1000 calorie deficit NOT for people with healthy BMI

1234568»

Replies

  • Renee_Leslie
    Renee_Leslie Posts: 17
    Bump :wink:
  • wiscyproblems
    wiscyproblems Posts: 16
    I'm going to make a very controversial statement that I feel like might get me ostracized from MFP forever, but I do not believe in starvation mode. People say that they upped their calories and "all of a sudden" were losing weight again! Because your life is not a controlled experiment in a lab you cannot draw causation from that series of events. That's like saying that you watched tv one day and the next day you did really well on your test, so it must have been the tv watching. There may be a CORRELATION, but unless you perform a controlled experiment no causation can be stated. I'm not saying that the way that celebrities get in shape for movies is healthy but Mila Kunis was eating 1200 calories and exercising 8 hours a day for the Black Swan, and her already thin frame lost 10 pounds. She did not go into starvation mode and start gaining weight. Your metabolism would have to slow nearly to a complete halt. Also, studies have shown that metabolism is actually quite resilient, and even when it experiences a shift downwards it only takes a couple days to shift back to normal once one ups calories again. Thus, if you eat below a certain amount for awhile you will not "destroy" your metabolism, the weight that people often gain after crash dieting is because they shift back to their normal daily habits and their new weight cannot sustain such a high intake of calories anymore (when you lose weight, your BMR goes down).

    http://www.wuphysicians.com/page.aspx?pageID=1260 Check out this question on Washington University at Saint Louis's website. Yes, this is a reputable source, it's one of the best medical schools in the country.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    I'm going to make a very controversial statement that I feel like might get me ostracized from MFP forever, but I do not believe in starvation mode. People say that they upped their calories and "all of a sudden" were losing weight again! Because your life is not a controlled experiment in a lab you cannot draw causation from that series of events. That's like saying that you watched tv one day and the next day you did really well on your test, so it must have been the tv watching. There may be a CORRELATION, but unless you perform a controlled experiment no causation can be stated. I'm not saying that the way that celebrities get in shape for movies is healthy but Mila Kunis was eating 1200 calories and exercising 8 hours a day for the Black Swan, and her already thin frame lost 10 pounds. She did not go into starvation mode and start gaining weight. Your metabolism would have to slow nearly to a complete halt. Also, studies have shown that metabolism is actually quite resilient, and even when it experiences a shift downwards it only takes a couple days to shift back to normal once one ups calories again. Thus, if you eat below a certain amount for awhile you will not "destroy" your metabolism, the weight that people often gain after crash dieting is because they shift back to their normal daily habits and their new weight cannot sustain such a high intake of calories anymore (when you lose weight, your BMR goes down).

    http://www.wuphysicians.com/page.aspx?pageID=1260 Check out this question on Washington University at Saint Louis's website. Yes, this is a reputable source, it's one of the best medical schools in the country.

    nothing in that article refutes the factual basis of starvation mode. Nor do we claim that starvation mode means weight gain, or even a stoppage of weight loss. You can say you don't believe it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that starvation mode is real.
    Eat few enough calories for long enough and your body will no longer be able to balance energy needs with calorie intake plus stored calories, when that happens, glycogen makes up the difference until it's gone (about 3 days in the more extreme cases, up to a few weeks in more moderate cases), when that happens, the body's hormone balance shifts, fat cells start signaling for more storage, and the body starts asking for muscle cannibalization to reduce the amount of energy needed and to supplement existing energy stores, if the process continues, organs begin reducing function, and the immune system becomes weaker. These aren't some wacky belief, this is what happens. It's not something science is in dispute about. Can you still lose weight in starvation mode? Yes, most certainly you can, but is that the weight you WANT to lose, probably not, you lose a lot of lean mass in starvation mode.
    I wish people would stop looking to actors for healthy weight loss, it's like asking a gardener to fix your car. Maybe they can, maybe they can't but they certainly aren't experts at it.

    here's a well documented study done that explains, in depth, long term underfeeding and it's effects on the human body.

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=789556
  • Dinob661
    Dinob661 Posts: 251 Member
    I'm going to make a very controversial statement that I feel like might get me ostracized from MFP forever, but I do not believe in starvation mode. People say that they upped their calories and "all of a sudden" were losing weight again! Because your life is not a controlled experiment in a lab you cannot draw causation from that series of events. That's like saying that you watched tv one day and the next day you did really well on your test, so it must have been the tv watching. There may be a CORRELATION, but unless you perform a controlled experiment no causation can be stated. I'm not saying that the way that celebrities get in shape for movies is healthy but Mila Kunis was eating 1200 calories and exercising 8 hours a day for the Black Swan, and her already thin frame lost 10 pounds. She did not go into starvation mode and start gaining weight. Your metabolism would have to slow nearly to a complete halt. Also, studies have shown that metabolism is actually quite resilient, and even when it experiences a shift downwards it only takes a couple days to shift back to normal once one ups calories again. Thus, if you eat below a certain amount for awhile you will not "destroy" your metabolism, the weight that people often gain after crash dieting is because they shift back to their normal daily habits and their new weight cannot sustain such a high intake of calories anymore (when you lose weight, your BMR goes down).

    http://www.wuphysicians.com/page.aspx?pageID=1260 Check out this question on Washington University at Saint Louis's website. Yes, this is a reputable source, it's one of the best medical schools in the country.

    I don't think your post is that far off, but I do think there are some things I disagree with. First I got to say this, obviously I am not a doctor, so this is just opinion not fact, just adding to the discussion.

    I also want to say, I agree that I don't think starvation mode halts your metabolism completely as some people think, but.

    I believe there is a starvation mode, The reason why I say this is because your body will get to the point when it is on such a low calorie diet and at such a high deficit that it will have only one other energy source to turn to That ultimately is the the nutrients in your body and your muscles. Your body while in starvation mode will begin to eat away at your muscles because it needs to survive, it needs to match the energy you are putting out.

    Think of your body like a Star (or our sun). Hydrogen is the the main source that keeps the sun going (basically, its food). Eventually the Sun is going to continue to get hotter and use up more and more Hydrogen till it has none left (its basically exercising too much, lmao). Once it uses up it's hydrogen completely, the star has to turn to another energy source which is basically gonna start deteriorating the star which is helium (or the muscles, i guess but thats a bad example really). The Star starts to use up helium, and when a star basically starts that process it is a self destructive process that ends in the stars death because long story short. Helium takes way to much energy for the star to use.

    Now, besides my crazy story and comparison between stars and people, obviously we operate very differently from a Star. But the energy concept is very similar. When the main energy source of anything is used up it will switch to secondary source which it is not used to, and can be detrimental to that things health/life. In our case, Once the energy we have from our food we consume is used up our body will go into some what of a panic and switch to the secondary source which turns out to be a combination of fat and muscle. The less calories we intake the more muscle we lose in this case.

    So basically were I am disagreeing is that I believe there is a "starvation mode" people just like to throw around several definitions of what it is. I agree with everything else you posted though and I thought it was a good post.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    I haven't Cheryl, but it's true, I don't have a lot of free time. But I still respond to the occasional post. With Baseball and Personal training after work I have about 1 night free a week. Add in my own work outs and it's pretty hectic. But I'm here. Just slow to respond some times.
    Glad to know you still show up once and while. You know what I would love to find and resurrect? Your boot camp routine posted sometime in 2008.

    I have it around here somewhere, I'll see if I can't dig it up for you. I've moved on to bigger and better things though :)
  • wiscyproblems
    wiscyproblems Posts: 16
    I read the article and wasn't really sure that any of it really supported your argument nor was any of it really conclusive in any manner. Granted, a lot of it didn't make a ton of sense to me, I'm only a first year science student so a lot of it was foreign.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    I read the article and wasn't really sure that any of it really supported your argument nor was any of it really conclusive in any manner. Granted, a lot of it didn't make a ton of sense to me, I'm only a first year science student so a lot of it was foreign.

    all of it supports my argument. If you're still unsure, book an appointment with a registered dietitian and ask her/him what happens when the human body eats less than it can support for an extended period. Mind you, you must be very specific. Tell them that you want to know what happens when the calorie deficit is large enough so that what the person eats, plus what their body can mobilize concurrently from fat stores and glycogen, cannot meet what their body requires.

    They will (or should) tell you that after 3-7 days or so of this situation (depending on various client specific factors), glycogen reserves will run low, the sympathetic nervous system, at this point will activate what is called facultative thermogenesis, which is a reduction in metabolic rate and calorie needs. During prolonged bouts of under-nutrition, thermogenesis is reduced and metabolically active tissue (lean mass and organ tissue) is reduced. These were experimentally observed as well as known outcomes from research.

    for my part, I can't understand why you wouldn't "believe" in it, I can understand the need to tell people that they have the wrong idea about it, but it's not obscure science. Heck, enough people on here experience it that you could do a case study in it and receive excellent results. To say you don't believe in it is essentially denying that there is such a concept, and I can't see how one could do that. To me, it's like saying "the earth is not round". It's super frustrating to me to have people NOT believe in it and then not give me hard evidence in the form of research and analysis that disproves the concept. So I simply request this, I've shown you some of my evidence for starvation mode, please, if you could, show me your evidence to the contrary, otherwise there's really nothing to discuss, I can't debate opinion with you.
  • ShoShoyi
    ShoShoyi Posts: 34 Member
    Bump
  • sueclare38
    sueclare38 Posts: 125
    My diary will often show a really high deficit, when in fact it isn't. I'm eating at tdee-20, but I still log my exercise to keep track of what I'm doing, so if I burn 1000 calories of exercise that day, it will show as 1000 deficit.
  • phoebezeng
    phoebezeng Posts: 8
    After reading this article I realized I have completely misunderstood the meaning of my daily calorie goal, and that I have been starving myself all month long wondering why I haven't lost as must belly fat as I did last month. My daily calorie goal recommended by MFP is 1200 and I have been eating between 1200-1300 everyday this month thinking plus working out six days a week , burning 500-600 calories per workout. I had thought that is the amount of calories I should be eating,..My BMI is 22.3, between the healthy range. I haven't found it hard to restrict my diet and eat 1200 calories a day tho , but I did feel that my workout performance hasn't improved much since I started to restrict my diet. I will start to eat more from this day on. Thank you thank you thank you !
This discussion has been closed.

Categories