THE BIG STARVATION MODE MYTH.

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

agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting

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.

You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.

By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.

'starvation mode' preventing you from losing fat = myth

'starvation mode' subtracting large amounts of muscle mass most people would perfer to have = truth

^ YYYUP

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

agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting

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.

You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.

By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.

Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.

I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.

I am just saying 10% is essential fats minimum limit for females.

Are you saying you coach them below that number?

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

agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting

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.

You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.

By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.

Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.

I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.

I am just saying 10% is essential fats minimum limit for females.

Are you saying you coach them below that number?

Holy balls woman. Alright. If you really want to get into this. you cannot have "essential values" as a range. The wishy washy 10-13% concept of is inherently not very essential, otherwise, if there was a definitive value, it'd be like..10.55928. No such value exists so we go on a sample distribution. The reason the range exists is that these figures are taking into account a standard deviation or a bell curve of the general population of women, with 10% being 2 sigma to the left and 13% being 2 sigma to the right, theoretically accounting for some 95% of healthy adult women within a target age group. In reality, it's probably nowhere near this encompassing, but humor me.

NOW. expand that bell curve to include those fitness competitors that have resolved to abandon their monthly menstrual cycles and reproductive health to accomplish a stage presence that is sub 10% bodyfat (wherein the endeavor of maintaining these levels is prolonged for months). This is not healthy, it is not sustainable, nor is it recommended. But it happens. I don't get when people say "women do not get under 10%". Are you saying that it is physically or medically impossible for them to get down to these levels? Because that's ridiculous. Are you saying that they don't need to get to these levels for a show? Maybe true, but do some of them? Do alot of them? Yes. If that 2% is going to be the difference between winner overall, and third runner up overall, someone will by golly do it...even if it means their periods have to stop. They will. There needs to be no further discussion on this shady aspect of human nature.

Usually when I coach someone down to like 15%, they have the mental capability of putting A and B together and getting themselves down to 10 or less (more cardio? less food?)...Usually it's not their first time to the rodeo either, so even if I don't touch it with a ten foot pole, they'll probably carve out their own unhealthy little path.

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

agreed.. women do not go into single digits... I knew this even during my first month of lifting

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.

You need to do your research on this Aelunyu because women's essential bodyfat is between 10-13% - if they go into single figures, it becomes dangerous. Men's essential bodyfat is between 2-5%.

By essential, I mean it is crucial they have at least that amount.

Please refer to the post I wrote before this comment. I make it very clear that women should not maintain below 10% bodyfat for extended periods. I think you missed that one.

I do plenty of research. Used to do it literally for a living. Please read my initial post for clarification of my stance.

I am just saying 10% is essential fats minimum limit for females.

Are you saying you coach them below that number?

Holy balls woman. Alright. If you really want to get into this. you cannot have "essential values" as a range. The wishy washy 10-13% concept of is inherently not very essential, otherwise, if there was a definitive value, it'd be like..10.55928. No such value exists so we go on a sample distribution. The reason the range exists is that these figures are taking into account a standard deviation or a bell curve of the general population of women, with 10% being 2 sigma to the left and 13% being 2 sigma to the right, theoretically accounting for some 95% of healthy adult women within a target age group. In reality, it's probably nowhere near this encompassing, but humor me.

NOW. expand that bell curve to include those fitness competitors that have resolved to abandon their monthly menstrual cycles and reproductive health to accomplish a stage presence that is sub 10% bodyfat (wherein the endeavor of maintaining these levels is prolonged for months). This is not healthy, it is not sustainable, nor is it recommended. But it happens. I don't get when people say "women do not get under 10%". Are you saying that it is physically or medically impossible for them to get down to these levels? Because that's ridiculous. Are you saying that they don't need to get to these levels for a show? Maybe true, but do some of them? Do alot of them? Yes. If that 2% is going to be the difference between winner overall, and third runner up overall, someone will by golly do it...even if it means their periods have to stop. They will. There needs to be no further discussion on this shady aspect of human nature.

Usually when I coach someone down to like 15%, they have the mental capability of putting A and B together and getting themselves down to 10 or less (more cardio? less food?)...Usually it's not their first time to the rodeo either, so even if I don't touch it with a ten foot pole, they'll probably carve out their own unhealthy little path.

No, if you say they go below 10%, then they go below 10%.

and if you say there needs to be no further discussion then there needs to be no further discussion.

and just to say, no I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying 10% is the minimum for essential fats for females, therefore, if that is the minimum, going below that is dangerous, the fact some choose to do so for the sake of competitions, isn't for me to judge.....

"1200 cals to stay alive if your a woman " is such a generic statement. It's like saying I should weigh 110 pounds because I'm 5 foot one inch tall. It doesn't take bone structure or genetics into the equation at all. If I weighed 110 pounds, i'd be admitted to a hospital for malnutrition!!! It is a proven fact that after you lose a substantial amount of weight, you have to eat 20% less than you used to. So that means; if I ate 1200 cals to lose 90 lbs... I now have to eat 1000 calories to stay normal sized and not gain it all back. The FDA and the AMA and the giant food companies want the public to stay stupid and stay fat so they can sell us diets and drugs and special foods to "help" us.It's all a huge lie and I am NOT buying it.

Well the goal here is to teach people to eat and lose weight in a healthy way. If you just want to eat nothing and lose lean muscle mass, we won't stop you, though.

Truth

Truth and ROLL TIDE! :P

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? omg

I don't care for him at all. He's right about some things and sooooo wrong about others that it's gotten to the point where he's almost as bad as Martin Leangains. At least Martin replied to me when I challenged him, he might have been drunk though, it was way too easy to poke holes.

Back to the topic.
None of us here have experienced starvation, actual starvation.

Have any of you read the book 'Hunger' by Sharman Apt Russell, or anything close to it? If so message me, please. Sorry, slightly off topic there.

Also big ups for taking this sentence out of the context. Like, duuuude...0/10.

People say don't eat 1200 or even 1500 calories a day. They say eat more, to weigh less, but people you see on youtube eat 1200 and are losing over 80+ pounds. Can you explain that maybe it is better to eat more in the 1800s, but don't tell people that starvation will come up and get them because it's a flat out lie. Especially if your obese. Some guys did a study and that's the huge thing, that's why people think they're in starvation mode. How can you tell someone to eat more when that's what they have been doing all along, hence why they're overweight to begin with. Look at people in different countries starving, they are not going into starvation mode. No I don't think so. You need to look around you. People want you to fail in weight loss, they will make up anything to make sure you don't succeed. Why IDK. But its true weight loss and takes a long freaking time. You need to think of it in long terms, I mean like 3-5 years, it will need to be a lifestyle change. People think they are going into starvation mode because omg i hit a plateau. It happens with everyone. You're never going to get away from that. Sorry guys. JUST BECAUSE YOU HIT A PLATEAU DOES NOT MEAN YOUR IN STARVATION MODE. 1200 isn't starving yourself. What happens when you don't get enough food your body? It has to go into your fat stores, it's science people. End of story. Comments please thanks:) Oh fyi iv lost 40 pounds.

Where are your citations? They think weight gain has a lot to do with insulin resistance from diets high in fat and refined sugars and carbohydrates. Dr. Al Sears is engaged in active research on this. If you are still hungry after making certain you have adequate fluid intake, the hunger is probably honest and you should make a good, nutritious food choice. When losing weight, you also lose some muscle mass and therefore it is necessary to make certain you have an adequate lean protein intake. This is all coming from the University of Pennsylvania which is a leading health system and one of the best on the east coast. I think you are being overly simplistic when you write that "people want you to fail" at losing weight. 1200 calories should be considered the bare minimum. I gross 1800 and if my body tells me I need more, I make good choices. What works for some doesn't work for all.

I screwed off in april if you look at my progress ...too much beer ...EAT MOR CHIK'N...

'starvation mode' preventing you from losing fat = myth

'starvation mode' subtracting large amounts of muscle mass most people would perfer to have = truth

^^^THIS^^^

You WILL lose SOMETHING on a calorie deficit over time. BUT you want to do it slowly and gradually because you want to retain your health, your muscle and hope that the weight loss is FAT loss (or, at least the largest percentage of it). Otherwise, you are setting yourself up for regain. I did crash diets and yo-yo diet/regain/diet, etc. for many years before I got smart and did it the right way. I have been on this weight loss journey for three years now and in all that time, I have not regained a single ounce. This is definitely a first for me. Realistically, it will probably take me another year or even two years to lose the rest of what I want to lose, but I'm in no hurry. I feel great and am getting healthier by the day. And isn't that what it's all about? Losing body fat while getting and staying healthy is why I'm here. Who cares about "starvation mode"? Eat clean, lose slowly and work out---and you never will have to worry about that.

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? omg

I don't care for him at all. He's right about some things and sooooo wrong about others that it's gotten to the point where he's almost as bad as Martin Leangains. At least Martin replied to me when I challenged him, he might have been drunk though, it was way too easy to poke holes.

Back to the topic.
None of us here have experienced starvation, actual starvation.

Have any of you read the book 'Hunger' by Sharman Apt Russell, or anything close to it? If so message me, please. Sorry, slightly off topic there.

why would he waste his time with people? if he replied to everyone he would go crazy

Not the way starvation mode is bandied around on MFP, I do not agree with how the term is used, in fact the way people mean it on here is mythological.

Those that die from starvation in the real world are a different matter, they usually have NO food from one day to the next, they lose weight continuously until their internal organs give out which is ironic really, because going by how, many people seem to think on MFP, these same starving people in places like Africa are on way below 1200 calories per day, now you would think their metabolisms would have slowed down to a virtual standstill and their body would be holding onto to all its calories and fat really wouldn't you - this is if you agree with the starvation mode idea on here that is, which I don't, see.

This however, does not happen, they actually continue to lose weight, they do not stall and they do not store any calories or fats.

Regarding your own maintenance level, you missed that bit out first time round, I mean the bit about staying below 10-20% lol, now I do see what you are doing with regard to controlling your own weight

I agree! That is what I mean when I say starvation mode is real. It's a process that happens when one does not eat for a prolonged period of time. This is common scientific knowledge. You can even say it's common sense. However, a metabolic slowdown from eating a low calorie diet is the real topic in question here. Using the term starvation mode to define whatever happens during a very low cal diet is blowing things way out of proportion and misleading. My original point was that to me the argument is moot. Why eat at 20-30+% below maintenance, when you can eat 10-20% and still lose weight? I meant it for people slightly overweight and lower. I regret saying the 5-10 lbs remark. I put it in quotes because that is what people usually say when casually talking about dropping some weight. I was clear about how obese people should have a trained professional guide them.

My real concern is the people who get so obsessed about weight loss that they become anorexic. Starvation mode can become a real thing in this situation. That's why, in the end, it's always best to consult a licensed professional if you want to eat at a very low cal level.

why 1200 calories though? why not 1199?

i mean, at which point does it actually make a difference?

everyone goes with 1200 when the actual recommended amount for adults is either 2000 or 2500?


plus, as ive said in the past.... GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY... if starvation mode existed then that surgery wouldnt work... you say its not sustainable but people live with them for years!!