"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

Options
1…1718202223

Replies

  • nerys72
    nerys72 Posts: 14
    Options
    I can prove the OP is correct with simple inarguable anecdotal information.

    its easy to gain weight and hard to lose weight. period.

    therefore there is clearly a bodily function at play "sabotaging" our efforts. so we must learn to work WITH those bodily function since we lack the technological ability to alter or effect those bodily function direction.

    in theory it should be as simple as turning off the function of turning proteins and carbs into fact. simply disable that function.

    alas we lack the means to do that.

    SO how does one calculate the maximal weight loss path that is the least destructive?

    how dos gastric bypass result in so much "fat burning" and not this starvation process? is there a way we can (even in part) simulate the results of this?

    no you can not store what you do not consume. but you also can NOT survive (even just laying in bed) on fat stores alone. your body is unable to convert fat stores to energy that quickly.

    and you have a lot less control over WHERE you body gets its energy than you think. ie muscles organs etc..

    otherwise it would be easy to lose weight. its not. our bodies "ACTIVELY" and "AGGRESSIVELY" resist our attempts to lose weight in any sort of rapid time span.

    the trick is to work with those systems. trick some of them if we can and maximize the process.

    that is what i want to know how to do. how to figure out.

    so what can you suggest for me OP

    6'4" male at least 450 pounds (I don't know how much I weigh I lack the means to weigh anything that high)

    I plan to do a ton of cycling now that I have a semi recumbent that does not torture me with pain to ride :-)

    I have not hugely changed my diet yet and the hours I work are not conducive to eating properly but I am going to start working on that hard core. for now I am sticking to around 2000 calories a day.

    I assume that is safe?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options

    It states what we've agreed up, that the body adapts to the lower caloric intake by taking measures to conserve energy but I don't see anything in the paragraph quoted (the link doesn't seem to work) that suggests in any way that the body increases fat storage while at a caloric deficit.

    Again, the logic is clearly governed by physics - you can't store what you didn't consume.

    so you just answered your own question.
    that the body adapts to the lower caloric intake by taking measures to conserve energy

    not sure what else you are looking for. I think maybe you're missing the forest for the trees here.

    Long story short, after an initial period of a few days to maybe a week or so of extreme underfeeding, the body has no glucose left (or not enough), it tries to make it by mobilizing both protein and fat, the problem is the process requires relatively high amounts of protein, and the results are glucose (among other things). More than the body actually can use, and the only return path of glucose to energy storage is as fat, you can't turn glucose into protein again. So thus, energy is conserved via the re-esterefication of FFA's that aren't used for immediate energy and also lipogenesys (conversion of glucose to fat) from the free flowing glucose that has been generated in the above process.

    In other words, the body combines a slow down in overall energy consumption with the increase in protein utilization as a energy source coupled with fat utilization as an energy source which is converted to glucose and/or ketone bodies used for energy. It will also recover any unused energy back into the fat cells if it isn't immediately used.

    so you have a multi-pronged attack going on, first the body is canabalizing protein to use as energy, which lowers the RMR and TDEE, and you also have the process of lipogenesys and re-esterefication happening to re-incorporate any unused energy back to fat cells.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    In other words, the body combines a slow down in overall energy consumption with the increase in protein utilization as a energy source coupled with fat utilization as an energy source which is converted to glucose and/or ketone bodies used for energy. It will also recover any unused energy back into the fat cells if it isn't immediately used.

    Which is completely different from the notion that a body in "starvation mode" will increase its fat stores which is the erroneous concept of "starvation mode" that has been promulgated on these boards. A concept reinforced by your own words:
    The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

    Given that the individual is consuming below equilibrium there will be no "unused energy" to store back to fat cells.
  • Erisad
    Erisad Posts: 1,580
    Options
    Bump to read later. I'm sooo frustrated. I lost 8 pounds last month from eating 1700 a day, MFP recommended I drop to 1680 and I did and now I'm up .4 from last month. What the hell? Granted I haven't been eating all the way to 1680 some days because I feel that it takes me eating junk to be able to meet my calories so I end up eating healthy and phooey on if I make the calorie goal or not. Clearly it isn't working. Maybe I should have eaten more candy like I did last month. :/

    first things first, any calorie amount under the 10 pound bubble isn't really relevant because the human body fluctuates up to about 5 lbs up or down on a daily basis. Drink an extra glass of water 2 days earlier and eat a few hundred mg of salt the next day and you could be up 2 lbs without ever knowing why. So forget about numbers under a pound, they're irrelevant.

    Second, a 20 calorie increase or decrease is not going to make a difference one way or another.
    Here's why.
    lets say that eating 20 extra calories per day did put you over the point of gaining weight. OK, so how much would you gain.
    Here's how much. 20 X 365 = 7300 (I.E. just shy of 2 lbs)
    that means in about 1 year you'd gain 2 lbs. if the world was just and everything happened in the human body the way formulas predict (which they don't).
    So in 1 month, with a 20 calorie increase, you'd have added 600 extra calories approximately, to your frame. Or in terms of lbs of fat.... 1 SEVENTH of a pound.

    Now, that being said, most bathroom scales (even the really good ones) have a 1 lb margin for error, which means even the ones that give you two places to the right of the decimal point aren't being very accurate about it. So forget about the.4 it's not relevant.

    What I really think you're getting at is... why did I not lose? Which is a good question. It's one you should examine. But examine it by using reason, not emotion. Ask yourself, did I measure my food quantity right? Did I really exercise the amount I thought I did and burn the number of calories I thought I did? Is my deficit set to the right amount? Am I taking into account the error factor for calories (a lot higher than 20 on a day's worth of food, even if the labels were 100% accurate, which they're not).

    In other words, I'm saying, check your methods before you question the theory. And look at this as a long haul process, don't sweat the small stuff, and try to be healthier, if you do that, the weight will eventually come off.

    -Banks

    I mistyped, I'm down to 1620 now. So 80 calories a day really shouldn't make that much of a difference either. I may just up it to 1700 again. I'm just mad that I feel like I wasted an entire month of not making any progress. I usually leave a 300 calorie deficit in case I screwed up a measurement or something. Usually I don't but still. So sometimes I'm eating even less. I started in May 2010 with 110 pounds to lose. I have 33 pounds left and I'm getting impatient. I thought I would be done by now so I'm getting sick of stalling. I want to lose 13 by 2013 but with not losing anything this month I'm going to have to really kick it up a notch in the next 3 months. Although I probably won't make that goal either, I seem to really suck at making timed goals. :/
  • Ke22yB
    Ke22yB Posts: 969 Member
    Options
    Bump for later
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    In other words, the body combines a slow down in overall energy consumption with the increase in protein utilization as a energy source coupled with fat utilization as an energy source which is converted to glucose and/or ketone bodies used for energy. It will also recover any unused energy back into the fat cells if it isn't immediately used.

    Which is completely different from the notion that a body in "starvation mode" will increase its fat stores which is the erroneous concept of "starvation mode" that has been promulgated on these boards. A concept reinforced by your own words:
    The body is fully in "panic mode" now. Storage of fat is a primary concern to the point where now both protein and carbohydrates coming in are shunted off in large amounts to fat storage.

    Given that the individual is consuming below equilibrium there will be no "unused energy" to store back to fat cells.


    So I'm done with the semantics game you are playing. You're trying to nit pick me to death and it won't work. Because, in my amature but very well researched opinion, Everything I've written is true. You have yet to provide a single piece of science to back up what you say. So again, I've cited my sources, you say what I say is wrong. Back it up with facts, show me what DOES happen instead and cite actual studies or peer reviewed research to back up your statements, and we can continue, otherwise, just stop because saying "you're wrong" over and over without providing proof is something a 5 year old does, and I'll not be part of it any more.
  • nerys72
    nerys72 Posts: 14
    Options
    boy potentially dangerous topic to get into but here we go.

    you say in starvation mode there is no unused energy so nothing to store in fat.

    problem is this statement (whether true or not I don't know) appears to be based on the assumption that your energy usage remains unchanged.

    I venture to say this is the logical flaw. IE your body will sabotage you to REDUCE the amount of energy you use. you will be lethargic. you will sleep more you will move slower you will be tired more your reflexes will slow down.

    IE your energy usage will "go down" not remain the same. if you tried to maintain your energy usage your body might fight you.

    this is a possible reason you two don't seem to be able to agree?

    Here is a question for both of you since this seems to defy both your arguments.

    Gastric Bypass surgery.

    how does that work.? these people are living on WELL BELOW starvation dietary levels by the definitions proposed here.

    yet they actually do burn crazy amounts of actual fat.

    explain. whats going on here? how are THEY burning fat without the "starvation mode" issues displayed here?

    and its real fat I know my pop lost 140 pounds. if that was muscle and organs he lost he would be dead. its pretty darned clear it was fat he lost. so what gives?

    whats different? from what I understand the surgery does nothing more than simply reduce the physical SIZE of the stomach. no other body changes are made.

    SO if I "ate" like a gastric bypass patient ate how and or why would it be any different for me? would it work?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    boy potentially dangerous topic to get into but here we go.

    you say in starvation mode there is no unused energy so nothing to store in fat.

    problem is this statement (whether true or not I don't know) appears to be based on the assumption that your energy usage remains unchanged.

    I venture to say this is the logical flaw. IE your body will sabotage you to REDUCE the amount of energy you use. you will be lethargic. you will sleep more you will move slower you will be tired more your reflexes will slow down.

    IE your energy usage will "go down" not remain the same. if you tried to maintain your energy usage your body might fight you.

    this is a possible reason you two don't seem to be able to agree?

    Here is a question for both of you since this seems to defy both your arguments.

    Gastric Bypass surgery.

    how does that work.? these people are living on WELL BELOW starvation dietary levels by the definitions proposed here.

    yet they actually do burn crazy amounts of actual fat.

    explain. whats going on here? how are THEY burning fat without the "starvation mode" issues displayed here?

    and its real fat I know my pop lost 140 pounds. if that was muscle and organs he lost he would be dead. its pretty darned clear it was fat he lost. so what gives?

    whats different? from what I understand the surgery does nothing more than simply reduce the physical SIZE of the stomach. no other body changes are made.

    SO if I "ate" like a gastric bypass patient ate how and or why would it be any different for me? would it work?

    not sure where you would get that statement from me. I never said there would be no unused energy. In fact I said exactly what you tried to say. That the body attempts to conserve energy by decreasing the amount of energy being used. that's the whole point of the starvation mode concept.

    As to gastric bypass, most people who get that surgery are obese or morbidly obese, which means they have a lot of internal energy in the form of fat stores. Please note that I did say that the more available energy, the longer it would take to enter any kind of famine response, and the more dramatic the deficit would need to be to get there as well (the combination can mean a up to a month or more before your body recognizes any form of famine response if there's enough energy available). Combine this large store of extra energy with the customized vitamin supplements as well as doctor supervision and you have a viable solution. For most people who have some kind of stomach reduction surgery, their stomachs gradually expand again to accommodate larger volumes, allowing them, over time, to move much closer to a normal level of calories as well.
  • rosylarose
    rosylarose Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Bump!
  • SuperstarDJ
    SuperstarDJ Posts: 440 Member
    Options
    Bump!

    Fantastic post by the way. Thanks!
  • rasha349
    rasha349 Posts: 14
    Options
    Bump!
  • annacarmel83
    annacarmel83 Posts: 14
    Options
    Bump
  • lesliethescrivener
    lesliethescrivener Posts: 41
    Options
    great post. before MFP, i used to try and eat like 1000 calories when i wanted to shed some weight (which obviously didn't work). it wasn't til joining that i realized how important it is to eat (sensibly) to lose weight! i force myself to steer clear of "starvation mode" now, even if i think "i don't have time to eat."
  • steelersfamily6
    steelersfamily6 Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    BUMP BUMP BUMP
  • mmbutler2004
    mmbutler2004 Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • Aries03
    Aries03 Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    Bumping for future ref.
  • KerrieJay
    KerrieJay Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    If your body is in starvation mode, like i have a feeling I am/was... How long does it take to reverse the process and start seeing losses when you start to eat properly, rather than gains?
  • thecapaccino
    thecapaccino Posts: 138
    Options
    AND what if you are on Paleo (low carb). Lets say your goal is under 50g of carbs a day. There is only protein and so one has (or normally should) have a higher protein percentage intake.

    People are in ketosis.

    Ketosis is a reaction of the body to burn what is stored....so ketosis vs starvation mode?

    Is that happening?
  • Melo1966
    Melo1966 Posts: 881 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    If your body is in starvation mode, like i have a feeling I am/was... How long does it take to reverse the process and start seeing losses when you start to eat properly, rather than gains?

    Thats a difficult question to answer since everyone is a little different. If you truly do have a diminished metabolic rate because of a large calorie deficit, then the "safest" way to raise them is go very slow.
    I.E. add 100 calories to your diet (or 50 or 75 or what ever, any amount small enough to give your body time to adjust, I usually say no more than about 5% of you total), then give it 2 weeks at a minimum. Then re-evaluate and decide whether you need to up them again. Rinse, repeat as necessary.

    Yes this method is slow, but you probably won't gain any fat this way.

    Otherwise if you go the "immediately add 400 calories a day method" or what ever you're going to add, you're likely to shock your body, and before it comes to the realization that you're going to feed it the extra calories every day, (which usually takes any where from 3 days to 2 weeks by the way, but in severe cases it can take longer, even a couple of months), it will try to hoard the calories for a while, you're likely to gain 3 to 10 lbs of fat mass before your body settles.

Categories