Hunger Strike, Starvation Mode and Sugar Toxicity
Options
Replies
-
I don't think you can take the most extreme of cases, such as anorexia or hunger strikes, to prove the point you're trying to prove.
I'm really not all that invested the OP's debate about whether starvation mode is real, or what kinds of sugar are worst... I kinda don't care. I'm just saying, sometimes extremes are helpful, but sometimes they're really not. The OP's argument is akin to deciding that Tylenol is dangerous because when you swallow two bottles at a time it can be deadly. It's flawed logic.0 -
I don't think you can take the most extreme of cases, such as anorexia or hunger strikes, to prove the point you're trying to prove.
I'm really not all that invested the OP's debate about whether starvation mode is real, or what kinds of sugar are worst... I kinda don't care. I'm just saying, sometimes extremes are helpful, but sometimes they're really not. The OP's argument is akin to deciding that Tylenol is dangerous because when you swallow two bottles at a time it can be deadly. It's flawed logic.
How is the logic flawed?0 -
The whole going below 1200 calories argument seems a little moot anyways.
Seriously, how many people keep that sort of diet up for long to begin with?
It works if you dip below 1200, and it will take time to cause damage, but chances are, you are going to eat something long before you ever get to the point it damages your body.
And what is magical about 1200 anyways? 1200 calories to a 200 ib man would feel a lot different than 1200 calories to a 115ib woman. One could probably keep it up easily, while the other would be constantly hungry. So why is their magical minimum the same? Their caloric needs are in no way similar... Where did 1200 come from anyways?0 -
INteresting.0
-
Each human body is one in itself. Reactions to sugar / calorie intake / carbohydrates / etc. all have variable outcomes.
Thus, the OP's point is Right!... and Wrong!
What works for me may not work for you. So, cut everyone some slack and quit wasting your time trying to throw egg on others faces.0 -
Incidentally... the stalled weight loss of "starvation mode" is not the ONLY valid reason to advice against severe calorie restrictions. Whether it's bogus or not, there are many other legitimate reasons to counsel people to eat a reasonable number of calories. For example, people who starve themselves are extremely likely to binge and self-sabotage. Weight loss achieved this way is extremely unlikely to be sustainable over the long term. Another example: it's nearly impossible to get adequate micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) from a diet that is severely restricted, even if you supplement with a multi-vitamin. Your body needs micronutrients, and deficiencies over time can lead to all kinds of metabolic and physiological damage.
The point just being, whether or not "starvation mode" is a real impediment to weight loss... people who imagine that they can take a 900-calorie-per-day path to their future dreams need to be told to EAT.0 -
Oh I'm in on this.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
In to watch0
-
You would think healthy would matter more than a number as well as quality of life. Why focus on just lowering a number if you don't try to do anything beyond that. You don't have to be perfection of healthy eating but at least try and eat some good foods. ( aka fruits and veggies)
no reason to go to far that is something i had to learn. Also people who do starvation diets not only ( normally) gain all that weight back and then some can do some real damage to their health. 0 -
Incidentally... the stalled weight loss of "starvation mode" is not the ONLY valid reason to advice against severe calorie restrictions. Whether it's bogus or not, there are many other legitimate reasons to counsel people to eat a reasonable number of calories. For example, people who starve themselves are extremely likely to binge and self-sabotage. Weight loss achieved this way is extremely unlikely to be sustainable over the long term. Another example: it's nearly impossible to get adequate micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) from a diet that is severely restricted, even if you supplement with a multi-vitamin. Your body needs micronutrients, and deficiencies over time can lead to all kinds of metabolic and physiological damage.
The point just being, whether or not "starvation mode" is a real impediment to weight loss... people who imagine that they can take a 900-calorie-per-day path to their future dreams need to be told to EAT.
No-one is advocating low calorie diets (in fact, both the OP and myself made reference to other issues) - the post is about whether you get to a point where AT is enough to stop you losing weight.
...as well as dat toxic sugar...0 -
OP: I think the point of the post is kinda being missed
0 -
I don't think you can take the most extreme of cases, such as anorexia or hunger strikes, to prove the point you're trying to prove.
I'm really not all that invested the OP's debate about whether starvation mode is real, or what kinds of sugar are worst... I kinda don't care. I'm just saying, sometimes extremes are helpful, but sometimes they're really not. The OP's argument is akin to deciding that Tylenol is dangerous because when you swallow two bottles at a time it can be deadly. It's flawed logic.
How is the logic flawed?
The logic is flawed because it relies on evidence from an extreme example. I provided the Tylenol analogy specifically to illustrate that the extreme is not always the best approach.
So, for example, the OPs news article indicated a variety of outcomes amongst the hunger-striking inmates. We do not know if the two who have lost more than 15% of their body weight have lost just slightly more than the others, or if they are true statistical outliers. But in either case, the results of a prisoner with a healthy BMI consuming only powdered gatorade for two months are not necessarily predictive for overweight person here on MFP who's consuming inadequate calories.
Does that help to clarify?0 -
TL;dr?OP: I think the point of the post is kinda being missed 0 -
The whole going below 1200 calories argument seems a little moot anyways.
Seriously, how many people keep that sort of diet up for long to begin with?
It works if you dip below 1200, and it will take time to cause damage, but chances are, you are going to eat something long before you ever get to the point it damages your body.
And what is magical about 1200 anyways? 1200 calories to a 200 ib man would feel a lot different than 1200 calories to a 115ib woman. One could probably keep it up easily, while the other would be constantly hungry. So why is their magical minimum the same? Their caloric needs are in no way similar... Where did 1200 come from anyways?
You know i wonder that as well i sometimes feel ok eating 800-900 a day on days i ate a lot of veggies with no side effects when i eat normally i just eat til i am not hungery i dont think there is a magic number that applys from day to day. I need more calories on some days than others.0 -
Each human body is one in itself. Reactions to sugar / calorie intake / carbohydrates / etc. all have variable outcomes.
Thus, the OP's point is Right!... and Wrong!
What works for me may not work for you. So, cut everyone some slack and quit wasting your time trying to throw egg on others faces.
Yeah i can see that to some people sugar really is like poison diabetics come to mind. Also it is possible to be allergic to sugar hell i also read about a person allergic to all plant products like all veggies and fruits period. She couldn't even touch them without swelling it was unusual case for sure.0 -
I don't think you can take the most extreme of cases, such as anorexia or hunger strikes, to prove the point you're trying to prove.
I'm really not all that invested the OP's debate about whether starvation mode is real, or what kinds of sugar are worst... I kinda don't care. I'm just saying, sometimes extremes are helpful, but sometimes they're really not. The OP's argument is akin to deciding that Tylenol is dangerous because when you swallow two bottles at a time it can be deadly. It's flawed logic.
How is the logic flawed?
The logic is flawed because it relies on evidence from an extreme example. I provided the Tylenol analogy specifically to illustrate that the extreme is not always the best approach.
So, for example, the OPs news article indicated a variety of outcomes amongst the hunger-striking inmates. We do not know if the two who have lost more than 15% of their body weight have lost just slightly more than the others, or if they are true statistical outliers. But in either case, the results of a prisoner with a healthy BMI consuming only powdered gatorade for two months are not necessarily predictive for overweight person here on MFP who's consuming inadequate calories.
Does that help to clarify?
BMR/TDEE slowing to a point where you cannot lose weight even on low calories has to be looked at in the extreme. No one is saying that it is conclusive proof per se, but if starvation mode exists (in the form often applied here), why are they losing weight? Also, it's yet another thing to look at with all the other studies that have been done - not just in isolation. Just one more thing that shows it does not happen. I have yet to see anything compelling that says it does outside very lean individuals.
ETA: as people seem to be missing it, I am (and I doubt the OP is) not saying VLCDs are a good idea or do not have a lot of possible extreme negative side effects.0 -
Each human body is one in itself. Reactions to sugar / calorie intake / carbohydrates / etc. all have variable outcomes.
Thus, the OP's point is Right!... and Wrong!
What works for me may not work for you. So, cut everyone some slack and quit wasting your time trying to throw egg on others faces.
Yeah i can see that to some people sugar really is like poison diabetics come to mind. Also it is possible to be allergic to sugar hell i also read about a person allergic to all plant products like all veggies and fruits period. She couldn't even touch them without swelling it was unusual case for sure.
So, are peanuts toxic?0 -
I'm usually OUT on 1200 calorie threads (I agree the number is arbitrary) and also OUT on F&N threads. But this one seems so arbitrary that it leaves me confuzzled. They're on an ultra low calorie diet, are experiencing nausea and weakness, and have (presumably) lost a substantial amount of muscle mass. As prisoners they have no daily responsibilities but I doubt if they would be able to function at a high enough level to hold down jobs, raise kids, or do the 90 minute elliptical sessions that tend to accompany the sub 1200 diets on this site.
So yes, they lost weight, and yes, 1200 is arbitrary and no, metabolism doesn't shut down on ultra low diets.....but surely there is a better, more responsible case to be made for this idea than this hunger strike, no? Before we start rubber stamping every 800 cal diet on the forums I'd like to stand on a sturdier platform than this.0 -
According to the WHO, UNICEF, OXFAM and others there are roughly 1.5 billion people ( yes, Billions ! ) on this planet who eat consistently less than 1000 calories a day; often during a whole lifetime. While this is not considered a starvation diet, these people are in direct danger from any kind of catastrophe like food shortages through prolonged war, political unrest, flood or draught or through extreme poverty, which could easily push the amount of calories they have available down. Any change downwards will upset this very precarious nutritional system and people will starve and die from that starvation usually of opportunistic infections or systematic organ failure.The whole going below 1200 calories argument seems a little moot anyways.
Seriously, how many people keep that sort of diet up for long to begin with?
The above mentioned organizations consider a diet of on average 500 or less calories over a prolonged period of time starting in some areas after two month, but usually after 90 days to lead ultimately to death through starvation, if the calories are not increased. The discrepancy of the time is, because some groups ( like years ago in North Korea ) have access to drinking water, while others ( like right now in Mali and Somalia ) do not. I have dealt with people who have not had more than 500 calories for 6-8 month before they were unable to walk, move or speak. In this state they usually succumbed within a couple of weeks.
Of course if you only think of the US, the picture is completely different, even though statistics say that there are also people who eat 1200 calories or less, usually due to extreme poverty, unless it is due to a personally selected diet regimen . Admittedly the percentage is not very high, but does exist.0 -
I imagine the statistics of people below the poverty level eating below 1200 calories is VERY low considering that the rate of obesity is highest at that socioeconomic level.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions