Hoarding Calories

bcattoes · July 2013

Lots of "probably there. And too much nonsense. If you want to believe you can have a calorie deficit and not lose, so be it.

I never said you couldn't lose. In my case I didn't. I said that it will hose your metabolism. And as far as the probably, it's just how I talk. And none of what I said is nonsense. If you don't want answers to your questions, why ask?

That's it... and I'm done. You believe whatever you want.

I guarantee it won't hose my metabolism.

89nunu · July 2013

Hi, so if you eat 1000 calories, then burn 500 calories, apparently your body will "know" you are not getting enough food and will "hold onto" the calories you take in, because it "thinks" you are starving.

Does nobody else think this is bull****? Your body is a machine. If I eat a certain amount and burn a certain amount, I am going to lose weight, surely? My body does not "know" or "think" anything, as far as I know.

It's not about your body being sentient outside of your brain. It's about your body needing certain amount of different macro and micro nutrients to function properly. It's about more than just the calories. Netting 500 calories makes it nearly impossible, without a very, very specific and monitored diet, to get everything your body needs. If it doesn't get what it needs, certain processes are hampered or shut down, the same way a car 'knows' to stop running when it runs out of gas.

Now eating very low calories one day will not cause your body to shut down because the body doesn't operate one a strict 24 hour period. Doing this over the long term however will cause your body to run out of certain vital nutrients and that's when your body will 'know' to start failing.

It is a complex machine and like any complex machine, it needs complex parts, maintenance and fuels to operate. Fail to maintain proper upkeep and you will be earning yourself a complex machine that will need complex repairs to get it back up and running as it should.

So just eat properly, with enough calories, macros and micro nutrients now so that you never have to fix any damage later.

This!

Couldn't have said it better!

PepperWorm · July 2013

*eyeroll*

I'm anticipating the "Y I NO LOOSE WAIGHTS?!!11!" thread. I give it a month. Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets!

Edit to add more appropriate typo.

kellijauch · July 2013

Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

Me too. I was looking forward to all of the snarky comments that would have come along with that ^, but this is good too. I don't believe in starvation mode. I don't think it's good to undereat, but I think starvation mode is something these websites use so people don't become anorexic. Please people, don't be anorexic, but if I only eat 900 calories one day, and I am not hungry, then I don't think it's a problem.

iceqieen · July 2013

Your body is a machine. If I eat a certain amount and burn a certain amount, I am going to lose weight, surely? My body does not "know" or "think" anything, as far as I know.

Wrong.
The human body is really good at adapting to conditions, is one reason why we still exist as a species in (almost) all corners of the world. How do you think people get/got through famines?

pobalita · July 2013

I am not a big believer in the starvation mode theory either. However, I have a couple observations which lead me to believe that it is at least partially true.

I have worn a BodyMedia armband and religiously tracked my food for over a year. If I go for a couple weeks with my daily deficit in the 750 to 1,000 calorie range my total daily calories burned on days I'm not exerscising drops from about 2,000 to about 1,800 per day. If I do a long run (just did my first marathon) and I rest my stressed out body the following day my total calories burned might be as low as 1,400 per day. My body definitely "knows" something is up and appears to be in full conservation mode. Alternatively, if my daily burn rate drops to around 1,800 per day on rest days and I eat at a zero deficit or slight overage for a few days, it goes back up to 2,000. These changes only take three or four days to occur.

Same goes for active days - I run pretty much the same running route most days of the week. If I'm eating at a small deficit or zero deficit, my daily burn is about 2,600 calories. If I'm reducing calories and eating at a deficit, the daily burn is 2,300 to 2,400 calories.

So, I CAN still lose while eating at a big deficit, but based on the data I've seen from my armband, my daily metabolism will drop.

bcattoes · July 2013

Your body is a machine. If I eat a certain amount and burn a certain amount, I am going to lose weight, surely? My body does not "know" or "think" anything, as far as I know.

Wrong.
The human body is really good at adapting to conditions, is one reason why we still exist as a species in (almost) all corners of the world. How do you think people get/got through famines?

By hosing their metabolism??

teamstanish · July 2013

Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

That is what I thought...

tnicmorris · July 2013

I think there are two points to address your questions.

1. Nothing happens overnight. If you eat way below your calories once or twice, even once or twice per week, your body will not likely go into starvation mode. If that were the case, people would go into starvation mode when they get sick and can't eat or when they fast for religious or "cleanse" reasons. However, if you starve your body enough, it will go into starvation mode. And eating too far below what you body needs to function is starving your body. It would be like trying to fill a cup up with 8 ounces, but trying to squeeze ounces back out of it. Your body would always be on empty.

2. Your body doesn't have to "think" to do things. You breathe every second without your body "thinking" about it. Breathing is a biological, involuntary function. The body does it because that's what it's required to do for survival. On a basic biological level, that's what organisms do. It's the same thing with regulating hormone levels in your body, your heart beating, digesting food, etc. It's the same with caloric metabolism.

In giving yourself too few calories to survive, you'll likely lose weight at first because your body hasn't been triggered into starvation mode. But the longer you deprive your body, the more your body will respond to the deficit. It first responds by slowing the metabolism down so that it uses less energy. When that no longer works, the body will use what it has until it runs out of steam. Ask any surviving anorexic what happens when their body runs out of steam. It's not pretty.

Sorry about the long post. I was a pre-med major my first three years in college and that crap is ingrained in me. lol

Fullsterkur_woman · July 2013

Sorry about the long post. I was a pre-med major my first three years in college and that crap is ingrained in me. lol

It was science. It was beautiful.

b7bbs · July 2013

Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

I thought the same thing. Oh well, this is interesting too.

luckydays27 · July 2013

It is unhealthy for any woman to go under 1200.

Then please explain the health benefits many women experience after weight loss surgery and the VLCD it demands.

I cant explain every persons health benefits but I can tell you about my mother. The biggest health benefit to her after WLS (lap band) and stays below 1200 cals is that without the surgery she would have died. She had 3 strokes, diabetes, high blood pressure as well as lack of significant mobility. She could walk but not very far or for very long.

Since surgery, she has lost over 150 lbs and is off all of her medications.

She still eats at a VLCD and is medically supervised.

The health consequences of the VLCD diet/WLS have been:
1. loss of hair to the point that it is very noticeable.
2. Has no finger nails because they are very brittle.
3. Has severe excess skin because she lost the weight to fast and has a hard time walking because of the excess leg skin.
4. She really cant eat any sort of red meat because it does not agree with the "new" body mainly because she lacks the nutrients her body needs.
5. Any meal time with her has to be scheduled because she needs to be able to use the bathroom quickly otherwise she will **** her pants on the way home (and sometimes before she can make it to the bathroom) because most foods upset her body because of #4.
6. She failed to learn proper nutrition and thus cheats and ends up with #5 quite often enough.
7. If she had her lap band removed tomorrow, she will rapidly gain 150+ lbs because she did not learn from it NOR does she know how to function in everyday life eating a healthy balanced meal plan.

In my opinion, the health consequences outweigh the benefits. To her doctor, my mother is a success. To her family, she is a disaster.

Each and every one of these consequences could have been avoided if my mother would have just done a regular calorie reduction and skipped the surgery. But, on the flip side, she needed the help. She would probably be bedridden or dead if it were not for the surgery.

Showcase_Brodown · July 2013

Eating very few calories can cause some adaptive thermogenesis but never enough to stop or reverse weight loss. You might see a reduction in BMR of maybe 10% at the most, but mainly it's bs.

The other time it's somewhat relevant, is in the very lean. Your maximum calorie deficit is 31.4 x pounds of body fat. If someone is 130lbs and 10% body fat, they only have 13lbs of fat left. Their maximum calorie deficit would be about 400 calories. If they go below this, they will lose lean tissue (muscle, organs, etc.) but for the obese/overweight this isn't a problem.

^This. It's one of the few things in this thread that made any sense.

A deficit means weight loss, it's pretty simple. Yes, there can be some adaptation in very low calories, but it is not significant enough to stop loss in such a large deficit. The energy WILL come from somewhere in the body whether that is fat, muscles, organs, whatever. You want it to be the first one, which is a good reason why keeping deficits smaller is a much better idea.

Peachy1962 · July 2013

TOOO FUNNY!!!! hahahahahaa!!!!

sabinecbauer · July 2013

Congratulations! You've now reached a level of understanding metabolic function that nutritional science had achieved 35 years ago. Nutritional science then proceeded to recommend extended, medically supervised fasts for overweight teens, 'cos hey! Your body doesn't think, so if you limit caloric intake to one protein shake a day you're gonna lose weight, right? :bigsmile:

I'm one of the victims of that bright notion. Result: I lost weight alright. It also boomeranged right back on (bringing a few more pounds for company) when I returned to eating normally. 'Cos guess what? My metabolism had slowed down so dramatically that thyroid function was affected. I know that for a fact because, among other symptoms, I lost my hair by the fistful.

I've been hypothyroid ever since, and I've been fighting with my weight ever since because my metabolism has remained chronically slow. The only way I can lose weight is by exercising tons to crank up an engine that doesn't really want to work and by eating enough. 1000 calories a day does not qualify as 'enough.'

Oddly, I have only ever lost hair when hyperthyroid. I am hypothyroid now, because my thyroid was killed by two heavy doses of radioactive iodine. I did not know you could kill your thyroid by not eating enough. You should go to a doctor. They will prescribe you some thyroxine and you will be able to manage your symptoms.

Hair loss is one of the most common symptoms of hypothyroidism, and I am on synthroid, thanks. The trouble is that the medication isn't a cure-all.

cclarkcts · July 2013

Reading the title made me think this was going to be a thread about people who save all their calories throughout the day for one big splurge. Oh, how wrong I was.

Me too

Me three
[/quote]

Koldnomore · July 2013

Let me know how that works out for you with a "Help I have been eating 1000 calories and I am stuck!!! What am I doing Wrong" Thread.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of those threads!!

Me too but of course they are always started by closed-minded individuals who are convinced they have it all figured out and are completely unwilling to take the advice of those who have actually lost weight or reached the other goals they set for themselves.

Instead of just joining a community and immediately posting about how everything that the community is saying isn't going to work, why not actually try it and then make adjustments if they are required. These threads are the main reason why some individuals don't bother posting helpful information anymore since no one can be bothered to read it anyway.

jennifershoo · July 2013

Yes, you're wrong, OP.

It's called Metabolic Damage. Look it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk&sns=em

arains89 · July 2013

I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...

I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.

Eating 500 calories in a day is not slightly under anyone's BMR. That is starving yourself.

The OP said eating 1000.

And burning 500. So netting 500. BMR is what your body needs beyond exercise. If she netted 500 cals and her BMR was say around 1400 (pretty average) I'd say that is more than slightly under...

But the 500 burned through exercise could come from fat stores when not provided though food. That's what fat stores are for.

It's possible to get proper nutrition on 1000 calories, so it's not starvation.

Ok.... I wasn't aware that the body resorted immediately to fat stores rather than burning calories from the food you have already eaten. News to me...

bcattoes · July 2013

I don't know if there is real validity to "starvation mode" but why would you starve yourself either way? Whether it does long term damage to you metabolism or not it will do damage to your health now if you aren't getting proper nutrition. There is a reason that people who starve their bodies get very sick. I'm not saying they will not lose weight or will get fat again right away but they are doing damage to their bodies any way you slice it. Besides, eating is awesome...

I think everyone would agree that true starvation is bad, but eating a little under BMR is not starvation. Especially not for someone wtih a lot of fat stores.

Eating 500 calories in a day is not slightly under anyone's BMR. That is starving yourself.

The OP said eating 1000.

And burning 500. So netting 500. BMR is what your body needs beyond exercise. If she netted 500 cals and her BMR was say around 1400 (pretty average) I'd say that is more than slightly under...

But the 500 burned through exercise could come from fat stores when not provided though food. That's what fat stores are for.

It's possible to get proper nutrition on 1000 calories, so it's not starvation.

Ok.... I wasn't aware that the body resorted immediately to fat stores rather than burning calories from the food you have already eaten. News to me...

Not what I said.

Hoarding Calories

Replies

Categories