In Response to Starvation is a Myth Thread

Ever notice these threads always seem to boil down to 2 groups of people...the healthy & the not so much? :huh:

Yes! And when you click on their profile and see their diary and pictures, it's even more obvious.

Imho, if you were very heavy most of your life, but recently lost about 50lbs (even though you still have a ton more to lose), you didn't become a nutritional expert overnight.

Note: I'm not claiming to be a nutritional expert either. But I have not been heavy my entire life, nor have I ever been considered 'overweight' by any bmi chart or any chart other than my own 'I need to lose a few pounds' comfort level. But I see many people here thinking they are new-found experts and shoving their opinions down peoples throats when at my heaviest you could still fit two of me inside of the 'new thin' them.

“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?

“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?

+1

I know, I know, that's not what this thread is about any more... But any of you who see the OP's post as supporting what you believe shoudl stop and think. The reported experience is losing 3 pounds after getting sick and stopping working out and losing all the water/glycogen weight. How does that support starvation mode?

Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD.

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.

You need to look at the bigger picture of what happens when you up calories.

Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD.

No need for such rude generalizations. Pretty sure the idiocy surrounding ADD is not localized to my country alone.

Same reason why everyone in America thinks their kids have ADD.

No need for such rude generalizations. Pretty sure the idiocy surrounding ADD is not localized to my country alone.

You're right, my generalization was uncalled for and I stand corrected.

I think there is a big hormonal impact that impacts water weight - people think they are stalled but stress that dieting (and exercising) can cause on the body can have a big impact on fluid retention (as does exercise in itself). People often jump the gun on upping calories or think that upping them leads to more fat loss, when it is really fluid loss.

I also believe that individuals vary quite a bit (unfortunately the studies just show averages) as to the hormonal impact and their 'swinginess' re metabolism and water retention. <-- that btw is conjecture from what I have seen and not based on specific 'empirical evidence'.

I read the article, and it WAS good. I can't believe someone wanted to start a completely new thread ABOUT AN ARTICLE THEY DIDN'T EVEN READ.:huh:

I think there is a big hormonal impact that impacts water weight - people think they are stalled but stress that dieting (and exercising) can cause on the body can have a big impact on fluid retention (as does exercise in itself). People often jump the gun on upping calories or think that upping them leads to more fat loss, when it is really fluid loss.

I also believe that individuals vary quite a bit (unfortunately the studies just show averages) as to the hormonal impact and their 'swinginess' re metabolism and water retention. <-- that btw is conjecture from what I have seen and not based on specific 'empirical evidence'.

Whenever I start a new exercise I always get really sore (as expected) and gain a couple of pounds. However, I saw the plateau about a couple of months after I started my exercise, way after all the soreness and water weight have subsided. My weight can fluctuate by as much as 5 lbs between morning and midnight, so I have taken that into account as well.

In any case I don't see why I have to stick with 1600 limit that hardly works if I can do 1900 and lose weight (albeit slowly).

I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.

I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.

You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.

Adaptive Thermogenesis

The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.

The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.

It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.

Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.

And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).

It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this.

I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.

I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.

You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.