Hunger Strike, Starvation Mode and Sugar Toxicity

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.

lol what case?
I havent seen anything about someone being allergic to sugar, intolerant yes, but not allergic

My uncle really is he was getting massive sores his doc wont even let him have fruit it was very odd but it did clear up. There are people allergic to about everything. Also most sugar is made of beets if your allergic to beets most sugar is off the menu for you. You can also be allergic to sugar cane. Hell there are even people allergic to sunlight.

you have a huge misunderstanding of intolerance vs allergic and what things create an autoimmune response within the body.

Ok

FWIW, we actually have quite a bit of data on metabolism and what affects it in dogs and cats because it is easier to control their diet than a study population of humans.

Let me preface this by saying that obviously, dogs and cats are not small furry humans, and cats especially have some different aspects to their metabolism, but the information is interesting either way.

Both canine and feline genomes have been completely mapped and the genes that have anything to do with metabolism (ones that code for proteins, hormones, signallers, etc. that control fat burning, fat storage, appetite, glucose metabolism, etc.) have been identified. The scientists were then able to look at lean animals vs obese animals and see which genes were expressed differently. (Gene expression basically means the volume that the gene is doing its job at, even though all of the animals have the same genes, in some they are more or less active. In layman's terms, this is why my dad can eat 2 pints of Ben and Jerry's a day and not work out and not gain an ounce, and I, who shares half his DNA, simply LOOKS at that ice cream and gained two lbs). It turned out the lean and obese animals had vastly different gene expressions for these genes.

The first experiment was to see if simple weight loss helped shift the gene expression. It did not. The previously obese animals were made to lose to a healthy weight using a lower calorie, higher protein/lower carb diet, but their gene expression (read: metabolism) stayed the same. This is what leads to the yo-yo effect. People (and pet owners) work REALLY hard to lose the weight (or have their pets lose the weight) initially, and then slack off once the goal is reached. Because the metabolism/gene expression is still coding for an obese animal (wants to store fat, does not want to burn fat), the weight comes right back.

Another study showed that each time dogs went through the yo-yo using the exact same diet, it took less time to regain the weight. I find this super depressing because it explains why people are more likely to give up after each failed attempt. It is literally easier to gain the weight each time around.

Of course exercise and building muscle can make a difference in the gene expression and metabolic rate. Sadly, pets can't voluntarily go to the gym like we can, and dogs are dependent on their owners to provide exercise, which doesn't always happen. Sedentary pets, notably indoor cats like mine, have definitely been shown to have a very slow, unhealthy metabolic gene expression. Cutting calories on these animals does not work. They simply don't lose weight. We've had cats eating half of their maintenance calories with no results. Now, as another poster mentioned, I'm sure if we fed them one kibble a day, or stopped feeding them altogether, they would eventually lose weight and starve. Of course. But feeding them a relatively restricted calorie diet did nothing for their weight loss.

Some foods were identified that are able to shift that gene expression. These foods are different for dogs and for cats, and so it's reasonable to assume they don't all necessarily apply to humans either, but they included things like myristic acid from coconut oil, tomatoes, carrots, L-carnitine, pyruvate, etc. In combination, these nutrients/foods shifted the genetic expression for metabolism to that of a naturally lean pet. They lost body fat and gained lean muscle mass both during the weight loss and weight maintenance phases, as measured by a DEXA scan It turned out it really had nothing to do with protein/carb/fat levels, and everything to do with just putting these particular nutrients into combination. It worked in the lab animals who were 0100% controlled and it worked in owned pets in real households who weren't asked to change their habits other than swapping kibbles. One example: my ex's cat is eating this food at the same calorie level he was previously unsuccessful at on other foods and has lost 4 of his 22 lbs since April. And he's not deadlifting, I can guarantee you that.

That was a long story but the moral is: there is evidence in animals that simple calorie restriction alone can slow the metabolism, but common sense would dictate that below some threshold over a period of time, if you're starving yourself, you're going to, well, starve. The other moral is that metabolism at the genetic level is far more complex than anyone has understood so far, and the people who do this for a living at that level are still working it out so I don't think it can be expected that anyone on this forum Knows It All..... and that nutrigenomics is very very cool.

Super Interesting Thread! Especially about the extent to which adaptive thermogenesis actually limits weight loss. Anyone read any good articles on it?

This would be an interesting case study if they took all sorts of measurements (bf, wt, metabolic markers etc) prior to them going on a hunger strike. What's currently going on seems to be at odds with some common wisdom among these parts.

1) They are clearly consuming less than their BMR and half of the magical 1200 cals, yet they appear to still be losing weight (2 prisoners have lost at least 15% of their bodyweight in under 2 months. Do the 1200 cal/VLCD zealots believe they would be losing more if they were eating more?

2) The cals they are consuming are entirely from gatorade, the cals from gatorade all come from evil refined sugar, isn't that supposed to stop weight loss in it's track or cause all sorts of other evils? 54 days of just sugar and not the "good" fruit sugar either, if sugar was toxic you'd think some serious issues would have arisen

None of this of course is saying they are aren't doing some sort of damage to themselves but for the fear mongering that goes on about low cal diets and sugar around here, you'd expect these folks to be dead

With an inmate hunger strike over conditions at California’s highest security lockups now at day 54, it seems remarkable that none of the 41 prisoners refusing food since July 8 has experienced serious or life-threatening medical problems.

Officials monitoring the protest report that, as of Wednesday, the men had body mass indexes in the 20s, well above a danger zone established by the court-appointed receiver overseeing prison medical care. Only two of the prisoners had lost more than 15 percent of their body weight, another critical measure.

While the inmates are clearly suffering as a result of the extended fast, and report bouts of extreme nausea and dizziness, there are “no imminent health emergencies and no prisoners in critical condition,” said Joyce Hayhoe, a spokesperson for receiver Clark Kelso.

So what’s keeping the hunger strikers from more severe starvation? The answer, it turns out, could be mass quantities of Gatorade, the ubiquitous sports drink.

Under state rules, inmates are considered on hunger strike if they refuse all state meals for more than three days and have no other food items in their cells, such as snacks from the prison commissary.

However, Hayhoe said each day the hunger strikers are receiving five powder packets of Gatorade that deliver a total of 600-625 calories. That’s in addition to supplies of vitamins.

Hayhoe said the electrolytes in Gatorade are not considered “nutrition,” which would otherwise cancel inmates’ participation in a hunger strike.

“The amount of calories and the type of calories (from Gatorade) will not keep them from getting malnourished and could lead to heart, liver and muscle damage,” she said. “But it helps sustain them longer.”

The aim of providing electrolytes is to prevent severe dehydration, Hayhoe said.

Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”

Garber further notes that body mass index is a blunt measure and must be looked at individually. “We see patients starved and at high risk and they still have normal BMIs,” Garber noted. So hunger striking prisoners with BMIs in the 20s may not indicate much about their medical condition.

The fact that two of the prisoners have lost 15 percent of their body weight is a more accurate measure, she says, because it takes into account their starting point. Garber said a loss of 15 percent of body weight is a criteria for hospital admission in adolescents she treats.

As of Thursday, none of the strikers had been moved to an outside hospital, according to Hayhoe.

On August 19, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson issued an order allowing force-feeding (or involuntary re-feeding) of any inmate near death. While the order prompted angry responses from prisoner advocacy groups, officials said such measures are not needed, at least for now.

In fact, visitors who spoke with strike leaders this week reported the men were chipper and energetic, thanks in part to the daily supply of Gatorade.

Anne Weills, an Oakland attorney representing several of the strikers in a federal lawsuit over conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, said the prisoners were “vibrant and intellectually sharp” when she met with them on Wednesday.

“They are fiercely committed to this struggle,” she said. “They still want to negotiate with the state.”

However, corrections officials have refused to negotiate with the hunger strikers and this week released a document claiming to have addressed (thought not agreed to) all their key demands.

Officials maintain the current protest is the work of violent gang leaders seeking to reassert control over criminal networks in prison system and on the streets.

Hayhoe said that while several inmates are under medical observation, the biggest concern right now is a sudden heart attack.

http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/08/30/prison-hunger-strikers-getting-by-on-gatorade-vitamins/

I lol'd because some of them are almost dead and have court orders for force-feeding to prevent death. Hmm.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/19/20095099-california-may-force-feed-some-inmates-on-hunger-strike-judge-says?lite

I lol'd because some of them are almost dead and have court orders for force-feeding to prevent death. Hmm.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/19/20095099-california-may-force-feed-some-inmates-on-hunger-strike-judge-says?lite

Again, not saying it is a good thing - but where are you reading that some prisoners are almost dead in that article?

But did they lose their gainzzzzz?

The strike started on July 8, according to the article. The article was written on August 30. Some prisoners have lost 15% of their weight.

For the sake of argument, assume the prisoners ate nothing at all and were completely sedentary with a BMR of around 2k a day. As of the writing of the article, the hunger strike had been going on for about 8 weeks, or roughly 56 days. This would equate to roughly 112k calories burned, or 32lbs.

Well. ****. 32 lbs on a 200 lb man is about a 15% reduction in weight. It's almost as if there is a law of physics that makes this math **** just work out. The only problem is that once you factor in the calories from the gatorade, this hypothetical inmate should have only lost 22 lbs.

I think they lost some gains! Not the gains man! NOT THE GAINS!

Who said they hadn't? They almost are guaranteed to have.

When i was 20 years old, I went on an 800 calorie a day diet and i lost weight, and i dont remember being very hungry.

If this starvation mode thing is not true, and if one can lose weight eating less than 1200 thats a relief.

Because I dont personally buy the whole "eat your exercise calories back" thing. Hey if im going to sweat off 200 pounds in the gym, I dont want to waste that by eating the calories back.. I would want to keep the 200 calories burned as an extra bonus towards losing weight.

I do better eating less calories in a day, like if im busy and dont take time to eat dinner, the scale shows a greater loss in the morning.

But back to the OP, people in other countries that you see who are truly starving thru no effort of their own, they are just poor, do lose weight, because they have less calories and you too could be like them if you chose not to eat.

I think if a person is starving, it just shows the body's excellent adaptation skills. A person can live a long time without food because of the marvelous systems the body has in place, though a person cannot live without water for more than a few days. So these guys in the OP's first post are drinking water. and its keeping them alive. but you can live awhile longer without food. The body adapts.

Starvation mode as it is tossed around is a myth. I have never seen a fat anorexic. (not trying to be funny because that is very serious). You will lose your body fat as part of the starvation process and muscle mass but if you protect your muscle mass a LCD will also work.

Exactly.

Gatorade protects from LBM loss?
Who knew!

I believe you missed a key quote in the article. "Still, 650 calories from Gatorade constitutes “a severe starvation diet,” notes Andrea Garber, an expert on starvation with UC San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital. The Gatorade is merely “prolonging the starvation, not preventing it.”

While starvation mode in terms of how it is used is a myth, starvation in and of itself is not. The reality is that if you restrict the bodies intake of nutrition and calories severely enough for long enough it will fist drop weight quickly, then slow the metabolism to a crawl and finally pillage itself in an attempt to survive. Don't believe it, watch someone who is not getting enough calories over a lengthy time, it is an obvious and gruesome thing to watch. The more they have in reserves the longer it takes to reach each phase.

No doubt starvation is real, how much adaptive thermogenesis kicks in above and beyond what one would expect from the lower bodyweight and loss of muscle (this is clearly a muscle wasting diet), is what would be interesting. From various things I've read I haven't seen any sort of consensus on how much additional down regulation to the metabolism there is.

one study that Tom Venuto quoted somewhere on his blog showed that in some individuals, adaptive thermogenesis caused a 30% drop in metabolic rate that wasn't accounted for by loss of lean tissue, but there was a lot of variation (i.e. some individuals seem to be a lot better at adaptive thermogenesis than others). I don't recall the actual academic reference, however Venuto has some very good articles on adaptive thermogenesis and other affects of starvation on his blog.

From a survival/evolutionary point of view.... we are the descendants of generation upon generation of survivors of food shortages, those whose bodies were able to adapt to eating fewer calories survived better and left more genes in the population, which we've all inherited, as we can only be descended from the survivors. It's only to be expected that the human body is remarkably good at adapting to eating very little. If your goal is to survive in very harsh circumstances where food availability is limited then it's a good thing. However if the goal is to be (and look) fit, strong and healthy, then starving yourself is utterly counter-productive. And while a human can survive on very little food.... there's a huge difference between mere survival and optimal health. Well fed humans can get incredibly fit and strong. Half starved humans are neither, they are just surviving.

I hate the term "starvation mode" because it's so misleading, it implies there's some kind of on/off switch in the metabolism which there absolutely isn't.... however people should not underestimate the body's ability to adapt and respond to food shortages.... and also what many people forget (including people who write excellent articles on adaptive thermogenesis), is that quite a few of the adaptations to eating too little are behavioural/psychological, e.g. obsessing about food and binge eating. These are as much evolved survival responses to food shortages as adaptive thermogenesis is, and they tend to kick in a lot sooner. Our evolutionary ancestors didn't know how much they were supposed to eat, so if they went for a few days without eating enough to sustain their bodies, they would get mega hungry, and start obsessing about food, which would lead to them spending more time trying to get more food, and they would eat a lot more of it when they got it. You see the exact same responses kicking in with modern people who go on too strict or too restrictive diets. The survival instincts kick in and they go on a binge. (then they feel bad and guilty and make their situation even worse by being even more restrictive and they end up in a cycle of excessive restriction and bingeing, where they're basically in constant battle with their own survival instincts.... an utterly counter-productive struggle that leads them further and further away from what they want, i.e. a healthy body that looks good)

But did they lose their gainzzzzz?

The strike started on July 8, according to the article. The article was written on August 30. Some prisoners have lost 15% of their weight.

For the sake of argument, assume the prisoners ate nothing at all and were completely sedentary with a BMR of around 2k a day. As of the writing of the article, the hunger strike had been going on for about 8 weeks, or roughly 56 days. This would equate to roughly 112k calories burned, or 32lbs.

Well. ****. 32 lbs on a 200 lb man is about a 15% reduction in weight. It's almost as if there is a law of physics that makes this math **** just work out. The only problem is that once you factor in the calories from the gatorade, this hypothetical inmate should have only lost 22 lbs.

I think they lost some gains! Not the gains man! NOT THE GAINS!

Who said they hadn't? They almost are guaranteed to have.

I never said anyone did. I am just playing devils advocate.

The point I am making is that without body composition and blood marker tests, you can't really make the claim that "adaptive thermogenesis" is or is not happening, or to what degree. If 33% of my lost weight is muscle mass and I have a 66% reduction in t4 levels, as some studies suggest, then my metabolism will absolutely be downregulated.

Will it be enough to defy physics? Nope.

adaptive thermogenesis does not defy physics though

thermogenesis literally means heat production. The body produces less heat because it's burning less fuel, if it's burning less fuel then it'll be doing less. Energy gets directed away from non-essential systems and conserved for the essential ones. So their hair may fall out because the body isn't growing it any more. They may be more prone to infection because the immune system's getting less energy, they can't think straight because the brain's getting less energy... etc etc. And they will probably also feel cold... all of these are common side effects of starvation.... the human body is remarkably adaptive.