Let's justify bad habits by manipulating theories...

raven_ous
raven_ous Posts: 223
edited February 17 in Food and Nutrition
Lately I have seen a reoccurring trend where people are using a common theme that is often debated on here and poorly understood to justify why their dangerously low calorie intake is permissible, here goes...

People have been using the "starvation mode is a myth" theory/threads/debates etc as a free pass to eat well dangerously low amount of calories then trying to back up their behavior by citing "starvation mode is a myth" facts, fictions, theories and anecdotal evidence. etc

Yes "starvation mode" is an overly used and often out of context and a poorly understood term.

Here is a link to better understand what it is and isn't (EvgeniZyntx is king)...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

Also another link to what eating too little can do to you over time...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

Now armed with those pieces of data hopefully people have a better understanding of what having a VLCD can do to their bodies over time.

I wish I had worded this thread better, my apologies! But just because you are not going to immediately lose a limb if you are at a unreasonably high deficit does not negate the fact that inevitably having poor diets, calorie and nutritional intakes will have negative effects on you...no matter what thread you (miss) quote, data you try and manipulate etc

Finally for those who often say things like "I eat 700 cals a day and I feel fine" etc Many a thread I see people justifying their VLCD with anecdotal evidence of how active they are and how they are full of energy etc to this I question the very validity of both their calorie intake and energy expenditure...a very common occurrence is people underestimate their calorie intake and overestimate their calorie expenditure, thus making their anecdotal evidence redundant!

Exercise calories

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

Logging accuracy

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think

Lastly one of the best links on here for almost everything you need to succeed on MFP...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

Now let the inevitable flame war begin because I used the magical term "starvation mode"

4FVp5an.gif

I am curious to see how many people will take me out of context without reading any of the links provided.

Replies

  • otter090812
    otter090812 Posts: 380 Member
    Makes sense to me. The Cortisol article is fascinating and well-written for layperson like me. I'll try to remember it next time I start to over think and over stress!
  • VBnotbitter
    VBnotbitter Posts: 820 Member
    Maybe there's no flame war starting because they are lacking the energy :wink:
  • determinedbutlazy
    determinedbutlazy Posts: 1,941 Member
    applause.gif
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    to eat well dangerously low amount of calories

    ?
  • raven_ous
    raven_ous Posts: 223
    to eat well dangerously low amount of calories

    ?
    bump

    Well I am not surprised you would join in on this thread considering your avatar.

    Too clarify "to eat well dangerously low amount of calories" people that are obviously eating or stating they are eating an extremely low amount of calories, usually far below what is needed to maintain health...usually in an attempt to lose weight at an extremely rapid rate at the expense of their well being.

    Yes terrible grammar on my behalf but I thought the message of the thread was and still is clear enough.
  • CompressedCarbon
    CompressedCarbon Posts: 357 Member
    I thought the message of the thread was and still is clear enough.

    I understood it. Most other people will as well.
  • RabbitLost
    RabbitLost Posts: 333 Member
    to eat well dangerously low amount of calories

    ?
    bump

    Well I am not surprised you would join in on this thread considering your avatar.

    Too clarify "to eat well dangerously low amount of calories" people that are obviously eating or stating they are eating an extremely low amount of calories, usually far below what is needed to maintain health...usually in an attempt to lose weight at an extremely rapid rate at the expense of their well being.

    Yes terrible grammar on my behalf but I thought the message of the thread was and still is clear enough.

    When they go after the grammar, that usually means they don't have much else.
  • raven_ous
    raven_ous Posts: 223
    bump just in case the quote stopped the bump.

    The purpose of this thread was not to debate the theory of "starvation mode is a myth" but to illustrate that some users of mfp l are standing behind the theory as some sort of valid reasoning to eat at dangerously low levels.

    Even if there was no metabolic slowdown/starvation mode, in what reality does a person or persons who consumes 600-700 cals a day going to meet their nutritional needs? It simply is not possible.

    VLCD should be done under strict medical supervision for brief periods! This is just not the case with the majority of people who have been advocating such low calorie allowances than standing behind the "starvation mode is a myth" placard as you will, like it will protect them from the negative effects of an unhealthy relationship with food.

    yarwell I am under the belief you probably want to debate the theory as it were but the point of this thread was to illustrate people misusing the theory as a kind of goto as it were for dangerous eating habits.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Thank you for posting this. :drinker:
  • gypsy_spirit
    gypsy_spirit Posts: 2,107 Member
    I've read all of the links. Good information and now - all in one place. Grammar be da**ed! :flowerforyou:


    89281-cheers-gif-Newsroom-Charlie-Sk-FL4B.gif
  • SpencersHeart
    SpencersHeart Posts: 170 Member
    Thank you for this post. :smile:
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    the proximity of well and dangerous was confusing, that was all, you could edit it for clarity to help spread your message. I take it you mean they are eating badly and dangerously low in calories.

    I don't agree with a statement like "in what reality does a person or persons who consumes 600-700 cals a day going to meet their nutritional needs? It simply is not possible." or believe it has any solid basis, otherwise VLCDs wouldn't exist and be medically approved, but you're right in that they are only really appropriate in obese people for a limited period of several weeks.
  • LadyWeaselofVT
    LadyWeaselofVT Posts: 77 Member
    Thank you for the links. There are a lot of not-so-helpful posts to wade through so I appreciate the sensible reading material. I've noticed the denial of starvation mode lately too. My primary issue with under-eating is that it does nothing to help a person learn how to maintain their weight. I have someone in my life who follows a pattern of restriction and binging and has learned nothing about portion size and nutrition. I completely understand the desire to lose weight quickly but without examining your habits, it won't stay off. One of the links mentioned weighing your food religiously for awhile and I found that really illuminating---- I had a lot to learn about portion control. Maybe some people restricting can figure out a sustainable way to maintain once they get the weight off but I wouldn't be one of those people because refining my diet and habits has been an ongoing process.
  • Galatea_Stone
    Galatea_Stone Posts: 2,037 Member
    the proximity of well and dangerous was confusing, that was all, you could edit it for clarity to help spread your message. I take it you mean they are eating badly and dangerously low in calories.

    I don't agree with a statement like "in what reality does a person or persons who consumes 600-700 cals a day going to meet their nutritional needs? It simply is not possible." or believe it has any solid basis, otherwise VLCDs wouldn't exist and be medically approved, but you're right in that they are only really appropriate in obese people for a limited period of several weeks.
    to eat, well, a dangerously low amount of calories

    Fixed it to assist you with your reading comp skills.

    VLCDs with medically prescribed nutrition supplements work. However, for the most part, people who go on VLCDs subsequent to gastric bypass do tend to have long-term health issues related to the inability to meet micronutrient needs.

    I know a 39 year old woman who is still dealing with the ramifications, including osteoporosis and extreme dental decay prompting the need for dentures. Her doctor and her dentist both attribute it to the VLCD post-gastric bypass, and she was made aware of the risks before surgery.

    http://www.dimensionsofdentalhygiene.com/2013/01_January/Features/Treating_Patients_After_Weight_Loss_Surgery.aspx
    http://www.thinnertimesforum.com/topic/27116-how-are-your-teeth/
    http://www.bariatric-surgery-source.com/dental-problems-after-gastric-bypass-surgery.html
    http://cdeworld.com/courses/20020-Bariatric_Surgery_and_Implications_for_Oral_Health
    http://www.livelightertoday.com/education-and-support/health-library.aspx?chunkiid=11496

    It is a well-known and persistent problem. It is simply treated as the lesser of two evils.
  • raven_ous
    raven_ous Posts: 223
    the proximity of well and dangerous was confusing, that was all, you could edit it for clarity to help spread your message. I take it you mean they are eating badly and dangerously low in calories.

    I don't agree with a statement like "in what reality does a person or persons who consumes 600-700 cals a day going to meet their nutritional needs? It simply is not possible." or believe it has any solid basis, otherwise VLCDs wouldn't exist and be medically approved, but you're right in that they are only really appropriate in obese people for a limited period of several weeks.

    Okay my last reply to this thread as the original message in getting lost.

    I concede yes your nutritional needs can be meet on a VLCD under strict supervision and are usually specially formulated by professionals but VLCDs are usually only prescribed if the patient presents with serious health issues from being overweight or needs to lose a significant amount of weight in a short period of time for something like surgery...

    ...but this only concretes the fact that people are bastardizing theories due to impatience in the sense that their VLCDs are neither formulated nor medically supervised and are often undertaken by individuals that do not fit the criteria for something as a drastic as VLCD...maybe I should have said a nutritionally lacking extremely high deficit diet as you seem to be taking the VLCD quite literally in the sense of formulated, nutritionally complete, liquid meals. The people I am talking about are eating anything but a nutritionally formulated diet a majority of the time. eg I ate a half cookie, ramen noddles and two carrots today.

    So yes VLCDs are medically approved and can meet the requirements needed. Are the majority of people that I am talking about on a medically approved VLCD? NO! not from what I have witnessed.

    Hope I was clear that time.

    I still stand by the original premise of this thread.
  • RabbitLost
    RabbitLost Posts: 333 Member
    Well said, again. The key that seems to be missed in this whole thing is the need for proper medical supervision. While the frustration at the idea of taking sometimes years to accomplish a goal is understandable, the failure to recognize the very real risks of ill-conceived shortcut plans is not understandable. If someone found a fad VLCD on the web, chances are they also found well-written research advocating caution.

    But that does lead back to your original assertion, doesn't? They justify a bad habit by manipulating theories. Arg.
  • SugaryLynx
    SugaryLynx Posts: 2,640 Member
    Good post:flowerforyou:
  • FoxyLifter
    FoxyLifter Posts: 965 Member
    *like* :drinker:
  • Tiernan1212
    Tiernan1212 Posts: 797 Member
    Thank you :flowerforyou:

    But seriously, gtfo with all that logic and stuff :drinker:
  • in_the_stars
    in_the_stars Posts: 1,395 Member
    the proximity of well and dangerous was confusing, that was all, you could edit it for clarity to help spread your message. I take it you mean they are eating badly and dangerously low in calories.

    I don't agree with a statement like "in what reality does a person or persons who consumes 600-700 cals a day going to meet their nutritional needs? It simply is not possible." or believe it has any solid basis, otherwise VLCDs wouldn't exist and be medically approved, but you're right in that they are only really appropriate in obese people for a limited period of several weeks.

    +1
  • loriemn
    loriemn Posts: 292 Member
    in to read later
This discussion has been closed.

Categories