Starvation mode is a myth
Replies
-
I think someone should go get their RMR tested...that is pretty scientific & accurate I believe...then do three months eating 800 calories per day. & then get their RMR tested again. I think that would be the actual scientific proof right?
I used to eat 800 calories per day 6x a week & then one day eat 2000-3000. I lost ten pounds getting my BMI to underweight...shortly thereafter i got my RMR tested & it was normal, if not even higher than the average 1200. This was after about 6 months of MOST days being so hungry I was practically fainting & then 1 day being so full I felt like I would puke.
The problem that I had was that the entire time I was only focused on getting to a number, I wasn't really developing healthy habits or gathering good knowledge & experience in order to change my lifestyle to maintain that lower weight. I was able to stay at that lower weight maybe 6-9 months but as soon as I went back to not thinking about my weight every waking moment I gained some of it back. I'm still at a healthy weight but now I want to get back down to a lower weight where I feel more comfortable in my clothes. It is almost easier to want to drastically cut calories again than to wait & do it slowly and see results that are hopefully maintainable.
Anyway...kind of got off topic. I think my main point is that in my experience with VLCDieting the "starvation mode" itself is pretty much a myth but MAN it is NOT worth it. No healthy habits are gained in my opinion.0 -
How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.0
-
Can we discuss this and add links to scientific sites that prove your point please.
IS STARVATION MODE A MYTH? NO! STARVATION MODE IS VERY REAL AND HERE’S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF
QUESTION:
Tom, I was wondering if you had seen the 6 part e-mail series sent out by [name deleted] from [website deleted]. if you look at the last part, he basically states that “starvation mode” is a bunch of crap made up in order to sell diet programs. He didn’t mention you, but it almost sounds like he’s talking about you specifically. How do you feel about this?
ANSWER:
I’m afraid the person who wrote that article is mistaken about starvation mode. Not only does his article contain technical errors, but anyone who sees what kind of products he promotes will realize where all his biases come from if you simply read between the lines a little bit. The pot calls the kettle black.
He accuses those of us who use the term “starvation mode” as being unscientific and he even says “dont buy diet books if they mention the starvation mode.” Yet in a moment, it will become clear that he is the one who doesn’t appear very well read in the scientific literature on the effects of starvation and low calorie diets.
The effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown and there are myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (can’t happen - you’d be dead if your metabolism stopped), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).
Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.
As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.
However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documented and is not just a metabolic adaptation - it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food seeking behaviors.
Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:
Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.
Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.
Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)
Here’s one of those follow up studies:
“Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition.
Quote:
“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”
“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”
Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.
Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.
There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them - when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women.
Starvation mode is not just adaptive reduction metabolic rate - it is much more.
There IS a controversy over how much of the decrease in metabolism with weight loss is caused by starvation mode, but the case is extremely strong:
For example, this study DIRECTLY addresses the controversy over HOW MUCH of a decrease in metabolism really occurs with starvation due to adaptive thermogenesis and how much is very simply due to a loss in total body mass.
Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”
quote:
“It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”
Starvation response is even a scientific term that is used in obesity science textbooks - word for word - CONTRARY to the claim made by the expert mentioned earlier who thinks the phrase, starvation mode is “unscientific.”
Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard
(two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )
quote:
“The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”
Textbooks on nutritional biochemistry also acknowledge the decrease in metabolism and distinguish it as an adaptive mechanism, distinct from the decrease in energy expenditure that would be expected with weight loss. In this case, the author also mentions another downside of very low calorie diets: spontaneous reduction in physical activity.
Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)
Quote:
“During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.
This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”
Granted, it is more often referred to as “metabolic adaptation” or “adaptive reduction in metabolic rate.” However, starvation mode and starvation response are both terms found in the scientific literature, and they are more easily understood by the layperson, which is why I choose to use them.
Another effect of starvation mode is what happens after the diet: A sustained increase in appetite and a sustained reduction of metabolic rate that persists after the diet is over. Although controversial, this too is documented in the literature:
American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”
American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”
quote:
“Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”
and Dulloo 1998:
“The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”
By the way, this explains what some people refer to as “metabolic damage” and although this is not a scientific phrase, you can see that it too is a reality. It is the lag time between when a diet ends and when your metabolism and appetite regulating mechanisms get back to normal.
Last, but certainly not least, and perhaps the best indicator of starvation mode is the hormone LEPTIN. you could spend weeks studying leptin and still not cover all the data that has been amassed on this subject.
Leptin IS the anti starvation hormone. Some people say leptin IS the starvation mode itself because it regulates many of the negative effects that occur during starvation.
leptin is secreted mostly from fat cells and it signals your brain about your fat stores. If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases. If your calorie intake decreases, your leptin level decreases.
When leptin decreases, it essentially sounds the starvation alarm. In response, your brain (hypothalamus) sends out signals for other hormones to be released which decrease metabolic rate and increase appetite.
In summary and conclusion:
There is no debate whatsoever about the existence of starvation mode - IT EXISTS and is well documented.
There is also no debate whatsoever that metabolic rate decreases with weight loss. It happens and is well documented, and it is a reason for plateuas.
There’s really only ONE debate about starvation mode that is — HOW MUCH of the starvation mode is comprised of adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and how much is due to loss of total body mass and increased feeding behaviors?
Researchers are still debating these questions, in fact just earlier this year another study was releasd by Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”
Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:
“Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”
I respect the work that other fitness professionals are trying to do to debunk diet and fitness myths, but this fellow didn’t seem to do his homework and totally missed the boat on this article about starvation mode.
What’s really odd is that he didn’t quote a single study in his article, despite his repeated reference to “scientific research.”
If he wanted to argue against adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and chalk starvation mode up purely to increase in food seeking behaviors… and if he wanted to attribute the decreased metabolism with weight loss purely to lost body mass, he easily could have done that. But he didn’t cite ANY studies. He just expects us to take his word for it that “starvation mode is a myth,” and people like me who use the phrase starvation mode are “unscientific”
Either way you argue it - and whatever you choose to call it - “starvation response” is a scientific fact and that’s why low calorie diets are risky business and mostly just quick fixes.
The rapid weight loss in the beginning is an illusion: Starvation diets catch up with you eventually… just like other habits such as smoking appear to do no harm at first, but sooner or later the damage is done.
For years I’ve considered it so important to understand the consequences of starvation diets that my entire burn the fat program is built around helping you recover from metabolic damage from past diet mistakes, to avoid the starvation mode, or to at least keep the effects of the starvation mode to a minimum so you can lose the fat and keep the muscle.
Sincerely,
Your friend and “Burn The fat coach”
Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
www.BurnTheFat.com
On all these studies I would ask what are the Body Fat percentages at the beginning vs the end of the study and the ages and how much physical activity the test subjects were. You give none of that information.0 -
Yes people should really stop expressing concern for others and let them continue with self-destructive behaviours that will lead to permenant, irreversible damage further down the road.How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
Damn people and all their caring and facts.0 -
In all things, the fact that someone with the resources hasn't bothered to study it, does not make it true or untrue.
As a young adult, a 700 calorie diet made me super thin. As a middle aged person it does not. Why? I haven't a scientific clue. It just is. I've stopped trying to do it that way because it just doesn't work for me. I don't need a study to tell me what works for me. I'm unhappy and in a crappy mood on 700 calories too. I make lots of mental mistakes as well.
As an older adult, I'm over worrying about crap that doesn't matter. So what if the starvation thing works for you. Do it. Knock yourself out. Why are you so concerned about everyone else's thinking? As a matter of fact, go do it and write a blog or a book about your success!0 -
Why is the magic number 1200? there is no logical reason. It's such bull**** and it's sad that so many doctors and nurses encourage that.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.abstract
I suggest you all read this.0 -
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?
This right here. "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." There is a scientific study stating that you have to be really low in BF % in order to reach starvation mode. BUT I agree that the real problem is that eating lower calories is not sustainable, and your more than likely to regain it all back. I'm not saying it's healthy either, but when I was new to this lifestyle, this information would have been nice to know, even if I don't want to eat at lower calories. And I've researched online about starvation myth and there really isn't much out there about it.0 -
and starvation mode DOES exist. AFTER you have used all of your fat stores, and this only occours in most people after about 40 days with absolutley no food.0
-
As a recovering anorexic with years of experience periodically eating 0-400 cals a day, I can confirm that starvation mode is ABSOLUTELY a myth. You don't stop losing weight when you eat so little--in fact you lose at a breakneck pace if you have the willpower for it. As the OP said, it's just simply not something your body does unless you are real third-world type starving.
That being said, eating that little is a terrible idea, which is why almost all medical professionals (and mfp, either for liability or out of the same misapprehension that many here have) say not to do it. From a health standpoint, it's devastating. Women stop getting their periods, you get terrible overwhelming lethargy, you can't think, you start passing out when you have the slightest exertion. LOTS of bad bad stuff.
So yeah, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" (for modern first world mfp-ers).Your metabolism will keep on trucking just fine even if you quit eating entirely for weeks at a time. AND you will lose weight REALLY fast. But you will really screw your health, have no energy to exercise (if you pass out from the mere exertion of standing up, what do you expect) and if and when you do allow yourself to eat again you'll eat like a shipwrecked sailor who hasn't seen real food in years (or at least it's really really hard not to).
I'm with the OP. I find all the nonsense pseudo science silly. Starvation mode IS a myth, but keep it above 1000 cals anyway for your health and sanity.
Afterthought: also I'm hypothyroid. Still no "metabolism stopping from eating too little"0 -
700 calories a day is ridiculous. Unless directed by a doctor, why would anyone think of doing that?0
-
Here is some real information on low calories diets. They used them all the time in the medical field. Pre- surgery for people. They are called very low calorie diets or VLCD. There really are a lot of medical studies on this very subject. I listed two of them below.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613403
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488
During the first two-month period, the mean body weight loss in the VLCD group was 18.9 +/- 7.1 kg compared to 7.2 +/- 4.8 kg in the diet treated group, with a similar relative fat loss assessed by bioimpedance of 68% and 76% respectively. The maintained weight loss in all groups after 28 months of treatment was 10.9 +/- 10.2 kg in the 52% who completed the programme. Weight losses and drop-out rates were similar in all three groups.0 -
On all these studies I would ask what are the Body Fat percentages at the beginning vs the end of the study and the ages and how much physical activity the test subjects were. You give none of that information.
The commentary in the text provided shows for two of the studies either obese patients or patients who had experienced significant weight loss...
I have looked at the original studies some time ago now. Off the top of my head I am pretty sure they weren't conducted on participants with low BF% (say sub 10%) or particularly high levels of exercise. At least one of them is a meta analysis as I recall.0 -
Yes people should really stop expressing concern for others and let them continue with self-destructive behaviours that will lead to permenant, irreversible damage further down the road.How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
Damn people and all their caring and facts.
I seriously doubt you care about me and I seriously doubt I care about you. Might sound rude, but it is true. If you haven't realized it yet, "facts" are nonsense unless they prove to be true for you. Are you personally suffering from starvation mode? From what I can tell, you aren't and I'm not either. But not that I care about you.0 -
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?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.
^^THIS!!!0 -
As a recovering anorexic with years of experience eating 0-400 cals a day, I can confirm that starvation mode is ABSOLUTELY a my thy. You don't stop losing weight when you eat so little
This is true but this...So yeah, there's no such thing as "starvation mode"--your metabolism will keep on trucking just fine even if you quit eating entirely.
Is nonsense. Your metabolic rate will not keep on trucking "just fine" in the face of prolonged or overly steep calorie deprivation. That's rather the point. It doesn't stop fat loss but makes the process more inefficient and harder then it has to be.0 -
Starvation mode is a myth, but adaptive thermogenesis is not.
The larger point to be made is why would anyone want to sacrifice their muscles, organs, and bone density just to bring their total body weight down as quickly as possible? Burn fat, maintain LBM, be healthy.0 -
On all these studies I would ask what are the Body Fat percentages at the beginning vs the end of the study and the ages and how much physical activity the test subjects were. You give none of that information.
The commentary in the text provided shows for two of the studies either obese patients or patients who had experienced significant weight loss...
I have looked at the original studies some time ago now. Off the top of my head I am pretty sure they weren't conducted on participants with low BF% (say sub 10%) or particularly high levels of exercise. At least one of them is a meta analysis as I recall.
Who in their right mind would eat 500 or less calories a day at 10% BF? Unless you were on a cycle or doing the muscle sparing modified fast of some sort. Your body would eat the protein first then a little fat (muscle first fat second). I know with all the work I put into building that muscle I wouldn't take the chance of doing that myself.0 -
If you chose to lose '2 lbs/week' on MFP, It gives EVERYONE 1200 calories (almost). For 90% of people this is NOT enough but for some people IT IS.
When you go for long periods not eating enough then your body eventually 'adjusts' and compensates for the lack of energy it is being fed by instigating a metabolic slow down. The slower your metabolism is the longer it takes to lose weight. The more time you hit plateaus the more you try to exercise then eat even less. If you are not feeling hungry eating less than your BMR it is because your body has slowed your metabolism and NOT because you are actually eating enough.
Your BMR is the very FEWEST calories you should ever eat if you were laying in bed all day doing absolutely nothing. SOME people have VERY LOW BMR's but most people do NOT. Most people who have been successful in losing weight here and most importantly KEEPING IT OFF will tell you that eating at a small cut (10 - 20% depending on how much you have to lose) below your TDEE is what will work and not just eating 1200 or whatever MFP tells you.
If you eat less than your BMR for prolonged periods your metabolism WILL eventually slow down and weight loss also slows down..Then the threads start... Why can't I lose weight..what's wrong..look at the top 10 threads right now.. almost every one of them is someone who is NOT eating enough and crying because they have stalled...0 -
I actually do. Not in a very personal sense, but I try to ensure people see the flip side of what they're doing so they don't harm themselves. I hate to be a bystander and not at least try to make people aware of the risks of what they're doing. It's the same for a lot of the people that post regularly here that are anti-low low calories.
Yes people should really stop expressing concern for others and let them continue with self-destructive behaviours that will lead to permenant, irreversible damage further down the road.How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
Damn people and all their caring and facts.
I seriously doubt you care about me and I seriously doubt I care about you. Might sound rude, but it is true. If you haven't realized it yet, "facts" are nonsense unless they prove to be true for you. Are you personally suffering from starvation mode? From what I can tell, you aren't and I'm not either. But not that I care about you.
To clarify, 'starvation mode' is a term applied to many different things here and in of itself, is meaningless. Your metabolism slows down more the less you eat, and so does your weightloss as a result - up to the point where you're eating below what your body needs for basic functions and begins to take energy from muscle and organ tissue to compensate. Only so much fat can be metabolised. This can lead to long term degenerative diseases like osteoperosis. Something a lot of the eldery deal with now, having dealt with long periods of low food availability.
The facts are not nonsense at all, just because you don't THINK they apply to you. Unless you come from Planet Zarg, you're a human with a human body just like anyone else. While the specific numbers may vary from person to person, the maths, the science is consistent for us all. Some people have disorders that alter metabolic function. That just changes the numbers.0 -
You are dead on here. In order for ME to get PERMANENT weight loss, it needs to be sustainable. Why go super low when I'm losing a healthy pound a week? I did find less than 1300 kind of slowed down my loss (not sure if it was "starvation" or not), and I did feel a lot hungrier, so I couldn't sustain it.
Go by what your body tells you, and what you can honestly LIVE with. If I can occasionally have a glass of wine and small amount of chocolate, I can do this FOREVER!! And that's what I want to do! Not a "diet" where I'll gain it all back like I've done SO many times.
Find your sweet spot of small indulgences and healthy weight loss rate, and you're golden. Sustainability is the key.0 -
Here is some real information on low calories diets. They used them all the time in the medical field. Pre- surgery for people. They are called very low calorie diets or VLCD. There really are a lot of medical studies on this very subject. I listed two of them below.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613403
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488
During the first two-month period, the mean body weight loss in the VLCD group was 18.9 +/- 7.1 kg compared to 7.2 +/- 4.8 kg in the diet treated group, with a similar relative fat loss assessed by bioimpedance of 68% and 76% respectively. The maintained weight loss in all groups after 28 months of treatment was 10.9 +/- 10.2 kg in the 52% who completed the programme. Weight losses and drop-out rates were similar in all three groups.
Both studies were on obese peeps - they have a significat amount of fat stores and will react much more favorably to a VLCD. Also, in the second study, and according to the extract you have quoted and unless I am reading this wrong, fat loss was higher in the non-VLCD. As total weight loss was was higher in the VLCD group, this indicated a much higher loss of LBM.0 -
Yes, you are correct these studies were on obese people I think greater then 30% BMI. I was looking for the study I read a while back about a VLCD using 100g of protein a day. So 400 out of 500 calories where from protein. Doing this reduced the muscle loss from the VLCD. With the same fat loss, but again most of these studies are done on obese people.0
-
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
THAT IS GREAT! I assume you are getting the word out to your pre-diabetic and diabetic patients? I'm sure you know about all the pre-diabetic and diabetic patients that are being put on "no-fat" diets. After he was diagnosed with Type II, my brother was placed on a no-fat diet and, while he lost weight, his blood sugar numbers continued to climb to the point where he was placed on insulin injections. Of course, it didn't help that he would sit down to a "snack" of a whole package of Snackwell cookies (fat-free) and two glasses of skim milk. :noway: 0 -
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:
Every one on here has been here different amounts of time. By acting like this post is an inconvenience is rude. The link alone would have been handy but the "then Search the seven million times this topic has been beaten to death on this site" is uncalled for. The OP could very well be in their firt days on MFP and is entitled to start a new thread regarding their question. Maybe presentation should be something YOU work on. Suggesting the OP to search other threads that may be helpful would have been nice. Your approach was rude and discouraging. If you feel the topic is something that has been beaten to death on here, then SKIP IT and don't post. This is supposed to help not belittle people into feeling they asked something "stupid".0 -
It is not life sustainable to eat under 1200 calories. I saw a couple of posts people made and said they were on a DIET which is terrible in the first place, eating less than 1200 calories. It is crazy!! Your body is most definitely going to store fat because it needs to save energy! Think about it, it only makes sense. Make your "diet" a healthy lifestyle change, by eating clean and healthy foods and controlling your portions. When it comes to calories, I suggest that you do not eat under 1200 calories because after (or even if, since your body will store some fat) you lose that weight from starving yourself, your going to eat more, gaining it back. Do it the healthy way.
-I am a personal trainer and went to school for this, I know that there are lots of debates and everyone has their own theories but i definitely stand by this. Plus i lovee talking about fitness and nutrition 0 -
There is one famous Russian ballerina, a legend of Russian ballet - Maya Plisetskaya. When she was asked how to lose weight, she answered "Simply shut your mouth". She and other Russian ballet professionals "simply keep their mouth shut" while extreme physical activities. They have maybe 1200 cal, but I'm pretty sure they have less. And when they need to lose weight, they eat much less.
According to the "starvation mode" ideas, they'd be fatties.0 -
Pretty sure its a real thing considering how many experts, doctors, etcetera have been involved in the study of this. Thats my only piece of advice. Just shut up and do what you want.0
-
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
THAT IS GREAT! I assume you are getting the word out to your pre-diabetic and diabetic patients? I'm sure you know about all the pre-diabetic and diabetic patients that are being put on "no-fat" diets. After he was diagnosed with Type II, my brother was placed on a no-fat diet and, while he lost weight, his blood sugar numbers continued to climb to the point where he was placed on insulin injections. Of course, it didn't help that he would sit down to a "snack" of a whole package of Snackwell cookies (fat-free) and two glasses of skim milk. :noway:
I don't know where you live or where your brother recieved medical treatment and education regarding managing his diabetes, but no Registered Dietitian (or any other decent healthcare professional working with diabetics) would recommend a "No-Fat" diet. The current standards for medical nutrition therapy with diabetes is between 25-35% of calories coming from fat (in some cases up to 40%) with a focus on increasing monounsaturated and omega-3 and decreasing Trans fats. Might want to consider who told him that and question their ability to manage his health with regard to the diabetes.0 -
Someone actually said this: "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. "
I say- Sure, if you're taking vitamins and supplements.0 -
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
THAT IS GREAT! I assume you are getting the word out to your pre-diabetic and diabetic patients? I'm sure you know about all the pre-diabetic and diabetic patients that are being put on "no-fat" diets. After he was diagnosed with Type II, my brother was placed on a no-fat diet and, while he lost weight, his blood sugar numbers continued to climb to the point where he was placed on insulin injections. Of course, it didn't help that he would sit down to a "snack" of a whole package of Snackwell cookies (fat-free) and two glasses of skim milk. :noway:
I don't know where you live or where your brother recieved medical treatment and education regarding managing his diabetes, but no Registered Dietitian (or any other decent healthcare professional working with diabetics) would recommend a "No-Fat" diet. The current standards for medical nutrition therapy with diabetes is between 25-35% of calories coming from fat (in some cases up to 40%) with a focus on increasing monounsaturated and omega-3 and decreasing Trans fats. Might want to consider who told him that and question their ability to manage his health with regard to the diabetes.
He was diagnosed about 15 years ago (and was put on a very low-fat diet---he bought as many "fat-free" foods as he could. He still does and he eats Honey Nut Cheerios (or some other low-fiber/high carb cereal) with skim milk every morning for breakfast along with two pieces of white bread toast and "fat-free" margarine. Similar choices for the rest of the day. He usually finishes the day with "fat-free" ice cream. This is the diet his G.P. put him on---and still recommends apparently. I have tried to convince him that he should follow a different diet but no sale. I think this dietary misadventure is fairly common. I was just speaking with a woman last week whose diabetic husband was placed on a similar diet. She said that he has lost a fair amount of weight---that's all his doctor has focused on. Apparently, their thinking is that obesity causes Type II diabetes and if you get rid of the obesity you will presumably get rid of the diabetes. The newer thinking of blood sugar problems causing both obesity and diabetes has not reached them as of yet.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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