In Response to Starvation is a Myth Thread
Options
Replies
-
And we all know that if your views differ from the majority it must mean you are wrong. I often think back to when Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun. The majority of people disagreed with him. So he was proven to be wrong based on that line of thinking and to this day we now know that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.
Why do you feel it your responsibility to inform me of this? Do you have an interest in MFP? Are you the MFP quality assurance kahuna? Or, do you suffer from low t and just trying to take out your frustration?
I deemed it so. Why is it so important that you felt the need to ask me?Why is what you have to say so special that it deserves it's own thread?
I wasn't asking you anything, the question was rhetorical.
I meant to directly state that your thoughts don't deserve their own thread, and would have best been left buried on page 5 of the other thread.
BTW if you read the responses to my op you will see that you hold the minority opinion. Now bump it on down the road slick.0 -
Thank goodness it is the weekend.
I can hang around and read more about the hibernating sweet spot that orbits the Sun
0 -
“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth
I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.
The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined...
Had you finished the article, perhaps you would understand.
Yep. If you are going to make a thread about an article, at least read it.0 -
I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
Thanks for this and the op. A well written, reasoned response that avoids emotion. I have no problem with people having their own opinions, but snark does not equal wit. When I see hyperbole and snark, it turns me off to the content of the post.0 -
I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
Yeah, weight loss has a lot to do with metabolism and biofeedback mechanisms as well as calories in and energy out.. 800 cals per day IS a miserable existence. I see a lot of people who eat 800 cals one day and then 1500 the next. No wonder the body gets confused. Even if they succeed at first, they fail later on. The fatigue factors in, because how can a body do the work of the day with no energy (supplied by food)?
As for me, my metabolism had to be low. I hadn't heard my stomach rumble in years. Partly due to working the off shift, getting older, and being mildly hypothyroid, along with some poor eating habits, the weight gain occurred and was really difficult to lose. I started eating a little bit of protein after awakening (hungry or no), measuring my food, and exercising hard on the days that I wasn't at work. I tried to eat the same number of cals per day. I lost almost 30 pounds since then, and wake up with a growling stomach ( music to my ears)!0 -
“Starvation mode is a myth” thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1086352-starvation-mode-is-a-myth
I thought it was important to start a new thread in order to share my experience so it wouldnt be lost in 5 pages of comments. My main purpose is convey that sometimes the simple answers can be misleading and frustrating. Losing weight can require different approaches and poor results are not always the result of poor discipline. I say work smarter, not harder.
The above thread linked to an article that included this gem: Even though there’s only ONE true reason for why a person isn’t losing weight, there are dozens of excuses and reasons that a person will come up with and consider to be the cause that just aren’t actually true, accurate or even remotely based in reality. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I couldnt finish the article as it was one of the most ignorant items Ive read on this subject. Weight loss and metabolism is unique to each person and often there is no simple catch all answer; and it's statements like the above that cause so many to give up in either frustrating confusion or assuming that they are indeed lazy and undisciplined.
Im not in argument with the “less calories equal weight loss”, for the normal person having normal health and metabolism. I am taking exception to the smug and condescending clowns who regurgitate the latest article they have just read that have little basis in science. I am saying that there are dynamics that change the equation such as thyroid problems, and medications.
I have an under active thyroid but never the less, I dropped an average of around 2lbs per week and went from 260 to 222 quick and easy. Then I cut my calories again per MFP and increased my running distance - and quit losing. I was patient, but after 3 1/2 months my weight creeped up so I went to the local bariatric center and consulted with the RD and she tested my RMR.
I am 6' tall and at the time weighed 230 and my RMR was 1600 kcals - normal RMR for someone like me should be in the range of 1792 - 2389kcals / day
The conclusion was that I was eating so little that I had stalled my metabolism and that my weight gain was a result of me increasing my running distance; which increased my glycogen stores. (1 gram of glycogen binds with 2.7 grams of water.)
I was advised to increase my calorie intake by 560 calories, start HIIT or lifting, and be patient. I also decided to adopt the TDEE method per heybales spreadsheet. After a few weeks I got sick and cut my running almost in half, and dropped 3 pounds in about 1 1/2 - 2 weeks.
If you are having problems dropping weight contact your local bariatric/health center, doctor, college and find out where you can have your RMR tested. I paid $60 and the test took about 10 minutes and then the RD worked with me for 50 minutes. Well worth the price.
Im not claiming victory, the jury is still out - but I have seen and learned enough to know that there is no one answer fits all.
I'm confused here. Are you saying that your losing 3lbs in a couple of weeks due to illness is proof positive that you weren't eating enough prior? Didn't you just the paragraph before state that excess water is stored w/glycogen when increasing activity? So, would it not stand to reason that when you were ill, and not exercising as much, that you dropped water along with glycogen? To the tune of, I dunno', about 3lbs. in a couple of weeks?0 -
I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
Thanks for this and the op. A well written, reasoned response that avoids emotion. I have no problem with people having their own opinions, but snark does not equal wit. When I see hyperbole and snark, it turns me off to the content of the post.
I agree on both accounts :drinker:
Definitely something I can use in the future if I get jammed up and while the jury is still out as to whether or not I'll be able to meet my goals on this current path, it's nice to know there are other options rather than going back to the brick wall I'd been banging my head against :ohwell:0 -
I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
Yeah, weight loss has a lot to do with metabolism and biofeedback mechanisms as well as calories in and energy out.. 800 cals per day IS a miserable existence. I see a lot of people who eat 800 cals one day and then 1500 the next. No wonder the body gets confused. Even if they succeed at first, they fail later on. The fatigue factors in, because how can a body do the work of the day with no energy (supplied by food)?
As for me, my metabolism had to be low. I hadn't heard my stomach rumble in years. Partly due to working the off shift, getting older, and being mildly hypothyroid, along with some poor eating habits, the weight gain occurred and was really difficult to lose. I started eating a little bit of protein after awakening (hungry or no), measuring my food, and exercising hard on the days that I wasn't at work. I tried to eat the same number of cals per day. I lost almost 30 pounds since then, and wake up with a growling stomach ( music to my ears)!
Bold: By using fat stores as energy.0 -
There is some science behind a slowdown in metabolic rate; there have been a couple of really good recent threads on adaptive thermogenesis with links to abundant studies and articles in peer reviewed medical journals. Some people do have their rate slow as much as 15% after long periods of significant deficit and it can take a while for it to return to normal. Most people will have a slowdown of less than 15%, possibly even 0. I think I may have slowed mine a little, because while the math worked early on and I lost 2 pounds a week for months, when I got close to goal and adjusted to a smaller deficit, the weight was coming off a little slower than calculated. But it did come off and I am at goal now. And now it does seem like my maintenance level is slightly below what the calculators say it should be.
It did not cause me to plateau. It did not keep me from losing. If I were told up front that I could lose the weight but I would have a slightly slowed MR as a side effect, I would still do it. It does not make me slower or less energetic (I have run 106 miles so far in August) and it is likely to return to normal. It does not validate the idea that you will come to a halt in loss. It just might make your progress a little slower than you hoped and experienced early on. If slow and steady works for you, then do that. But the sky is not falling; just my weight is (actually was; I ignored the hulabaloo and stayed on the high deficit to lose 45 pounds and then lost the last 10 at a slower pace).
ETA - here is a really good thread on AT:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss0 -
I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).0 -
Everyone is overlooking the most important thing in this thread. The OP is using a photo from the movie master of disguise as an avatar photo.
That movie is a crime against humanity. It killed Dana Carvey's career.
Um are you jealous because you weren't allowed in the Turtle Club? For some reason I thought this movie was ridiculously hilarious.0 -
I thought the article excellent.
Agreed and I also agree with you should have at least finished it.
Because the article basically states you can starve but the words "starvation mode" are thrown around too much and used when people aren't loosing weight and swear they are doing everything right when in fact if you dig deeper they aren't, ie underestimating the calorie intake becausethey don't even measure food let alone weigh it and over estimating calorie burn by oh let's say adding in getting groceries as an activity...or using a HRM for exercises you can't.0 -
So because someones opinion "sucks" he should not voice it? Give me a break... He had every right to post this just as you did to say it sucked.0
-
I've seen folks post that they had their RMR tested and it was lower than average as evidence that some people really truly need to eat less than 1200 calories. And now I've seen low tested RMR used as evidence that eating "too little" can cause damage and people absolutely need to eat way more than 1200 calories. So I guess finding out your RMR tells you exactly nada.
Of course, it seems from the OP that the "evidence" here is a very slightly lower than average RMR and typical weight fluctuation over a few weeks. Le sigh.
Girl walks into the bariatric center....0 -
First of all I paid my dues and I brought a cake. The uptight smug *kitten* wouldn't even validate my parking.
Um are you jealous because you weren't allowed in the Turtle Club? For some reason I thought this movie was ridiculously hilarious.Everyone is overlooking the most important thing in this thread. The OP is using a photo from the movie master of disguise as an avatar photo.
That movie is a crime against humanity. It killed Dana Carvey's career.0 -
Well to be fair I don't think his position was the the OP did not have a right to post it. He just did not feel his post was deserving of its own thread. If he was saying that his post should be reported then I would agree that he would be overstepping his bounds.So because someones opinion "sucks" he should not voice it? Give me a break... He had every right to post this just as you did to say it sucked.0 -
I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).
If somebody sticks with a certain caloric goal a day and that number happens to be the lowered caloric expenditure due to adaptive thermogenesis, then his weight loss will stall. In other word, he's in a lower state of maintenance and can't lose weight until he either cuts calories even further or increases it a little to prod his metabolism up.
Let's say my maintenance is 2100, and if I eat too little AT is capable of lowering it to 1600. I call these upper maintenance and lower maintenance points. If I eat 1600 a day I would not lose weight at all once AT ramps down my metabolism. A month without any movement of the dial seems like forever for most folks. At this point I have two choices to lose weight: either cut deeper beyond the ability of my body to adapt (severe starvation), or eat a little more to trick my body into burning close to 2100 cals a day again (mild starvation).
In short: the so-called starvation mode is real, but only within a certain range of calories.0 -
I think the OP just wanted to start a thread expressing the opposing view.
In the other thread, several people were rude and condescending to those of us experiencing plateaus. Sure, weight loss is an input/output thing, but there are other factors happening that don't always make it easy to know exactly what that input and output should be. The attitude of many who supported the article seemed to be, "Oh, you're not losing weight? Well then you're obviously lying about the calories you eat or you're tracking it incorrectly."
I am logging correctly and have no desire to cheat/lie, because who is that actually cheating? Me. But when I said this, I was met with, "Well, you need to weigh your food, not measure it." ... after I said TWICE that I weigh my food with a digital scale. I mean, c'mon, either give people advice or don't, but if you're going to give them advice at least READ what they wrote! Lol.
Some people were very helpful and gave me encouragement ... but I just can't stand that attitude of, "You're struggling right now and I'm not, so I'm an expert and you're an idiot."
We've all had success and we've all had failure ... but I think some people get to where they want to be and forget all the struggle it took to get them there. (This goes for many things in life; not just weight loss.)0 -
The range found in the studies on AT topped out at 15%, which would not reduce 2100 to 1600. Most people get less than a 15% reduction. On top of that, reducing that little is not likely to trigger AT at all from the studies I have seen. It is more likely to happen if you were burning 2100 and start limiting consumption to 1200 or so. Then with worst case numbers your burn might drop to 1785 and you would lose slower than you might be expecting to.I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption.
People who think starvation mode is a myth assume that the body has no ability to vary its energy expenditure, which is wrong. Within a certain range the body absolutely can slow itself down and spend less calories. However, below a certain point it can't continue to slow down and has to start burning something. When you eat only 800 calories you will lose weight even if you stay in bed all day. It might not be immediate, but it will happen.
Most people don't want to eat 800 calories a day, that's a miserable existence. We want to eat small enough to lose weight, but not so small that we're starving every waking minute and can think of nothing but food. Everybody has a sweet spot, which can only be found through trial and error. Each of us aren't so unique that general principles of weight loss don't apply the same, but each of us is unique enough that no two people have exactly the same caloric need. The BMR calculation is just an estimate.
If you stall and you seem to be eating too little, then increase it by 100 calories a day for a couple of weeks until you see results again.
I understand AT as well as down and up regulation of NEAT and I also think that it is a myth (the one that gets thrown around that you enter starvation mode and cannot lose weight at all).
If somebody sticks with a certain caloric goal a day and that number happens to be the lowered caloric expenditure due to adaptive thermogenesis, then his weight loss will stall. In other word, he's in a lower state of maintenance and can't lose weight until he either cuts calories even further or increases it a little to prod his metabolism up.
Let's say my maintenance is 2100, and if I eat too little AT is capable of lowering it to 1600. I call these upper maintenance and lower maintenance points. If I eat 1600 a day I would not lose weight at all once AT ramps down my metabolism. A month without any movement of the dial seems like forever for most folks. At this point I have two choices to lose weight: either cut deeper beyond the ability of my body to adapt (severe starvation), or eat a little more to trick my body into burning close to 2100 cals a day again (mild starvation).
In short: the so-called starvation mode is real, but only within a certain range of calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions