aggravates appetite, and keeps us hungry, triggers insulin, and keeps us from being fasted to lose the fat, then by all means, fire one at me.
Sure, we can do all the wrong things and struggle with weight loss or eventually hit a plateau. I see it all the time on here. Or we can take some key principals about our biology and use knowledge to our advantage to make the transition from being fat a bit easier. I constantly see people getting stuck and I constantly see people giving out terrible advice and shoot down others because they don't agree. You wan't to be dogmatic instead of being factual, please. Please show me your data and research that says you're right and I'm wrong.
If you can't, you should take the advice I posted above, and your clearly superior reading comprehension skills, and get educated.
You do not gain fat in a calorie deficit.
Your idea that individual foods are lipogenic is false.
You are ignoring the fact that insulin lowers in between feedings during which fat is oxidized.
You need to read this:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
That pretty much sums it up. Insulin is not the fat storage hormone. It is the nutrient shuttle hormone. It only shuttles nutrients to fat storage more than temporarily if there is an overall calorie surplus.
So, like I said clobbercow. Major reading comprehension issues. Fail!
Major science comprehension issues. Fail!
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Insulin also suppresses other key hormones to control appetite and satiation.
Fact:
Dietary glucose is NOT needed. There is no biological processes in our body that must source glucose from an external source.
Dietary protein, a small to moderate amount, and fat is required in our diet.
So why eat carbohydrate when it's simply not needed and has so many negative consequences? Why not eat a fat based diet and get hormones under control to aid in fat loss?
Why try and justify working backwards?0 -
I had not planned my day today too well and ended up eating about 500 calories total by 9pm. When it gets to that point, you have to go to sleep by 10, and the nearest food joints available are small-portioned happy hour bar menus, it seems that you have limited options:
- Eat nothing at all
- Eat a small portioned salad or another healthy yet limited calorie meal, which would get you 400 calories max, which would come to a total of 900 for my day, i.e. still in starvation mode territory.
- Eat a good portioned burger (white bread buns) with fries, which would definitely get you to your goal of 1200 calories plus.
I chose the latter, but I know I will pay for it internally and externally.
My question is, which is better to do in a dire situation:
a) Go into starvation mode but save your body from harmful calories, or
b) Eat stuff that will prevent you from going into starvation mode but is definitely bad for your well being?
This again..
Ok. Let me make this simple.
There is no such thing as starvation mode.
There are no foods that will make you starve. That would not be food.
Metabolism doesn't change or have dramatic shifts.
The idea of eating more to lose more is ignorant.
There are foods that make you fat. That is a different discussion about Insulin, several other hormones and more.
My biggest piece of advice is to educate yourself. Stat asking How and Why. Put those questions into Google. Go from there. This forum is full of misinformation and bad advice. Get educated and help yourself.
Good questions to ask.
"What is the biological process for fat storage?"
"What is insulin and what does it do?"
That's a good start.
Ah the insulin is the devil rationale again. You are really a one trick pony clobbercow. This is your pat answer to anything. Too bad it ignores the data. Maybe you ought to be the one educating yourself??
OP, don't mind poor clobbercow here. He has reading comprehension issues. :flowerforyou:
Since I have such reading comprehension issues, can you please explain the biological process for fat storage that doesn't involve insulin?
Ohh, That's right. Insulin is THE fat storage hormone. It's also a hormone that suppresses Leptin, that aids in appetite reduction. Insulin also blunts our reaction to Ghrelin, the hormone that keeps us feeling satiated.
Wait a minute. My reading comprehension skills really must be lacking. I'm surly incorrect. Or maybe you simply don't understand it's importance. Maybe you simply don't understand how powerful hormones are in the body and how they drive behavior.
If you control insulin, by carb control, you also control appetite. The allows for people to become fasted (the single requirement for burning fat) easier to lose the weight.
If you can explain the biological process that says it's good to eat foods that promotes fat gain, aggravates appetite, and keeps us hungry, triggers insulin, and keeps us from being fasted to lose the fat, then by all means, fire one at me.
Sure, we can do all the wrong things and struggle with weight loss or eventually hit a plateau. I see it all the time on here. Or we can take some key principals about our biology and use knowledge to our advantage to make the transition from being fat a bit easier. I constantly see people getting stuck and I constantly see people giving out terrible advice and shoot down others because they don't agree. You wan't to be dogmatic instead of being factual, please. Please show me your data and research that says you're right and I'm wrong.
If you can't, you should take the advice I posted above, and your clearly superior reading comprehension skills, and get educated.
You do not gain fat in a calorie deficit.
Your idea that individual foods are lipogenic is false.
You are ignoring the fact that insulin lowers in between feedings during which fat is oxidized.
You need to read this:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
That pretty much sums it up. Insulin is not the fat storage hormone. It is the nutrient shuttle hormone. It only shuttles nutrients to fat storage more than temporarily if there is an overall calorie surplus.
So, like I said clobbercow. Major reading comprehension issues. Fail!
Major science comprehension issues. Fail!
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Insulin also suppresses other key hormones to control appetite and satiation.
Fact:
Dietary glucose is NOT needed. There is no biological processes in our body that must source glucose from an external source.
Dietary protein, a small to moderate amount, and fat is required in our diet.
So why eat carbohydrate when it's simply not needed and has so many negative consequences? Why not eat a fat based diet and get hormones under control to aid in fat loss?
Why try and justify working backwards?
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans0 -
I had not planned my day today too well and ended up eating about 500 calories total by 9pm. When it gets to that point, you have to go to sleep by 10, and the nearest food joints available are small-portioned happy hour bar menus, it seems that you have limited options:
- Eat nothing at all
- Eat a small portioned salad or another healthy yet limited calorie meal, which would get you 400 calories max, which would come to a total of 900 for my day, i.e. still in starvation mode territory.
- Eat a good portioned burger (white bread buns) with fries, which would definitely get you to your goal of 1200 calories plus.
I chose the latter, but I know I will pay for it internally and externally.
My question is, which is better to do in a dire situation:
a) Go into starvation mode but save your body from harmful calories, or
b) Eat stuff that will prevent you from going into starvation mode but is definitely bad for your well being?
This again..
Ok. Let me make this simple.
There is no such thing as starvation mode.
There are no foods that will make you starve. That would not be food.
Metabolism doesn't change or have dramatic shifts.
The idea of eating more to lose more is ignorant.
There are foods that make you fat. That is a different discussion about Insulin, several other hormones and more.
My biggest piece of advice is to educate yourself. Stat asking How and Why. Put those questions into Google. Go from there. This forum is full of misinformation and bad advice. Get educated and help yourself.
Good questions to ask.
"What is the biological process for fat storage?"
"What is insulin and what does it do?"
That's a good start.
Ah the insulin is the devil rationale again. You are really a one trick pony clobbercow. This is your pat answer to anything. Too bad it ignores the data. Maybe you ought to be the one educating yourself??
OP, don't mind poor clobbercow here. He has reading comprehension issues. :flowerforyou:
Since I have such reading comprehension issues, can you please explain the biological process for fat storage that doesn't involve insulin?
Ohh, That's right. Insulin is THE fat storage hormone. It's also a hormone that suppresses Leptin, that aids in appetite reduction. Insulin also blunts our reaction to Ghrelin, the hormone that keeps us feeling satiated.
Wait a minute. My reading comprehension skills really must be lacking. I'm surly incorrect. Or maybe you simply don't understand it's importance. Maybe you simply don't understand how powerful hormones are in the body and how they drive behavior.
If you control insulin, by carb control, you also control appetite. The allows for people to become fasted (the single requirement for burning fat) easier to lose the weight.
If you can explain the biological process that says it's good to eat foods that promotes fat gain, aggravates appetite, and keeps us hungry, triggers insulin, and keeps us from being fasted to lose the fat, then by all means, fire one at me.
Sure, we can do all the wrong things and struggle with weight loss or eventually hit a plateau. I see it all the time on here. Or we can take some key principals about our biology and use knowledge to our advantage to make the transition from being fat a bit easier. I constantly see people getting stuck and I constantly see people giving out terrible advice and shoot down others because they don't agree. You wan't to be dogmatic instead of being factual, please. Please show me your data and research that says you're right and I'm wrong.
If you can't, you should take the advice I posted above, and your clearly superior reading comprehension skills, and get educated.
You do not gain fat in a calorie deficit.
Your idea that individual foods are lipogenic is false.
You are ignoring the fact that insulin lowers in between feedings during which fat is oxidized.
You need to read this:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
That pretty much sums it up. Insulin is not the fat storage hormone. It is the nutrient shuttle hormone. It only shuttles nutrients to fat storage more than temporarily if there is an overall calorie surplus.
So, like I said clobbercow. Major reading comprehension issues. Fail!
Major science comprehension issues. Fail!
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Insulin also suppresses other key hormones to control appetite and satiation.
Fact:
Dietary glucose is NOT needed. There is no biological processes in our body that must source glucose from an external source.
Dietary protein, a small to moderate amount, and fat is required in our diet.
So why eat carbohydrate when it's simply not needed and has so many negative consequences? Why not eat a fat based diet and get hormones under control to aid in fat loss?
Why try and justify working backwards?
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
With regards to hypertriglyceridemia, insulinemic people, heart attacks, clogged arteries? In comparison to what?0 -
This one isn't as funny but at least it fits. You guys are non-stop entertainment.0 -
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Do you believe that you can get fat on a hypocaloric diet? You keep focusing on what happens immediately after a meal when it's entirely irrelevant given that you will be oxidizing that fat later. You are not focusing on the differences between fat oxidation and fat storage, you are just talking about what happens in the short term.
Fat oxidation will exceed fat storage in a deficit.0 -
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Do you believe that you can get fat on a hypocaloric diet? You keep focusing on what happens immediately after a meal when it's entirely irrelevant given that you will be oxidizing that fat later. You are not focusing on the differences between fat oxidation and fat storage, you are just talking about what happens in the short term.
Fat oxidation will exceed fat storage in a deficit.
That's true to an extent. But why not keep fat oxidation constant?0 -
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Do you believe that you can get fat on a hypocaloric diet? You keep focusing on what happens immediately after a meal when it's entirely irrelevant given that you will be oxidizing that fat later. You are not focusing on the differences between fat oxidation and fat storage, you are just talking about what happens in the short term.
Fat oxidation will exceed fat storage in a deficit.
0 -
I had not planned my day today too well and ended up eating about 500 calories total by 9pm. When it gets to that point, you have to go to sleep by 10, and the nearest food joints available are small-portioned happy hour bar menus, it seems that you have limited options:
- Eat nothing at all
- Eat a small portioned salad or another healthy yet limited calorie meal, which would get you 400 calories max, which would come to a total of 900 for my day, i.e. still in starvation mode territory.
- Eat a good portioned burger (white bread buns) with fries, which would definitely get you to your goal of 1200 calories plus.
I chose the latter, but I know I will pay for it internally and externally.
My question is, which is better to do in a dire situation:
a) Go into starvation mode but save your body from harmful calories, or
b) Eat stuff that will prevent you from going into starvation mode but is definitely bad for your well being?
This again..
Ok. Let me make this simple.
There is no such thing as starvation mode.
There are no foods that will make you starve. That would not be food.
Metabolism doesn't change or have dramatic shifts.
The idea of eating more to lose more is ignorant.
There are foods that make you fat. That is a different discussion about Insulin, several other hormones and more.
My biggest piece of advice is to educate yourself. Stat asking How and Why. Put those questions into Google. Go from there. This forum is full of misinformation and bad advice. Get educated and help yourself.
Good questions to ask.
"What is the biological process for fat storage?"
"What is insulin and what does it do?"
That's a good start.
Ah the insulin is the devil rationale again. You are really a one trick pony clobbercow. This is your pat answer to anything. Too bad it ignores the data. Maybe you ought to be the one educating yourself??
OP, don't mind poor clobbercow here. He has reading comprehension issues. :flowerforyou:
Since I have such reading comprehension issues, can you please explain the biological process for fat storage that doesn't involve insulin?
Ohh, That's right. Insulin is THE fat storage hormone. It's also a hormone that suppresses Leptin, that aids in appetite reduction. Insulin also blunts our reaction to Ghrelin, the hormone that keeps us feeling satiated.
Wait a minute. My reading comprehension skills really must be lacking. I'm surly incorrect. Or maybe you simply don't understand it's importance. Maybe you simply don't understand how powerful hormones are in the body and how they drive behavior.
If you control insulin, by carb control, you also control appetite. The allows for people to become fasted (the single requirement for burning fat) easier to lose the weight.
If you can explain the biological process that says it's good to eat foods that promotes fat gain, aggravates appetite, and keeps us hungry, triggers insulin, and keeps us from being fasted to lose the fat, then by all means, fire one at me.
Sure, we can do all the wrong things and struggle with weight loss or eventually hit a plateau. I see it all the time on here. Or we can take some key principals about our biology and use knowledge to our advantage to make the transition from being fat a bit easier. I constantly see people getting stuck and I constantly see people giving out terrible advice and shoot down others because they don't agree. You wan't to be dogmatic instead of being factual, please. Please show me your data and research that says you're right and I'm wrong.
If you can't, you should take the advice I posted above, and your clearly superior reading comprehension skills, and get educated.
You do not gain fat in a calorie deficit.
Your idea that individual foods are lipogenic is false.
You are ignoring the fact that insulin lowers in between feedings during which fat is oxidized.
You need to read this:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
That pretty much sums it up. Insulin is not the fat storage hormone. It is the nutrient shuttle hormone. It only shuttles nutrients to fat storage more than temporarily if there is an overall calorie surplus.
So, like I said clobbercow. Major reading comprehension issues. Fail!
Major science comprehension issues. Fail!
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Insulin also suppresses other key hormones to control appetite and satiation.
Fact:
Dietary glucose is NOT needed. There is no biological processes in our body that must source glucose from an external source.
Dietary protein, a small to moderate amount, and fat is required in our diet.
So why eat carbohydrate when it's simply not needed and has so many negative consequences? Why not eat a fat based diet and get hormones under control to aid in fat loss?
Why try and justify working backwards?
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
With regards to hypertriglyceridemia, insulinemic people, heart attacks, clogged arteries? In comparison to what?
What conditions does it occur under? Or does it happen all willy nilly with no rhyme or reason?0 -
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Do you believe that you can get fat on a hypocaloric diet? You keep focusing on what happens immediately after a meal when it's entirely irrelevant given that you will be oxidizing that fat later. You are not focusing on the differences between fat oxidation and fat storage, you are just talking about what happens in the short term.
Fat oxidation will exceed fat storage in a deficit.
That's true to an extent. But why not keep fat oxidation constant?
Why worry about acute things when you can just hit your macros, remain in a calorie deficit, and let the difference between storage and oxidation take care of itself.
I'm not saying that there's no value, in some places, to discuss the acute and scientific things -- I'm saying that the idea that you even remotely NEED to control insulin at all times is misguided. The big picture things (proper macro intake, hypocaloric diet over time) will do this all by itself. I would really suggest you check out the links I provided.
I'm not trying to sway you from being a low carber, that's personal preference and probably a necessity for some. But the acute things that happen in a snapshot after you eat really are misleading when the things that happen later on just cancel it out anyways.0 -
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
http://www.ajcn.org/content/73/2/253.long looked at lean and obese males after eating a test meal from a fasted state and measured DNL using isotopes. Lean and obese were different in response. They commented that "Using tracer techniques, several authors assessed the effect of carbohydrate on DNL both in isoenergetic diets (10, 15, 18) and during surplus-carbohydrate diets (15, 33) and reported that carbohydrate consumption produced a dose-dependent increase in fractional DNL."
DNL seems common enough in the right circumstances, but possibly not significant in terms of mass - a few pounds a year of fat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185982/ says "Lipolysis correlated inversely with CHO intake as did the proportion of whole-body lipolytic flux oxidized. Fractional de novo hepatic lipogenesis (DNL) increased more than 10-fold on surplus CHO and was unmeasurable on deficient CHO diets; thus, the preceding 5-d CHO intake could be inferred from DNL." and "Nevertheless, absolute hepatic DNL accounted for < 5g fatty acids synthesized per day even on +50% CHO. Whole-body CHO oxidation increased sixfold and fat oxidation decreased > 90% on surplus CHO diets."
So common enough I would say, but maybe not a big issue in itself when considering weight gain.
When it comes to losing though I am drawn to the statement that "Lipolysis correlated inversely with CHO intake". I want to lose fat, that means more lipolysis, that's aided by less CHO.0 -
Well, I'm sure the OP has decided whether to eat or not already. But as a future reference, if you ever need some extra calories one day there are options you can make that aren't junk food. A banana, a tall glass of milk, a handful of nuts left in the pantry, ect. are filled with calories but are also healthy. I once was under 1200 and I went to bed without worrying about it. I woke up in the middle of the night feeling like I had run a marathon, my muscles were so sore. I learned from that that at least for my body I should never go under. It'll be different for everyone, but my best advice is to listen to your body.0
-
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
http://www.ajcn.org/content/73/2/253.long looked at lean and obese males after eating a test meal from a fasted state and measured DNL using isotopes. Lean and obese were different in response. They commented that "Using tracer techniques, several authors assessed the effect of carbohydrate on DNL both in isoenergetic diets (10, 15, 18) and during surplus-carbohydrate diets (15, 33) and reported that carbohydrate consumption produced a dose-dependent increase in fractional DNL."
DNL seems common enough in the right circumstances, but possibly not significant in terms of mass - a few pounds a year of fat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185982/ says "Lipolysis correlated inversely with CHO intake as did the proportion of whole-body lipolytic flux oxidized. Fractional de novo hepatic lipogenesis (DNL) increased more than 10-fold on surplus CHO and was unmeasurable on deficient CHO diets; thus, the preceding 5-d CHO intake could be inferred from DNL." and "Nevertheless, absolute hepatic DNL accounted for < 5g fatty acids synthesized per day even on +50% CHO. Whole-body CHO oxidation increased sixfold and fat oxidation decreased > 90% on surplus CHO diets."
So common enough I would say, but maybe not a big issue in itself when considering weight gain.
When it comes to losing though I am drawn to the statement that "Lipolysis correlated inversely with CHO intake". I want to lose fat, that means more lipolysis, that's aided by less CHO.
However in a caloric deficit, hold cals and protein constant and fat loss won't be significantly different playing with the amounts of cho/fats. Decrease cho and increase fats and fat oxidation will increase, that's in response to the increase in dietary fat intake. Actual body fat loss won't differ significantly despite the higher rates of fat oxidation0 -
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
http://www.ajcn.org/content/73/2/253.long looked at lean and obese males after eating a test meal from a fasted state and measured DNL using isotopes. Lean and obese were different in response. They commented that "Using tracer techniques, several authors assessed the effect of carbohydrate on DNL both in isoenergetic diets (10, 15, 18) and during surplus-carbohydrate diets (15, 33) and reported that carbohydrate consumption produced a dose-dependent increase in fractional DNL."
DNL seems common enough in the right circumstances, but possibly not significant in terms of mass - a few pounds a year of fat.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185982/ says "Lipolysis correlated inversely with CHO intake as did the proportion of whole-body lipolytic flux oxidized. Fractional de novo hepatic lipogenesis (DNL) increased more than 10-fold on surplus CHO and was unmeasurable on deficient CHO diets; thus, the preceding 5-d CHO intake could be inferred from DNL." and "Nevertheless, absolute hepatic DNL accounted for < 5g fatty acids synthesized per day even on +50% CHO. Whole-body CHO oxidation increased sixfold and fat oxidation decreased > 90% on surplus CHO diets."
So common enough I would say, but maybe not a big issue in itself when considering weight gain.
When it comes to losing though I am drawn to the statement that "Lipolysis correlated inversely with CHO intake". I want to lose fat, that means more lipolysis, that's aided by less CHO.
However in a caloric deficit, hold cals and protein constant and fat loss won't be significantly different playing with the amounts of cho/fats. Decrease cho and increase fats and fat oxidation will increase, that's in response to the increase in dietary fat intake. Actual body fat loss won't differ significantly despite the higher rates of fat oxidation
There are upsides to increased fat in the diet. I keep speaking about hormones and they are key. Especially for the obese.
I once was obese and had horrible food addiction issues. Once I learned why I would never feel full and would always feel hungry, I fixed it. I dropped fat pretty quickly. 50lbs over the last 5 months. I use the word addiction for emphasis. In reality I had terrible hormonal imbalance that was causing me to binge all the time. Now instead of going into a ravenous binge at the slight mention of food, I can have chocolate cake (my worst enemy) around me and not feel the need to eat it. People say it takes will power. Well, it doesn't really. Maybe at first, but with the right diet, those hormonal urges go away and now I don't need will power. I just need fat.
Also, I use intermittent fasting to help keep a deficit. Total, I've lost 70 lbs, 50 were low carb with IF. I've never been better. The first 20 was hell and it took a long time to lose it. Now losing fat feels effortless. It's almost magical compared to the sorry state I was in before.
I'm still a bit chubby, but I'm not longer obese and every week I'm losing more and more fat while feeling good going about doing it. My ticker is a bit aggressive. At the end of it I should be about 10% body fat (estimated).0 -
starvation mode is an overused idea on this site.
if you are overweight and have large amount of body weight, you will not starve. besides that, one day of low calories is hardly starvation mode.
just to get an idea of what true starvation mode is, some people really need to do read the news or look up places where they are truly starving people.
^^This. If you're not hungry don't eat. If you are then eat something high in protein and low carb... sometimes some Greek yogurt with berries will do the trick or a smoothie
0 -
starvation mode is an overused idea on this site.
if you are overweight and have large amount of body weight, you will not starve. besides that, one day of low calories is hardly starvation mode.
just to get an idea of what true starvation mode is, some people really need to do read the news or look up places where they are truly starving people.
THIS0 -
I had not planned my day today too well and ended up eating about 500 calories total by 9pm. When it gets to that point, you have to go to sleep by 10, and the nearest food joints available are small-portioned happy hour bar menus, it seems that you have limited options:
- Eat nothing at all
- Eat a small portioned salad or another healthy yet limited calorie meal, which would get you 400 calories max, which would come to a total of 900 for my day, i.e. still in starvation mode territory.
- Eat a good portioned burger (white bread buns) with fries, which would definitely get you to your goal of 1200 calories plus.
I chose the latter, but I know I will pay for it internally and externally.
My question is, which is better to do in a dire situation:
a) Go into starvation mode but save your body from harmful calories, or
b) Eat stuff that will prevent you from going into starvation mode but is definitely bad for your well being?
This again..
Ok. Let me make this simple.
There is no such thing as starvation mode.
There are no foods that will make you starve. That would not be food.
Metabolism doesn't change or have dramatic shifts.
The idea of eating more to lose more is ignorant.
There are foods that make you fat. That is a different discussion about Insulin, several other hormones and more.
My biggest piece of advice is to educate yourself. Stat asking How and Why. Put those questions into Google. Go from there. This forum is full of misinformation and bad advice. Get educated and help yourself.
Good questions to ask.
"What is the biological process for fat storage?"
"What is insulin and what does it do?"
That's a good start.
Ah the insulin is the devil rationale again. You are really a one trick pony clobbercow. This is your pat answer to anything. Too bad it ignores the data. Maybe you ought to be the one educating yourself??
OP, don't mind poor clobbercow here. He has reading comprehension issues. :flowerforyou:
Since I have such reading comprehension issues, can you please explain the biological process for fat storage that doesn't involve insulin?
Ohh, That's right. Insulin is THE fat storage hormone. It's also a hormone that suppresses Leptin, that aids in appetite reduction. Insulin also blunts our reaction to Ghrelin, the hormone that keeps us feeling satiated.
Wait a minute. My reading comprehension skills really must be lacking. I'm surly incorrect. Or maybe you simply don't understand it's importance. Maybe you simply don't understand how powerful hormones are in the body and how they drive behavior.
If you control insulin, by carb control, you also control appetite. The allows for people to become fasted (the single requirement for burning fat) easier to lose the weight.
If you can explain the biological process that says it's good to eat foods that promotes fat gain, aggravates appetite, and keeps us hungry, triggers insulin, and keeps us from being fasted to lose the fat, then by all means, fire one at me.
Sure, we can do all the wrong things and struggle with weight loss or eventually hit a plateau. I see it all the time on here. Or we can take some key principals about our biology and use knowledge to our advantage to make the transition from being fat a bit easier. I constantly see people getting stuck and I constantly see people giving out terrible advice and shoot down others because they don't agree. You wan't to be dogmatic instead of being factual, please. Please show me your data and research that says you're right and I'm wrong.
If you can't, you should take the advice I posted above, and your clearly superior reading comprehension skills, and get educated.
You do not gain fat in a calorie deficit.
Your idea that individual foods are lipogenic is false.
You are ignoring the fact that insulin lowers in between feedings during which fat is oxidized.
You need to read this:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
That pretty much sums it up. Insulin is not the fat storage hormone. It is the nutrient shuttle hormone. It only shuttles nutrients to fat storage more than temporarily if there is an overall calorie surplus.
So, like I said clobbercow. Major reading comprehension issues. Fail!
Major science comprehension issues. Fail!
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Insulin also suppresses other key hormones to control appetite and satiation.
Fact:
Dietary glucose is NOT needed. There is no biological processes in our body that must source glucose from an external source.
Dietary protein, a small to moderate amount, and fat is required in our diet.
So why eat carbohydrate when it's simply not needed and has so many negative consequences? Why not eat a fat based diet and get hormones under control to aid in fat loss?
Why try and justify working backwards?
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
With regards to hypertriglyceridemia, insulinemic people, heart attacks, clogged arteries? In comparison to what?
I stopped reading a few pages ago because I can't stand your know it all attitude.
Please stop hijacking threads for attention. It hurts my eyeballs.
There are lots of ways to lose weight. Your way is working for you and that is great, but what you are talking about on here is greek to most people and is not helpful.
Thanks.0 -
I had not planned my day today too well and ended up eating about 500 calories total by 9pm. When it gets to that point, you have to go to sleep by 10, and the nearest food joints available are small-portioned happy hour bar menus, it seems that you have limited options:
- Eat nothing at all
- Eat a small portioned salad or another healthy yet limited calorie meal, which would get you 400 calories max, which would come to a total of 900 for my day, i.e. still in starvation mode territory.
- Eat a good portioned burger (white bread buns) with fries, which would definitely get you to your goal of 1200 calories plus.
I chose the latter, but I know I will pay for it internally and externally.
My question is, which is better to do in a dire situation:
a) Go into starvation mode but save your body from harmful calories, or
b) Eat stuff that will prevent you from going into starvation mode but is definitely bad for your well being?
This again..
Ok. Let me make this simple.
There is no such thing as starvation mode.
There are no foods that will make you starve. That would not be food.
Metabolism doesn't change or have dramatic shifts.
The idea of eating more to lose more is ignorant.
There are foods that make you fat. That is a different discussion about Insulin, several other hormones and more.
My biggest piece of advice is to educate yourself. Stat asking How and Why. Put those questions into Google. Go from there. This forum is full of misinformation and bad advice. Get educated and help yourself.
Good questions to ask.
"What is the biological process for fat storage?"
"What is insulin and what does it do?"
That's a good start.
Ah the insulin is the devil rationale again. You are really a one trick pony clobbercow. This is your pat answer to anything. Too bad it ignores the data. Maybe you ought to be the one educating yourself??
OP, don't mind poor clobbercow here. He has reading comprehension issues. :flowerforyou:
Since I have such reading comprehension issues, can you please explain the biological process for fat storage that doesn't involve insulin?
Ohh, That's right. Insulin is THE fat storage hormone. It's also a hormone that suppresses Leptin, that aids in appetite reduction. Insulin also blunts our reaction to Ghrelin, the hormone that keeps us feeling satiated.
Wait a minute. My reading comprehension skills really must be lacking. I'm surly incorrect. Or maybe you simply don't understand it's importance. Maybe you simply don't understand how powerful hormones are in the body and how they drive behavior.
If you control insulin, by carb control, you also control appetite. The allows for people to become fasted (the single requirement for burning fat) easier to lose the weight.
If you can explain the biological process that says it's good to eat foods that promotes fat gain, aggravates appetite, and keeps us hungry, triggers insulin, and keeps us from being fasted to lose the fat, then by all means, fire one at me.
Sure, we can do all the wrong things and struggle with weight loss or eventually hit a plateau. I see it all the time on here. Or we can take some key principals about our biology and use knowledge to our advantage to make the transition from being fat a bit easier. I constantly see people getting stuck and I constantly see people giving out terrible advice and shoot down others because they don't agree. You wan't to be dogmatic instead of being factual, please. Please show me your data and research that says you're right and I'm wrong.
If you can't, you should take the advice I posted above, and your clearly superior reading comprehension skills, and get educated.
You do not gain fat in a calorie deficit.
Your idea that individual foods are lipogenic is false.
You are ignoring the fact that insulin lowers in between feedings during which fat is oxidized.
You need to read this:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
That pretty much sums it up. Insulin is not the fat storage hormone. It is the nutrient shuttle hormone. It only shuttles nutrients to fat storage more than temporarily if there is an overall calorie surplus.
So, like I said clobbercow. Major reading comprehension issues. Fail!
Major science comprehension issues. Fail!
You don't need to be in a caloric surplus for insulin to move glucose to fat.
Insulin also suppresses other key hormones to control appetite and satiation.
Fact:
Dietary glucose is NOT needed. There is no biological processes in our body that must source glucose from an external source.
Dietary protein, a small to moderate amount, and fat is required in our diet.
So why eat carbohydrate when it's simply not needed and has so many negative consequences? Why not eat a fat based diet and get hormones under control to aid in fat loss?
Why try and justify working backwards?
Talk to me about how common DNL is in humans
With regards to hypertriglyceridemia, insulinemic people, heart attacks, clogged arteries? In comparison to what?
I stopped reading a few pages ago because I can't stand your know it all attitude.
Please stop hijacking threads for attention. It hurts my eyeballs.
There are lots of ways to lose weight. Your way is working for you and that is great, but what you are talking about on here is greek to most people and is not helpful.
Thanks.
I don't claim to know it all. I don't claim my way is the only way. I may think its the best, but its my opinion. I'm having a discussion. Those were legitimate questions just as his question was legitimate.
I learn new things all the time from debates and discussions. Part of a discussion is to trade facts and share experiences. When people throw around insults because my way conflicts with theirs, they ruin the conversation. Instead, if people ask questions, provide details and facts, it's an enjoyable experience. More often than not people allow emotion to get in the way and run off at the mouth with their keyboard. Just like you.
What are you going to do? Complain more? Report me? Learn something new? You choose.
I'ts not my problem that you can't keep up, or rather, you chose to not keep up.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions