Starvation Mode Myths and Science
Options
Replies
-
great post!
thanks for the info!0 -
Good stuff here.0
-
Any information on how this relates to the reported "Life Extending" benefits of an ultra low calorie diet?
those regimes typically have you at about 1800 cals/day. not 1200!
All "studies" on extending life have been done on animals. So it's difficult to draw direct comparisons. There was an earlier study completed that seemed to show low calorie would extend life. However, a new long term study just completed and showed no difference in life extension. Obviously, no one's saying quality of life is not a lot better as a healthier person. Just that eating low calorie for the pure goal of life extension is probably not a good idea, as the evidence is so far mixed (or, not a lot of evidence showing it extends life).
Recent article on it if anyone wants to read some of the details: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html?_r=00 -
Any information on how this relates to the reported "Life Extending" benefits of an ultra low calorie diet?
those regimes typically have you at about 1800 cals/day. not 1200!
All "studies" on extending life have been done on animals. So it's difficult to draw direct comparisons. There was an earlier study completed that seemed to show low calorie would extend life. However, a new long term study just completed and showed no difference in life extension. Obviously, no one's saying quality of life is not a lot better as a healthier person. Just that eating low calorie for the pure goal of life extension is probably not a good idea, as the evidence is so far mixed (or, not a lot of evidence
showing it extends life).
Recent article on it if anyone wants to read some of the details: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html?_r=0
I'll read this article later but was curious if the reason it is said to possibly increase life span is because eating low-cal forces you to make better food choices? I was interested in what another poster also said about NYT article how hungry people learned to love apples and I think this resonates for me. 1200 is a mental game of good food choices for me. If I go over but with good choices, I don't care.0 -
Thank you for the intelligent post, it helped me a lot.0
-
True, but... which one would you rather have?Oh, and I agree that the whole one or two days of eating well below your caloric target does not induce "starvation mode". Kinda silly.
Almost as silly as "muscle weighs more than fat". A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh. . . .a pound!
0 -
Interesting stuff! The post hit on something that always bothered me about the eating more to lose more fat idea that is so ubiquitous on boards like these. Yes, the body will down-regulate metabolism in response to calorie restriction, but never enough to offset the calorie restriction. So when someone complains they are gaining weight on a 1200 calorie diet, and the advice is to increase calories, it's like advising a person running out of gas to floor the accelerator.... sort of. The increase in calories may increase your metabolism, but that will be more than offset by the increase in calories.
On the other hand, a lot of people seem to buy this, and claim that increasing calories did put them back on track to fat loss. Enough that, although it's hard for me to understand how the arithmetic would work out, I wonder if it can be completely accounted for by the ubiquity of bro-science.
Usually when I hear someone complain they are eating at very low calorie levels and failing to lose weight or gaining, my first thought is either that they are miscalculating their calories or having water retention fluctuations.
Who knows. So far my weight loss is going by the numbers so I guess I can't complain too much. The thing I really like about mfp and getting quantitative on everything is that, for the most part, it has eliminated any surprises. Nothing more irritating than thinking you're doing all the right stuff and not seeing the results you want.0 -
Interesting stuff! The post hit on something that always bothered me about the eating more to lose more fat idea that is so ubiquitous on boards like these. Yes, the body will down-regulate metabolism in response to calorie restriction, but never enough to offset the calorie restriction. So when someone complains they are gaining weight on a 1200 calorie diet, and the advice is to increase calories, it's like advising a person running out of gas to floor the accelerator.... sort of. The increase in calories may increase your metabolism, but that will be more than offset by the increase in calories.
On the other hand, a lot of people seem to buy this, and claim that increasing calories did put them back on track to fat loss. Enough that, although it's hard for me to understand how the arithmetic would work out, I wonder if it can be completely accounted for by the ubiquity of bro-science.
Usually when I hear someone complain they are eating at very low calorie levels and failing to lose weight or gaining, my first thought is either that they are miscalculating their calories or having water retention fluctuations.
Who knows. So far my weight loss is going by the numbers so I guess I can't complain too much. The thing I really like about mfp and getting quantitative on everything is that, for the most part, it has eliminated any surprises. Nothing more irritating than thinking you're doing all the right stuff and not seeing the results you want.
When people tell others to eat more, they are not telling them to eat as much as they would like. That would clearly make no sense. They are telling them to do some research, determine their BMR and TDEE, and eat between those numbers. If you eat less than TDEE, you should lose.0 -
Interesting stuff! The post hit on something that always bothered me about the eating more to lose more fat idea that is so ubiquitous on boards like these. Yes, the body will down-regulate metabolism in response to calorie restriction, but never enough to offset the calorie restriction. So when someone complains they are gaining weight on a 1200 calorie diet, and the advice is to increase calories, it's like advising a person running out of gas to floor the accelerator.... sort of. The increase in calories may increase your metabolism, but that will be more than offset by the increase in calories.
On the other hand, a lot of people seem to buy this, and claim that increasing calories did put them back on track to fat loss. Enough that, although it's hard for me to understand how the arithmetic would work out, I wonder if it can be completely accounted for by the ubiquity of bro-science.
Usually when I hear someone complain they are eating at very low calorie levels and failing to lose weight or gaining, my first thought is either that they are miscalculating their calories or having water retention fluctuations.
Who knows. So far my weight loss is going by the numbers so I guess I can't complain too much. The thing I really like about mfp and getting quantitative on everything is that, for the most part, it has eliminated any surprises. Nothing more irritating than thinking you're doing all the right stuff and not seeing the results you want.
When people tell others to eat more, they are not telling them to eat as much as they would like. That would clearly make no sense. They are telling them to do some research, determine their BMR and TDEE, and eat between those numbers. If you eat less than TDEE, you should lose.
I get that. I just don't understand how this advice can ever result in greater fat loss if the increase in metabolism is more than offset by the calories themselves.0 -
The big thing about starvation mode and calories is that when you are low on blood sugar it also affects your brain and how you feel. Most overweight people actually overeat when they feel low. So if you make your self feel low, you will actually crave more food than you would have done otherwise.0
-
Bump0
-
0 -
It's a shame Keys only studied healthy young men, where are the studies on women? Nutrition does affect us differently, hormones and so on...0
-
Sorry not big on Mr. Keys as he blamed saturated fat on heart disease, messed up with his cholesterol myth, and so on.0
-
Zombie thread needs braaaiiiinnnnnzzz.0
-
WOW GREAT INFORMATION THANKS.:flowerforyou:0
-
I loved your post and totally agree, people overuse starvation mode way too much. As someone who did 24 hour fasts twice a week for a year and saw results I can tell you metabolism never slowed and I did not 'hold onto fat'.0
-
Zombie thread needs braaaiiiinnnnnzzz.
:bow:0 -
Always love good info...thanks!0
-
My understanding of the starvation mode was not that it was to do with calorie intake but overall nutritional intake- ie your body goes in to so called starvation mode, holding on to fat and extracting more fat from foodstuffs when it is deficient in some nutrient or other rather than deficient in calories. I've not researched it but it may be the case that someone who increases calories sees a weight reduction because they have co-incidentally increased a particular nutrient in to the diet. For example, if dairy products have been prominent in the additional calories there will be an increase in calcium in the diet which (in combination with vit D) aids the body in metabolising fat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions