Starvation mode is a myth

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

Please go and read this - and then search the seven million times this topic has been beaten to death on the site......:sick: :noway:

Who is the author of this article? Anecdotal at best & premised on a sample of 1 with absolutely no data to back it up. (But I do agree, the topic has been done to death.....)

The topic may be over worked but I still have not seen any scientific proof of it - it is just anecdotal at best or an old wives tale at worst

the Army did a study. i think it was called the Minnesota study. look it up. they starved the participants. they lost weight until they got down to ~5% BF and then the real "starvation mode" began. they looked like the people from Auschwitz by that point. nobody on this site is close to that point, except maybe some of the 18 year old girls with EDs or the lifters with low BF because of a cut.

Ha - in one of the diets I was on years ago, 700 calories would be a cheat day. I had them fairly often because I was put on 480 calories per day. I got the weight off within a few months, sure enough, and I still had muscle because I worked out about 4 times per week. BUT the second I was off that diet I started to put the weight right back on. I think that's the real danger. Extremely low calorie diets just aren't satisfying enough for the long term, and who wants to take weight off only to put it back on again?

I've seen countless threads on various sites of folks that say they are at ≈1000 cals and not losing weight. They increase their calories and finally the weight starts coming off.

I've also seen countless threads where people talk about sustainability of the super low cal diet. I've yet to see anyone remark that they are on a super low cal diet and have been on that diet for, oh lets say, forever. It is VERY common to hear tales of great weight loss, but once complete they go right back to where they were (pretty sure there is a post above this one stating this)

anecdotal? Yes, for sure. But after a while, when you see the same thing over and over again, you start to accept the reports as reliable evidence.

So, the real question is this (in my opinion) - why subject yourself to a super low calorie diet when there are thousands of people that are losing weight and never hungry? (I am perfect proof of eating well, never being hungry, and losing 14lbs so far in the past seven weeks).

So, why? Why do it if there is so much anecdotal evidence showing it isn't necessary? Why starve (as in be hungry all the time) when there are so many people that have proven that you don't need to do that to lose weight?

How many of us got fat over night? None of us. Most of us did it over time through years or decades of poor food choices and laziness. Why are there so many people that think the losing process needs to be so quick? To the point where they think 500 calories a day and being hungry constantly is such a good idea?

There was another thread here I read today where people were bashing mayonnaise pretty hard. There is nothing too terrible about mayo, when used in appropriate amounts. 1tbls isn't going to kill anyone, half a cup is a different story. I'd rather get used to having things like mayo in moderation rather than cut it out completely. That way I'm still getting that little bit and satisfying any craving that could develop. In the past seven weeks that I've lost 14lbs, I've had mayo every single day (well, maybe a day or two that I didn't).

Seems to be everyone would be a lot better off getting focused on the long game and learning how to eat all the things they like and still be healthy and fit. Going to extremes just doesn't seem to be effective, at least not most of the time.

There are people dying from anorexia on a fairly regular basis. Super low calorie is not the way to go.

I ate 800 calories a day for almost three years. I was convinced that starvation + heavy exercise was the only way for me to stay thin. My body learned to make due with it - I didn't feel hungry and I was thin, just like I wanted to be.

But after about 2.5 years, my hair started falling out, my period stopped, I became anemic, I was sick all the time, my bones showed signs of thinning. And all of this happened while I was at a perfectly healthy weight/BMI for my height. I was never was overly thin by any health measure.

Eventually, after talking to several doctors, I started eating normally again, and I gained almost everything I lost back. I stayed chubby and (relatively) happy for 15 years.

When I was 39, I decided I didn't want to be fat and forty. So, I figured out my TDEE, subtracted 500 from that, so I could stay on track to lose about half a pound a week. I found I was eating anywhere from 1800-2500 calories a day (depending on my activities) and STILL losing weight at a rate of 1-2 pounds a week.

Why subsist on a low calorie diet when you can still lose the weight while enjoying even more delicious food? It was so much easier and so much better for me.

I agree. It is possible to take in a full days food 3 meals and 2 snacks and be under 1200 and have gotten all your nutrients... People do it all the time. If you plateau then switch it up a little.

"Starvation Mode" as it's commonly used on the boards, with a hard-and-fast 1200 calorie threshold is a myth. Adaptive Thermogenesis is not. The real question is- why would you want to risk hormone interruptions, muscle loss, and eat less than you need to to get results? It doesn't make sense. Everyone should be shooting to optimize their diets to eat as much as possible while getting the best possible results for the long term. Quality of life>>quick weight loss.

Ha - in one of the diets I was on years ago, 700 calories would be a cheat day. I had them fairly often because I was put on 480 calories per day. I got the weight off within a few months, sure enough, and I still had muscle because I worked out about 4 times per week. BUT the second I was off that diet I started to put the weight right back on. I think that's the real danger. Extremely low calorie diets just aren't satisfying enough for the long term, and who wants to take weight off only to put it back on again?

I can't imagine living on 480 cals a day let alone working out on top of that.... I think I would be bedridden if I lived on so few calories!

how original. a simple search of prior threads would give you everything you're looking for and more. /thread.

I think i will stick with what my DR, Dietary Nurse and Diabetes Nurse have told me. Anything less than 1200 cals a day and your body is not getting the nutrients you need. Regardless of loosing weight...it should be about being healthy.

I agree...

The topic may be over worked but I still have not seen any scientific proof of it - it is just anecdotal at best or an old wives tale at worst

I agree with this. People even get mad at me on here for bringing it up but I've STILL never seen actual proof of it.

I don't restrict below 1000 calories, I eat usually from 1300 to 1500 but that's simply because if I forced myself to go lower, I'd probably feel irritable or binge eat. I don't really think going below that would cause me to lose fat slower though, I really don't. There are people who literally fast, with juice, water, or otherwise, for 30 straight days and lose tremendous amounts of weight. They've clearly not entered starvation mode yet.

Literal starvation and a HUGE deficit are slightly different --in the absence of calories your body has NO CHOICE but to use it's fat stores. That doesn't mean your weight loss is as great as one would predict based on your estimated deficit--it usually isn't. That's adaptive thermogenesis for you. I'll be damned if I endure the agony of such a low calorie diet only for a nominal increase in my rate of weight loss--that's just silly.

I think i will stick with what my DR, Dietary Nurse and Diabetes Nurse have told me. Anything less than 1200 cals a day and your body is not getting the nutrients you need. Regardless of loosing weight...it should be about being healthy.

I agree...

Many people eat 3000 calories a day and still dont get the nutrients they need. More calories does not equal more essential vitamins/minerals/nutrients!

Doesn't necessarily mean more nutrients but the odds of getting more nutrients while eating 3000 calories is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than the odds of getting enough while eating less than 1200 calories.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

Please go and read this - and then search the seven million times this topic has been beaten to death on the site......:sick: :noway:

Who is the author of this article? Anecdotal at best & premised on a sample of 1 with absolutely no data to back it up. (But I do agree, the topic has been done to death.....)

Word^. agree with OP....