THE BIG STARVATION MODE MYTH.
Replies
-
this is a joke right+you need carbs
not really.
i'm not arguing this
your body requires carbs, and it requires ~30-50% of your intake to be from carbs, according to the grand majority of doctors and nutritionists.0 -
dammit. people on this forum have an honest obsession with Lyle McDonald. I don't get it. He is theoretically right on everything, and has the science to back it up. However, most people on this website would have a very very hard time applying his knowledge with any kind of success. How do you tell a 300lb woman that sugar is not bad without her taking it to mean cupcake time? How do you tell a bodybuilder who has been gathering his own anecdotal evidence for a decade that doing 30 reps to failure is the same as doing 10? What do crossectional muscular glycogen analysis have to do with moms trying to lose post baby weight?
I really hate it when people fall into the trap of expertise. Because for every Lyle there is, there are those that are equally qualified and knowledgeable that dispute him on things. This is the performance nutrition industry, and nothing is certain. The research is funded by supplement companies, poorly designed, and lacks any and all real impartial study. Furthermore, if impartial study is actually achieved with good sampling, research parameters, time frame of study, you still have to worry about sample composition, whether test subjects associate with your personal case, and whether the study yielded any affirmative or negative result (usually the case is that it just gives us the answer "sometimes this is true under stringent circumstances", or "we still don't know").
My advice to you is this. There is a reason Lyle McDonald gets crippled by depression every few years. He's a thinker, and quite a genius..but this is folly for the average dieter to follow. If you've trained and studied these subjects for a decade, you may understand what he is talking about and be able to apply the concepts with real world results. Otherwise, you're truly, truly wasting your time.0 -
When I eventually ragequit MFP, this thread (and others like it) will be one of the main reasons.
ETA:
this is a joke right+you need carbs
not really.
i'm not arguing this
your body requires carbs, and it requires ~30-50% of your intake to be from carbs, according to the grand majority of doctors and nutritionists.
My body requires 30-50% of my intake to be from carbs?
*facepalm*0 -
Beware of the trolls!
Starvation mode is a real thing, although, it seems to be misunderstood and/or way overblown in this "community." In fact, starvation mode, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the reasons humans were such good survivors back in the days before civilization and modern technology. So, the point is the environment has to be considered. Most of us on here are most likely fortunate enough to never have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. In fact, a lot of us have more food at our disposal than know what to do with. So, as a side effect, some of us became overweight or obese. People who are very overweight and obese most likely don't have to worry about starvation mode any time soon. In fact, if you are obese and are serious about losing weight, I suggest seeing a trained professional such as a medical doctor in the field or a dietician. Don't listen to people in the internet like me!
For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. And I know people are going to be screaming at me about citing specific studies or scientific papers. However, let's just forget the science and think practically. I think most of us (who are not obese) want to be able to enjoy eating as much food as possible while still being about to lose or maintain weight. I like to call it the sweet spot. So, for me at least, the whole starvation mode argument is a moot point. I'm not looking to become a fitness model overnight. I just want to be healthy and feel good, and maybe get a six pack one day. So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight.
That's just my philosophy. Take it or leave it.
You know, I frequent another forum on the internet, it is nothing to do with dieting and weightloss but to do with conspiracies and everytime there are people replying to threads on there that others disagree with, they love to use the word "troll" and the sentence "beware of the trolls".
People who disagree are not trolls, they just merely disagree.
Now regarding the bolded bit above from your quoted post: No, starvation mode will not come into play, if it did, nobody would ever reach their goal who had stuck to their original calorie plan. You don't want science brought into the argument lest it proves your own theory wrong, no problem with that, but it is just your opinion and there is also no problem with that, providing you don't mind other people having theirs.
Regarding losing weight on maintenance calorie levels, that is pointless to me as it would keep me at the same weight as it is not a deficit. That is what maintenance level is meant to be after all isn't it - maintaining one's weight.
Yes, unfortunately there really are trolls that have nothing to do but get everyone riled up for their own entertainment. People do this in real life too. However, I have no problem with people genuinely disagreeing with me. That was not the intention of my comment. It was more just for entertainment purposes. I find it ironic that you read into it so much.
I've learned that, with some topics, arguing is pointless and a waste of time. Most people get so obsessed with being "right" that they miss an opportunity to learn something. I am not going to waste my time trying to dig up reasearch just to proved to someone on the Internet that I am "right." If you see that as a "win" then hurray for you. I have come a long way and learned a lot with this philosophy so I am fine with "losing."
And I never said that I eat at maintenance. I just set my calorie goal to that so I know to not go over. I think you missed the point. Oh well. Sorry for trying to be reasonable.0 -
When I eventually ragequit MFP, this thread (and others like it) will be one of the main reasons.
Yup. I am getting tired of beating my head against the wall. It is hard to sit back and see people getting bizarre advice and not say anything. Sometimes people need the tough answer that their numbers have to be wrong and that is why they aren't losing. But no, the "starvation mode" folks swoop in and tell them they must be stalled due to that and suggest they use an even bigger number to target. When someone with a BMI of 30 or more says they are eating 1200 or less calories per day and not losing weight, odds are at least 10 to 1 that they are eating well over 1200.0 -
It all depends in your personal circumstances, body type, height, sex, activity levels etc. i felt unwell on 1200 and even 1500 I found I lose well and feel well between 1500 and 1800 so why be so strict with calories when u can still lose with a more sustainable approach.
Why u r assuming ppl r jealous and they dont want others to lose weight is beyond me they just have a different approach and opinion and shared it with you. You dont have to take anyone's advice or agree with their opinion in weight loss do what works for you it's not rocket science and btw there is no conspiracy either.0 -
ummm what???To keep your metab up on a low calorie intake is to get at least 8 hours of sleep and eat 6 times a day and i will stand by that but their is no reason why you cant do that. I don't people got obese from eating less no that's not the way it is never was never will be. And the starvation mode is when your metab slows down so go for a walk that should speed it up too. but Regardless you will lose all the weight you need because your in a Calorie Defiant. OMG i just ate lettuce today and that's it that's my new diet I lost weight hey you lose weight HOW from eating less. people you see who actually get success long term their eating less not more. less.
Meal timing has nothing to do with metabolism...you can eat six times, four times, or 24 times day and there is no benefit to metabolism...
the rest of what you typed makes no sense...
got for a walk to speed your metab up, really? What is metab, a pill?0 -
To keep your metab up on a low calorie intake is to get at least 8 hours of sleep and eat 6 times a day and i will stand by that but their is no reason why you cant do that. I don't people got obese from eating less no that's not the way it is never was never will be. And the starvation mode is when your metab slows down so go for a walk that should speed it up too. but Regardless you will lose all the weight you need because your in a Calorie Defiant. OMG i just ate lettuce today and that's it that's my new diet I lost weight hey you lose weight HOW from eating less. people you see who actually get success long term their eating less not more. less.
Translator? Anyone?
Serious.
translation = eat six meals a day and go for walks to speed up metab....bahahahahahahahaha
I think that was in the new England journal of medicine..0 -
My dear fellow MFPers,To keep your metab up on a low calorie intake is to get at least 8 hours of sleep and eat 6 times a day and i will stand by that but their is no reason why you cant do that. I don't people got obese from eating less no that's not the way it is never was never will be. And the starvation mode is when your metab slows down so go for a walk that should speed it up too. but Regardless you will lose all the weight you need because your in a Calorie Defiant. OMG i just ate lettuce today and that's it that's my new diet I lost weight hey you lose weight HOW from eating less. people you see who actually get success long term their eating less not more. less.
Translator? Anyone?
To keep your metabolism up while you are on a low caloric intake, the best way would be to get at least 8 hours of sleep, and consume at least 6 meals a day, and I will stand by that. However, there is no reason why you can't do so in another way. People in the world did not become obese from eating less calories than what perhaps you feel they should, as that is not the proper way, either now, or ever. The starvation mode is what people call it when your metabolism slows down, so what you should do instead is to partake in a walk, or other brisk exercise that will speed your metabolism back to it's proper speed. Regardless, you shall still lose weight because you are continuing to eat at a calorie deficit. My lord in heaven, I just ate a piece of greenery, in this instance a single leaf of lettuc, and that's my new diet, and I have happened to shed a few pounds. Forsooth, you lose weight from eating less, hence when you see people who have success in a long term standing, it is because of this.
*note - These are not my views, and are the views of the poster.
good translation but it is still BS...0 -
Im not saying that to eat 1200 im saying their is no such thing as the damn starvation mode.
While you are exerting your superhuman will power you should note that as your body burns fat it will burn muscle too. Muscle is more metabolically active than fat and puts higher demands on the body than fat tissue. Yes, you will lose fat but you will also lose muscle, especially on a high deficit for an extended period of time. Your metabolic rate will slow down. This is what people mean when they talk about starvation mode. You can believe it doesn't exist all you want but it does in this context. There are things you can do to minimize the amount of muscle that you will lose while dieting but it is just how the body works. Anatomy and Physiology 101.
sorry but you have to eat nothing for 72 hours to go into true starvation mode and even then the initial effects are minimal...0 -
I agree with you... and the only way I have ever been able to lose weight was to severely restrict my calorie intake. If I ate as many calories as some of the diets say, I would weigh 300 pounds. I have always eaten pretty healthy. Granted, I splurge on special occasions, but I am not a junk food, snack food person. I actually saw on Dr. Oz about the fat gene and I totally believe it now. My entire mother's side of her family were big people and my mother and grandmother were not big eaters. Granted, they didn't exercise much, but to weigh as much as they did, didn't make any sense.
Dr. Oz had a DNA laboratory test you could send for to test your DNA and see if your genetic makeup contained one of the "fat genes" so I decided to give it a try. Sure enough... what I thought along came back as true. It broke down my DNA and even gave the gene sequences and, in conclusion, said with my genetic makeup and the "fat gene" that I had, I had to severely restrict my calorie intake while combining it with intense exercising! DUH! While I had been saying this all along, it was a relief to finally have proof. The older I have gotten, the harder and harder it is to lose. Last year, I joined the gym and started working out 6-7 days a week for at least 1 (oftentimes 2 hrs. a day). I ate the same... since I wasn't eating much to begin with... and I did lose about 15 lbs... but after 4+ months, I was so depressed. I felt like my entire life was getting up at 4:00 am, going to work, going to gym right from work, getting home at 6:30 or 7:00, showering, grabbing a bite to eat and going to bed. I was not having any fun, let alone not spending any time with my husband. Granted, I felt really good about myself... but I wanted to come home from work and spend time with my hubby in our yard, watching the animals... I finally burnt out and now have gained what I lost plus another 8 lbs, which is sooo frustrating. I even have seen several health reports on television where the people who severely limit their caloric intake, i.e., mainly eating salads, etc., do much better health wise.
I stopped at "Dr. Oz..."0 -
I think it is about being able to sustain a healthy lifestyle. Health is the key word. Oh and this is not coming from someone who can't control stuffing their face. I am at my goal weight. But I did not have to come off a diet. I changed my lifestyle which includes eating healthy and working out. So for me I don't have to overthink anything or worry about when I stop a "diet" that the weight will come back. Yes eating any kind of deficit will result in weight loss. The question is if the deficit is so big is it sustainable for life.0
-
dammit. people on this forum have an honest obsession with Lyle McDonald. I don't get it. He is theoretically right on everything, and has the science to back it up.
why do ppl like him so much? omg0 -
.82-1.5 per bw. it wasn't meant for an obese person. It is the safe zone in studies that showed no renal impairment
that's what my trainer/nutritionist told me, and i have only seen a+ results since.keep your protein intake at ~0.85g - 1.5g per lb of body fat
Really ?
nope
editted to say, 1.5g of protein per POUND OF BODY FAT??? lmao, could you imagione how many chickens a 350 pound person would have to eat???
the fatter ther person is the less protein they need.
It is due to fuel availability.0 -
Not this AGAIN0
-
For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. And I know people are going to be screaming at me about citing specific studies or scientific papers. However, let's just forget the science and think practically. I think most of us (who are not obese) want to be able to enjoy eating as much food as possible while still being about to lose or maintain weight. I like to call it the sweet spot. So, for me at least, the whole starvation mode argument is a moot point. I'm not looking to become a fitness model overnight. I just want to be healthy and feel good, and maybe get a six pack one day. So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight.
That's just my philosophy. Take it or leave it.
lol @ 5-10 lbs.
those are single digit bodyfat numbers and your practical thinking is wron. so is your philosophy because you are refusing to listen to science.0 -
Thank goodness... Someone to speak common sense. I have pondered over this for some time but u have just made my mind up. How would u shed fat if you eat back what u have burned off.0
-
lack of food can cause the body to go into starvation mode, or starvation response, according to an article in the March 2006 edition of the journal "Annual Review of Physiology." Starvation mode is a metabolic response to the body being deprived of food, which may occur during periods of famine or economic depression, when using a fad diet, or when suffering from anorexia nervosa. A variety of specific signs and symptoms affect those whose body has gone into starvation mode.
Physiological Symptoms
Reducing calories to a very low level prevents the body from obtaining proper nutrients and energy, according to the "Annual Review of Physiology" article. As a result, fatigue is common because the body does not have ample energy to function. The body breaks down muscles to be used as fuel as it attempts to keep vital organs like the heart and lungs functioning. Vitamin deficiency is another result of a lack of nutrients, and can lead to anemia, diarrhea, rashes, edema and heart failure. Testosterone levels decrease during starvation mode, so sexual drive also decreases. The primary drive in a food-deprived body is to eat to regain energy and nutrition, not to reproduce. In women, irregular menstruation or a complete absence of a menstrual cycle may occur.
advertisement
Depression and Anxiety
In a landmark study by Dr. Ancel Keys, published in the book "The Biology of Human Starvation", subjects who were place on a starvation diet experienced psychological changes. Depression was one such symptom. Dr. Keys found that those who ate the least calories were the most depressed. Anxiety is another psychological symptom of not consuming enough calories. Dr. Keys noted nervousness and impatience among the participants in the study. Some people even avoided eating because they were fearful of gaining weight.
Food Obsession
Food obsession is another symptom of starvation mode, as found in Dr. Keys' study. The deprived body focuses on food because it needs the energy and nutrients to survive. A person in starvation mode may spend much time talking about food, thinking about food and searching for food. In developed countries, people in starvation mode -- such as dieters or people with anorexia nevosa -- may also spend much time watching cooking shows, looking at recipes or shopping for food.
Weight Regain
According to study in the March 2001 issue of the "British Journal of Nutrition," a reduction in the intake of food leads to a reduced metabolic rate, or a decreased rate in burning calories. This decrease in metabolic rate increases as the person loses weight. Once a person begins to eat more, he often experiences increased appetite while his metabolic rate stays at a low level, according to a study conducted by Dr. Abdul Dulloo that was reported in the March 1997 issue of "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition." As a result, the person often regains all the lost weight and may even gain more weight than when the starvation started. The weight that is put on is mostly fat tissue, noted Dulloo.0 -
Some guys did a study
Haha!!
lol..this..0 -
For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. And I know people are going to be screaming at me about citing specific studies or scientific papers. However, let's just forget the science and think practically. I think most of us (who are not obese) want to be able to enjoy eating as much food as possible while still being about to lose or maintain weight. I like to call it the sweet spot. So, for me at least, the whole starvation mode argument is a moot point. I'm not looking to become a fitness model overnight. I just want to be healthy and feel good, and maybe get a six pack one day. So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight.
That's just my philosophy. Take it or leave it.
lol @ 5-10 lbs.
those are single digit bodyfat numbers and your practical thinking is wron. so is your philosophy because you are refusing to listen to science.
Then break it down. I am ignorant and want to learn. Although, my philosophy has worked for me, so you're statement is irrelevant. Also, I am not "refusing to listen to science." I was merely offering a different perspective on the issue. I look into the science whenever I have a chance.
Please teach me!0 -
Thank goodness... Someone to speak common sense. I have pondered over this for some time but u have just made my mind up. How would u shed fat if you eat back what u have burned off.
Because the calorie deficit is already in the base target amount.0 -
Beware of the trolls!
Starvation mode is a real thing, although, it seems to be misunderstood and/or way overblown in this "community." In fact, starvation mode, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the reasons humans were such good survivors back in the days before civilization and modern technology. So, the point is the environment has to be considered. Most of us on here are most likely fortunate enough to never have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. In fact, a lot of us have more food at our disposal than know what to do with. So, as a side effect, some of us became overweight or obese. People who are very overweight and obese most likely don't have to worry about starvation mode any time soon. In fact, if you are obese and are serious about losing weight, I suggest seeing a trained professional such as a medical doctor in the field or a dietician. Don't listen to people in the internet like me!
For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. And I know people are going to be screaming at me about citing specific studies or scientific papers. However, let's just forget the science and think practically. I think most of us (who are not obese) want to be able to enjoy eating as much food as possible while still being about to lose or maintain weight. I like to call it the sweet spot. So, for me at least, the whole starvation mode argument is a moot point. I'm not looking to become a fitness model overnight. I just want to be healthy and feel good, and maybe get a six pack one day. So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight.
That's just my philosophy. Take it or leave it.
You know, I frequent another forum on the internet, it is nothing to do with dieting and weightloss but to do with conspiracies and everytime there are people replying to threads on there that others disagree with, they love to use the word "troll" and the sentence "beware of the trolls".
People who disagree are not trolls, they just merely disagree.
Now regarding the bolded bit above from your quoted post: No, starvation mode will not come into play, if it did, nobody would ever reach their goal who had stuck to their original calorie plan. You don't want science brought into the argument lest it proves your own theory wrong, no problem with that, but it is just your opinion and there is also no problem with that, providing you don't mind other people having theirs.
Regarding losing weight on maintenance calorie levels, that is pointless to me as it would keep me at the same weight as it is not a deficit. That is what maintenance level is meant to be after all isn't it - maintaining one's weight.
Yes, unfortunately there really are trolls that have nothing to do but get everyone riled up for their own entertainment. People do this in real life too. However, I have no problem with people genuinely disagreeing with me. That was not the intention of my comment. It was more just for entertainment purposes. I find it ironic that you read into it so much.
I've learned that, with some topics, arguing is pointless and a waste of time. Most people get so obsessed with being "right" that they miss an opportunity to learn something. I am not going to waste my time trying to dig up reasearch just to proved to someone on the Internet that I am "right." If you see that as a "win" then hurray for you. I have come a long way and learned a lot with this philosophy so I am fine with "losing."
And I never said that I eat at maintenance. I just set my calorie goal to that so I know to not go over. I think you missed the point. Oh well. Sorry for trying to be reasonable.
I read into it what you put into it, however, because of your choice of wording, you open yourself up to being misunderstood. Regarding the maintenance bit, you said "So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight." - that is the perfect thing to do if somebody is already at maintenance, the misunderstanding came when you said first of all For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. - I therefore, thought you meant you stuck your calories at maintenance whilst still trying to lose the last 5-10lbs. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, some topics are a waste of time arguing about, the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.
btw nothing wrong with spending some time trying to dig up some research, it makes your opinions more credible and people will be much more willing to take the ideas on board. However, if it is something that has no credible research or scientific evidence, then it can border on bro-science and bro-science is exactly what we should all be aiming to get away from.
No offence meant and hopefully there are no hard feelings.0 -
Beware of the trolls!
Starvation mode is a real thing, although, it seems to be misunderstood and/or way overblown in this "community." In fact, starvation mode, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the reasons humans were such good survivors back in the days before civilization and modern technology. So, the point is the environment has to be considered. Most of us on here are most likely fortunate enough to never have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. In fact, a lot of us have more food at our disposal than know what to do with. So, as a side effect, some of us became overweight or obese. People who are very overweight and obese most likely don't have to worry about starvation mode any time soon. In fact, if you are obese and are serious about losing weight, I suggest seeing a trained professional such as a medical doctor in the field or a dietician. Don't listen to people in the internet like me!
For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. And I know people are going to be screaming at me about citing specific studies or scientific papers. However, let's just forget the science and think practically. I think most of us (who are not obese) want to be able to enjoy eating as much food as possible while still being about to lose or maintain weight. I like to call it the sweet spot. So, for me at least, the whole starvation mode argument is a moot point. I'm not looking to become a fitness model overnight. I just want to be healthy and feel good, and maybe get a six pack one day. So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight.
That's just my philosophy. Take it or leave it.
You know, I frequent another forum on the internet, it is nothing to do with dieting and weightloss but to do with conspiracies and everytime there are people replying to threads on there that others disagree with, they love to use the word "troll" and the sentence "beware of the trolls".
People who disagree are not trolls, they just merely disagree.
Now regarding the bolded bit above from your quoted post: No, starvation mode will not come into play, if it did, nobody would ever reach their goal who had stuck to their original calorie plan. You don't want science brought into the argument lest it proves your own theory wrong, no problem with that, but it is just your opinion and there is also no problem with that, providing you don't mind other people having theirs.
Regarding losing weight on maintenance calorie levels, that is pointless to me as it would keep me at the same weight as it is not a deficit. That is what maintenance level is meant to be after all isn't it - maintaining one's weight.
Yes, unfortunately there really are trolls that have nothing to do but get everyone riled up for their own entertainment. People do this in real life too. However, I have no problem with people genuinely disagreeing with me. That was not the intention of my comment. It was more just for entertainment purposes. I find it ironic that you read into it so much.
I've learned that, with some topics, arguing is pointless and a waste of time. Most people get so obsessed with being "right" that they miss an opportunity to learn something. I am not going to waste my time trying to dig up reasearch just to proved to someone on the Internet that I am "right." If you see that as a "win" then hurray for you. I have come a long way and learned a lot with this philosophy so I am fine with "losing."
And I never said that I eat at maintenance. I just set my calorie goal to that so I know to not go over. I think you missed the point. Oh well. Sorry for trying to be reasonable.
I read into it what you put into it, however, because of your choice of wording, you open yourself up to being misunderstood. Regarding the maintenance bit, you said "So, I like to set my calories to my maintenance. That way I know the approximate point where I will start to gain weight." - that is the perfect thing to do if somebody is already at maintenance, the misunderstanding came when you said first of all For those of us that are trying to lose "the last 5-10 lbs," starvation mode COULD come into play. - I therefore, thought you meant you stuck your calories at maintenance whilst still trying to lose the last 5-10lbs. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes, some topics are a waste of time arguing about, the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.
btw nothing wrong with spending some time trying to dig up some research, it makes your opinions more credible and people will be much more willing to take the ideas on board. However, if it is something that has no credible research or scientific evidence, then it can border on bro-science and bro-science is exactly what we should all be aiming to get away from.
No offence meant and hopefully there are no hard feelings.
The funny thing is their statements were misinterpreted studies of the past. There are studies that linked to their arguments but the instruments were wrong or it was not properly conducted.
Many of the claims are followed off of old studies and we are introducing the newer studies.
If people do not want to "dig up" research then their claim is on the basis of their personal knowledge. their personal knowledge is probably a reason why they became overweight in the first place. Sometimes its better to learn from people that have a combination of success and a higher degree of education whether its self educated or college educated.
Do not enter or try to argue unless you have evidence because then you are just plagiarizing.0 -
How valid is anecdotal evidence? It can't be discounted, and I've seen science misinterpreted on the application level way more than I've seen broscience lead to negative results or stagnation. Don't get me wrong, I've been reading peer reviewed science and literature weekly since 2006, so I've probably read every single article that may be referenced on this site. 90% of them have no bearing in the MFP community, and therefore are irrelevant...they are impossible to apply without changing some other controlled variable that therefore renders any experimental variables less valid.
Bottom line is, metabolic "damage" is probably real, but may not be real for everyone, and definitely does not apply to everyone that's been dieting for only a few weeks or even months. It's most likely systematic in its triggering effect, and the weight loss stalls closer to the leaner bodyfat percentages. It happens over time (years)...where perhaps in your second year dieting for a show, you have to do 1 more cardio session per week..then by the fourth year, you're doing 3 more just to get to the same leanness as your first year. The true "damage" of it occurs when calories are restricted to a level that should not even be sufficient to maintain exercise and bodily processes, while further increasing cardio to see a very slow crawl to end goals.
In my personal experience, it happens more to women than men, and it happens to very fit women. Since figure and bikini competitors have to override some primal female tendency to maintain a certain bodyfat level and get sub-10%, they are exposed what I can only assume is metabolic damage. This occurs over years of dieting, usually when they have to diet down every year or even twice a year to levels of fat that are inherently not healthy to maintain...pair that with the fact that sometimes these women have shows within 2 months of each other, and therefore stay at this % for months out of the year. That is the ONLY case where calories in vs calories out seems to go out of the window to some degree.
The only way, (in my opinion) to counteract this, is to go on a long vacation from dieting...(a year at least). The metabolic processes will recoup, you will get flabby, and from there you start back at square 1 (good thing for muscle memory or you'd really be screwed).0 -
Was agreeing til you said bikini at sub 10%. As a coach, I can assure you a bikini competitor will be late teens, early 20s. My fiancee who does Body Fitness and much leaner, maxed out at around 13-14%.
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
0 -
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach0 -
I read this. It says that there was a study done that shows that starvation mode doesn't kick in until you have 6% of body fat or below. I've included the text of the actual study and the link below
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
Starvation Mode – Why You Probably Never Need to Worry About It
SEPTEMBER 9, 2011
Starvation mode is a term that gets thrown around loosely. Many people believe that too little protein or too few of calories in a day will cause loss of muscle mass. What if I told you that it is extremely difficult to go into starvation mode until you get down to 5% body fat(10% for women)? Brad Pilon and John Barban have given me permission to give you access to the first 15 minutes of one of their paid recordings: “Starvation Mode”. Brad and John discuss surprising findings of a military study, where they purposely tried to get the soldiers to lose muscle and get into starvation mode. They found it took extreme conditions to reach this point.
Brad and John Show You How to Get Into Starvation Mode?
These guys take an interesting approach. They show you exactly what it takes to reach starvation mode. By showing how difficult it is to reach starvation mode, they destroy a lot of muscle loss myths. Once you listen to this, you can relax and not stress out about losing muscle when you are dieting and exercising to lose body fat. As you will see, you don’t even need to begin to worry about this until your reach crazy low body fat levels. Here’s that recording:
My Notes From the Starvation Mode Recording
All of this is covered in the recording, but I wanted to put some of this in text as well. You can also right click and save this recording and listen on your computer or iPod. I’ll post my notes below like I typically format my blog posts.
Why Are Brad and John Examining a Military Study?
Brad and John mainly look at a military experiment done by Karl Friedl. They point out that the military has less restrictions and can push people much harder than they can in a typical university study. There is no way this stuff would get approved by a university, but no problem for the military. In their words…To find limits to what the body is capable of, you need to dip into military research.
Step 1 to Get Into Starvation Mode—> Start Out Lean
Karl Friedl used fit and athletic soldiers with an average body fat of 14%. This is what John Barban calls “4 pack lean”. There were guys as low as 6% body fat and as high as 18% body fat. Think along the lines of a fit and muscular soldier to get an idea of the participants of this study.
Karl Pretty Much Tortured These Guys for 8+ Weeks!
Karl had these guys eat between 1,000-1,200 calories…but burn upwards of 6,000 calories per day with crazy activity levels and sleep deprivation. So deficits in the 3,000-4,000 range on some days. Average deficit was 1,200 calories per day. They trained like mad and also went through extreme sleep deprivation.
Here’s what happened during the 8 weeks (avg height 5’9″):
At Start… 167 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.4
2 Weeks…156 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.44
4 Weeks…152 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.45
6 Weeks…146 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.50
8 Weeks…140 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.52
Note: Adonis Index refers to the shoulder circumference divided by the waist circumference. As an example, my shoulder measurement is 50 inches and my waist is 33 inches. If I divide my shoulder by my waist I get 1.51. The ideal Adonis Index is 1.61. The video below explains why a 1.61 ratio is pleasing to the eye in not just body proportions…but in art, architecture, etc.
In This Experiment, They Were NOT Trying to Preserve Muscle
The important thing to remember in this study was that they were trying their best to beat these guys down. They weren’t doing things that normal people would do while dieting, like proper resistance training. Here are some of the tactics they used to try to get into starvation mode.
Severe Caloric Restriction
Severe Amount of Exercise
Severe Amount of Mental Stress
Extreme Sleep Deprivation
Began to Lose Lean Body Mass Between Weeks 6 and 8
At around the 8 week mark a lot of guys who were in the 5%-6% range could not drop any more body fat. This is when they began to lose lean muscle. The guys who started out the leanest, reached their limits at week 6. These were the guys who lost the most amount of lean body mass.
They Didn’t Lose Muscle Just Because They Were at 5%-6%
They lost muscle because they were still having days where they were running at a 3,000 calorie deficit. Once someone reaches their lower limits of body fat percentage it makes sense to eat close to maintenance levels. This strong calorie deficit at this low body fat level also caused extreme hormone disruptions: Testosterone dropped, thyroid issues, mood changes <---this is true “starvation mode”.
Why People Think Their Metabolism is Slowing Down
People with more fat available to oxidize…can oxidize more body fat per minute. The less body fat you have, the less you can oxidize per minute. So as you get closer to your lower limits of body fat, the slower you will burn what body fat you have. This is why those last 4-5 pounds come off slowly, NOT because you are wrecking your metabolism with an aggressive diet.
Most People Never Need to Worry About Starvation Mode
Most likely, starvation mode isn’t happening to anybody reading this. The average person thinks starvation mode happens between meals. It isn’t about not having enough calories. It isn’t about not having enough protein. It only effects people at their critical low body fat mass. You have to be in a massive deficit and already at your critical low body fat level. You are “6 pack ripped” before ever getting to starvation mode.0 -
I read this. It says that there was a study done that shows that starvation mode doesn't kick in until you have 6% of body fat or below. I've included the text of the actual study and the link below
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
Starvation Mode – Why You Probably Never Need to Worry About It
SEPTEMBER 9, 2011
Starvation mode is a term that gets thrown around loosely. Many people believe that too little protein or too few of calories in a day will cause loss of muscle mass. What if I told you that it is extremely difficult to go into starvation mode until you get down to 5% body fat(10% for women)? Brad Pilon and John Barban have given me permission to give you access to the first 15 minutes of one of their paid recordings: “Starvation Mode”. Brad and John discuss surprising findings of a military study, where they purposely tried to get the soldiers to lose muscle and get into starvation mode. They found it took extreme conditions to reach this point.
Brad and John Show You How to Get Into Starvation Mode?
These guys take an interesting approach. They show you exactly what it takes to reach starvation mode. By showing how difficult it is to reach starvation mode, they destroy a lot of muscle loss myths. Once you listen to this, you can relax and not stress out about losing muscle when you are dieting and exercising to lose body fat. As you will see, you don’t even need to begin to worry about this until your reach crazy low body fat levels. Here’s that recording:
My Notes From the Starvation Mode Recording
All of this is covered in the recording, but I wanted to put some of this in text as well. You can also right click and save this recording and listen on your computer or iPod. I’ll post my notes below like I typically format my blog posts.
Why Are Brad and John Examining a Military Study?
Brad and John mainly look at a military experiment done by Karl Friedl. They point out that the military has less restrictions and can push people much harder than they can in a typical university study. There is no way this stuff would get approved by a university, but no problem for the military. In their words…To find limits to what the body is capable of, you need to dip into military research.
Step 1 to Get Into Starvation Mode—> Start Out Lean
Karl Friedl used fit and athletic soldiers with an average body fat of 14%. This is what John Barban calls “4 pack lean”. There were guys as low as 6% body fat and as high as 18% body fat. Think along the lines of a fit and muscular soldier to get an idea of the participants of this study.
Karl Pretty Much Tortured These Guys for 8+ Weeks!
Karl had these guys eat between 1,000-1,200 calories…but burn upwards of 6,000 calories per day with crazy activity levels and sleep deprivation. So deficits in the 3,000-4,000 range on some days. Average deficit was 1,200 calories per day. They trained like mad and also went through extreme sleep deprivation.
Here’s what happened during the 8 weeks (avg height 5’9″):
At Start… 167 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.4
2 Weeks…156 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.44
4 Weeks…152 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.45
6 Weeks…146 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.50
8 Weeks…140 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.52
Note: Adonis Index refers to the shoulder circumference divided by the waist circumference. As an example, my shoulder measurement is 50 inches and my waist is 33 inches. If I divide my shoulder by my waist I get 1.51. The ideal Adonis Index is 1.61. The video below explains why a 1.61 ratio is pleasing to the eye in not just body proportions…but in art, architecture, etc.
In This Experiment, They Were NOT Trying to Preserve Muscle
The important thing to remember in this study was that they were trying their best to beat these guys down. They weren’t doing things that normal people would do while dieting, like proper resistance training. Here are some of the tactics they used to try to get into starvation mode.
Severe Caloric Restriction
Severe Amount of Exercise
Severe Amount of Mental Stress
Extreme Sleep Deprivation
Began to Lose Lean Body Mass Between Weeks 6 and 8
At around the 8 week mark a lot of guys who were in the 5%-6% range could not drop any more body fat. This is when they began to lose lean muscle. The guys who started out the leanest, reached their limits at week 6. These were the guys who lost the most amount of lean body mass.
They Didn’t Lose Muscle Just Because They Were at 5%-6%
They lost muscle because they were still having days where they were running at a 3,000 calorie deficit. Once someone reaches their lower limits of body fat percentage it makes sense to eat close to maintenance levels. This strong calorie deficit at this low body fat level also caused extreme hormone disruptions: Testosterone dropped, thyroid issues, mood changes <---this is true “starvation mode”.
Why People Think Their Metabolism is Slowing Down
People with more fat available to oxidize…can oxidize more body fat per minute. The less body fat you have, the less you can oxidize per minute. So as you get closer to your lower limits of body fat, the slower you will burn what body fat you have. This is why those last 4-5 pounds come off slowly, NOT because you are wrecking your metabolism with an aggressive diet.
Most People Never Need to Worry About Starvation Mode
Most likely, starvation mode isn’t happening to anybody reading this. The average person thinks starvation mode happens between meals. It isn’t about not having enough calories. It isn’t about not having enough protein. It only effects people at their critical low body fat mass. You have to be in a massive deficit and already at your critical low body fat level. You are “6 pack ripped” before ever getting to starvation mode.
That is starvation, not the starvation mode everyone is trying to differentiate here. While dieting, you will lose muscle tissue and fat stores if you do nothing to prevent muscle loss. Your body doesn't just use fat for energy.0 -
Was agreeing til you said bikini at sub 10%. As a coach, I can assure you a bikini competitor will be late teens, early 20s. My fiancee who does Body Fitness and much leaner, maxed out at around 13-14%.
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
I'll concede to the fact that bikini competitors can allow for much more variance 12-18? But almost ALL figure shoot for 10. That's their holy grail. A lot of them fall into the trap of the competition rumor mill that someone is coming in at 7% and they all scurry to get sub 10. In 2008, the standard in some NPC shows (I was working in California at the time) was people were winning on the merits of sub 10%. Then later on they wanted a "softer" look and the judging reflected that. Therefore, maybe now, the more acceptable standard is 10-12. 15% is way way way too high for a figure competitor. I'm not sure what Body Fitness is, but the categories im familiar with that would apply here are figure/fitness or bikini...we won't get into bodybuilding for women. That's a whole different can of worms. The general consensus is much like male bodybuilding. Whatever % you come in with the best packages takes the cake. Some guys that hold water probably try to thin out a big more, other guys can waltz in at 7% and look shredded. Natural vs assisted is also something to consider...more worms.
Your summation that overweight people that eat good diets have a hard time losing weight is just as anecdotal as my summation that lean people eating catered diets have hard times losing weight. As to the logic of these arguments weighed on a scale, I'd believe my anecdotal logic would be more sound (the leaner you are..the less likely you'll become leaner)...I don't think we need science to establish the folly of saying the fatter you are the harder it is to get leaner...though truth be told, I havent seen a grossly overweight individual with 85%-90% diet and exercise compliance have a very hard time losing weight...at all. That's not to say it doesn't happen. Some shmuck (shmuckette?) with awful awful genetics might fall prey to it. But the likelihood of that scenario playing out is probably far less than the likelihood of a figure competitor in her 6th season. Like I said, and you're right, it's my guess. The science on this is slim to none, or what exists of it is so contradictory or myopic in its focus that it rarely even applies... so it is up to us educated few to make educated guesses? I guess that was my point. When was the last time you ran across a study of figure competitors in their last 4 weeks vs overweight individuals in their first 4? The scope and scales (funding?) just don't exist nor do the general health public care (outside of us crazies).
Completely agree with your stance on too much cardio. I think it's the biggest reason this "syndrome" might occur...again just a trend I see that links excessive cardio with excessive deficit over extended time....nothing in science at all. But women seem to go crazy with that *kitten* , especially for figure/fitness. They even do their weight training at cardio cadence...tiny rest periods, huge volume.0 -
agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting
Not sure I agree with your third and fourth paragraph either, you are guessing at this point ratuilher than using any actual science and are as guilty as anyone else.
Ever noticed people even when really nowhere near lean struggling to drop weight despite having a good diet in place? That would suggest heavy handed dieting methods before, going to low with calories.
I coach people, and esp now, a lot of women. I don't see it occur if calories are kept sensible and cardio isn't over done. This is based on experience - I've currently got 11 women on my books that I coach
yes they do. what else from your first month of lifting have you retained over the next few months you've been lifting? because it's not working.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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