Anyone else not believe in "starvation mode?"

America is fat because of the poor food quality. Poor kinds of carb people eat and food that are loaded with different kinds of sugar. In America, everything has to be "sweet"(aka loaded with sugar)

This is a very good lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0

Hmmm so it has nothing to do with calories then? Thats a relief

From what I can deduce from his lecture, it has to do with the kind of carb/calorie people consume.

Basically boils down to food. To get your calories, will you want to get it from white rice or white sugar?

I'll get them from wherever I want as long as I'm under my allotted calories for the day.

To get you feel full, would you take white rice or white sugar?

Would you chow on white sugar to get 1200 calories or on white rice to get 1200 calories?

So do you really think someone would eat all of their calories from one or another? I believe your argument is invalid because it is dealing with unrealistic extremes.

Exactly. Which is why I am raising this. The source of calorie is also important, not just the amount of calories. If only the amount of calories is what matters, we might as well all be eating white sugar. 75 teaspon a day to meat the 1200 calories

Peachy, stop highjacking this thread.

YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINT. We choose not to listen to your fear mongering.

America is fat because of the poor food quality. Poor kinds of carb people eat and food that are loaded with different kinds of sugar. In America, everything has to be "sweet"(aka loaded with sugar)

This is a very good lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0

Hmmm so it has nothing to do with calories then? Thats a relief

From what I can deduce from his lecture, it has to do with the kind of carb/calorie people consume.

Basically boils down to food. To get your calories, will you want to get it from white rice or white sugar?

I'll get them from wherever I want as long as I'm under my allotted calories for the day.

To get you feel full, would you take white rice or white sugar?

Would you chow on white sugar to get 1200 calories or on white rice to get 1200 calories?

So do you really think someone would eat all of their calories from one or another? I believe your argument is invalid because it is dealing with unrealistic extremes.

This. Most people do not live in the world of "EITHER-OR".

America is fat because of the poor food quality. Poor kinds of carb people eat and food that are loaded with different kinds of sugar. In America, everything has to be "sweet"(aka loaded with sugar). Chickens, Cows, Hogs fed with antibiotics, GMO crops (usually to be resistant to pesticides)...

This is a very good lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0

Terminology should be changed from "starvation mode" to "extreme calorie deficit".

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

America is fat because of the poor food quality. Poor kinds of carb people eat and food that are loaded with different kinds of sugar. In America, everything has to be "sweet"(aka loaded with sugar). Chickens, Cows, Hogs fed with antibiotics, GMO crops (usually to be resistant to pesticides)...

This is a very good lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0

Indeed, Eat Aliens for healthy lifestyle!

DamePiglet, you tickle me.

Your argument is much like the starvation mode argument. By and large inappropriately misused by most people. Yes the type of calorie matters. However as most people don't get the basic in and out concept getting into the nuance of what type of calorie in and type of calorie out is really overkill for the average individual trying to lose weight. 3000 "healthy" calories in and 2000 out will still result in weight increase. Just like 2000 "bad" caloreis in and 3000 out will still result in weight loss. None of which relates to starvation mode which is the topic of this thread.

There is no way an individual would take in 3000 "healthy" calories unless he is 8 foot tall. If you are full, your brains will hardly crave for food, therefore, you will not have the urge to eat.

And 2000 "bad calories" are likely to result to diabetes and other complications.

Again, will you rather take your calories from white sugar from from white rice (or wheat)? Hunger pangs relate to the brains and hunger pangs relate to calorie intake. Would you rather not eat in you are hungry when you've reached your calorie goal or would you rather eat food that make you feel full at the amount of your goal?

If there's nothing in your stomach, your brain will think it is hungry despite meeting his/her calorie goals

Your argument is much like the starvation mode argument. By and large inappropriately misused by most people. Yes the type of calorie matters. However as most people don't get the basic in and out concept getting into the nuance of what type of calorie in and type of calorie out is really overkill for the average individual trying to lose weight. 3000 "healthy" calories in and 2000 out will still result in weight increase. Just like 2000 "bad" caloreis in and 3000 out will still result in weight loss. None of which relates to starvation mode which is the topic of this thread.

There is no way an individual would take in 3000 "healthy" calories unless he is 8 foot tall. If you are full, your brains will hardly crave for food, therefore, you will not have the urge to eat.

And 2000 "bad calories" are likely to result to diabetes and other complications.

Again, will you rather take your calories from white sugar from from white rice (or wheat)? Hunger pangs relate to the brains and hunger pangs relate to calorie intake. Would you rather not eat in you are hungry when you've reached your calorie goal or would you rather eat food that make you feel full at the amount of your goal?

If there's nothing in your stomach, your brain will think it is hungry despite meeting his/her calorie goals

This still appears to have nothing to do with starvation mode. Or reality.

Yes, it is still completely possible to overeat even with "healthy" calories, whatever those may be. Plenty of healthy individuals overeat every day, even when they stick only to foods they thought were healthy. To say nothing of those with a dysfunctional relationship with food.

You know, on second thought, I think this thread needs more .gifs

yes, it's not really a real thing. There was a great article about it somewhere, talked about the Holocaust and a Minnesota experiment among other sources. Basically said, if there was a "starvation" mode wouldn't you have seen photos of normal looking chubby people in concentration camps? You've got the gist of the argument, there is indeed some slowing of metabolism but to a much smaller degree than most people think, AND you have to be approaching level of base-body fat % to really get an effect from it.

This is just ridiculous. If a person is actually "starving" by definition (1.lack of food: the state of not having enough food, or of losing strength or dying through lack of food) then obviously you will eventually lose so much weight as to look like someone in a concentration camp. But we have a steady supply of food we're just restricting it by eating smaller portions. People in concentration camps were actually starving to death. We are not. Don't try to compare the two.

You're actually agreeing with the post that you're referencing. You know that, right?

Makes me wonder, do Koreans and Japanese "count" their calories and fat intake obsessively or do they just have better portioned diet? They also walk more than most North Americans, which eliminates the "need" to go to the gym weekly.

Both countries have less than 5% obesity rates.

No, I suspect this is not the case. I think I'm going with your own answer - that greed is less socially acceptable, they are more physically active and the most commonly eaten foods are lower in fat and/or calories.
OR they have discovered fat-melting magic fairy dust and are refusing to share with the rest of the world!!

It doesn't have to do with greed or activity levels really, as most people in big cities here walk about the same amount. Go into a Japanese McDonald's and order a large soda or a large fry and you'll be shocked at how tiny it is compared to ours. We have just become accustomed to giant portion sizes here.

Makes me wonder, do Koreans and Japanese "count" their calories and fat intake obsessively or do they just have better portioned diet? They also walk more than most North Americans, which eliminates the "need" to go to the gym weekly.

Both countries have less than 5% obesity rates.

Just remember good fats are good for the body. Fat doesnt make us "Fat"

Unhealthy fats is what consumes most of Americans Diet therefore thats why we are an obese country

We are an obese country because (in general) we eat more calories than we burn. I don't see how dietary fats come into play here.

Yes plus alot of those foods high in calories also are high in "bad fats"

Your argument is much like the starvation mode argument. By and large inappropriately misused by most people. Yes the type of calorie matters. However as most people don't get the basic in and out concept getting into the nuance of what type of calorie in and type of calorie out is really overkill for the average individual trying to lose weight. 3000 "healthy" calories in and 2000 out will still result in weight increase. Just like 2000 "bad" caloreis in and 3000 out will still result in weight loss. None of which relates to starvation mode which is the topic of this thread.

There is no way an individual would take in 3000 "healthy" calories unless he is 8 foot tall. If you are full, your brains will hardly crave for food, therefore, you will not have the urge to eat.

And 2000 "bad calories" are likely to result to diabetes and other complications.

Again, will you rather take your calories from white sugar from from white rice (or wheat)? Hunger pangs relate to the brains and hunger pangs relate to calorie intake. Would you rather not eat in you are hungry when you've reached your calorie goal or would you rather eat food that make you feel full at the amount of your goal?

If there's nothing in your stomach, your brain will think it is hungry despite meeting his/her calorie goals

My dear, you have no idea what your talking about. Watching one educational series on youtube does not make you knowledgable or an expert. There is no since in reasoning with someone who refuses to see reason. And yes, people can intake 3000 calories, healthy or not. And yes, they can do it without becoming diabetics.

So if you eat 3000 calories from sugar (aka bad calories) you will not be diabetic. Wow.

Never said I was an expert.

Always counting calories, not trying how the brain responses to food in the stomach. You think you're brain will allow you to eat 3000 calories white rice if you are 5 ft tall and slender and in normal BMI? Defies reason

Yeah. I think someone's brain would allow that.

You are not an expert. I'd just stop posting now if I were you.

... We don't just suddenly start to photosynthesize in an effort to hold onto body fat...

I think I know what you're *trying* to say, but...

"Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy, normally from the sun, into chemical energy that can be used to fuel ..."

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Your argument is much like the starvation mode argument. By and large inappropriately misused by most people. Yes the type of calorie matters. However as most people don't get the basic in and out concept getting into the nuance of what type of calorie in and type of calorie out is really overkill for the average individual trying to lose weight. 3000 "healthy" calories in and 2000 out will still result in weight increase. Just like 2000 "bad" caloreis in and 3000 out will still result in weight loss. None of which relates to starvation mode which is the topic of this thread.

There is no way an individual would take in 3000 "healthy" calories unless he is 8 foot tall. If you are full, your brains will hardly crave for food, therefore, you will not have the urge to eat.

And 2000 "bad calories" are likely to result to diabetes and other complications.

Again, will you rather take your calories from white sugar from from white rice (or wheat)? Hunger pangs relate to the brains and hunger pangs relate to calorie intake. Would you rather not eat in you are hungry when you've reached your calorie goal or would you rather eat food that make you feel full at the amount of your goal?

If there's nothing in your stomach, your brain will think it is hungry despite meeting his/her calorie goals

My dear, you have no idea what your talking about. Watching one educational series on youtube does not make you knowledgable or an expert. There is no since in reasoning with someone who refuses to see reason. And yes, people can intake 3000 calories, healthy or not. And yes, they can do it without becoming diabetics.

So if you eat 3000 calories from sugar (aka bad calories) you will not be diabetic. Wow.

Never said I was an expert.

Always counting calories, not trying how the brain responses to food in the stomach. You think you're brain will allow you to eat 3000 calories white rice if you are 5 ft tall and slender and in normal BMI? Defies reason

Yeah. I think someone's brain would allow that.

You are not an expert. I'd just stop posting now if I were you.

Haha... Thanks.

Oh and peach. By the way, as a less then 5 foot tall Asian with a normal BMI who eats a prodominately rice based diet. Being usually very athlectic I can put over 3000 calories in my body in a day. Especially when I'm training. Besides, anyone who eats an all rice diet will be JUST as sick as any who eats an all sugar diet. Though the US does have a largly overweight population, malnutrition is still a issue. And BOTH those diets will result in serious health issues.