Starvation mode is a myth!
Replies
-
From what I understand the following seems to be the colloquial definition of "starvation mode."
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974888-in-place-of-a-road-map-2k13
Tom Vanuto covered this info in his book "Burn The Fat Feed the Muscle"
"The chief fat storing enzyme is called Lipoprotein Lipase (LPL). When you drop your calories too low, your body will produce more LPL and less fat burning enzymes. In other words, when you don’t eat enough, your body changes its chemistry to make it easier to store fat in the future."
He continues with…
"The Thyroid gland is largely responsible for the regulation of your basal metabolic rate (the rate at which you burn calories at rest). When your body senses a severe reduction in calories, there is a corresponding reduction in the output of active thyroid hormone (T3). The result is a decrease in your metabolic rate and fewer calories burned."
From Burn The Fat Feed the Muscle Page 27.0 -
The guys credentials? An expert of negative energy balancing acts.0
-
My calculated TDEE is 2500, and that's with conservative estimates of height, exercise, etc. If that were remotely accurate, I'd be losing nearly 2 pounds a week. Based on my diet and actual weight, my calculated TDEE is off by at LEAST 500 calories. I did see initial strength gains, but now 6 months into my exercise routine, my newbie gains have been more or less exhausted. Some days I find I can't even lift as much as the previous week.
TDEE calculators aren't 100% accurate they are mearly guesstimates based on population averages and assumptions. The fact that you maintain at a level that is calorically lower than what an online calculator tells you just means that the online calculator is wrong, it does not mean that you have been metabolically "damaged" by losing weight.
Sorry for the delay, but what's your suggestion then? I'm more or less maintaining at 1600 a day or less. Actually according to MFP my net average calories per day is 1400ish, and yes I do weigh everything on a kitchen scale and I log everything down to my vitamins and the seasoning I use on my rice. You're saying I should drop to 900-1000 to create a 500 deficit because the calculator's wrong? Doesn't sound healthy. Also doesn't sound like something an otherwise healthy 6 ft young male should have to do to lose weight. Seems like something is going on, but as you say metabolic slowdown can't halt weight loss.0 -
Very true: The so-called "Starvation Mode" is a myth perpetuated by those entities (especially dieters doing 'formal' diets like Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, etc.) who simply CANNOT reduce their calorie intake for a good rate of weight loss. Diets like the British "Lighter Life" prove that one can safely do 500 calories a day, be healthy, lose weight quickly and keep it off. Doctors have ALWAYS recommended less than 1,000 calories a day (and this for ACTIVE people) for those who need to reduce. Now, however, that number has magically risen to maybe 1,500 to 2,000 because most people are completely unable to lower their daily calorie intake to an adequate level. The idea is that the higher amount of "allowable" calories will enable dieters to stay on the diets longer. Wrong. Slow weight loss is the NUMBER ONE REASON that people drop off of diets. One's body doesn't go into "Starvation Mode" unless it's so emaciated that the metabolism slows down drastically, and even THEN it still won't just "stop" weight loss. It also cracks me up when people who are dieting claim, "I'm exercising more so I need more calories". What?? No.....you are burning more calories and losing more rapidly, as well as building muscle and that's a GOOD thing.
Seriously - people will do or claim just about ANYTHING to be able to shove more food in. "Starvation Mode" does not exist.0 -
I agree that starvation is probably exaggerated here. There may be some metabolic depression when calories are severely restricted and some non-fat tissues consumed, but the extreme starvation that is discussed here is more likely what occurs near death when one is stranded, living in extreme poverty, or otherwise deprived of nearly all nutrition. I think people here and elsewhere don't want people to feel uncomfortable because they may give up.0
-
Love it that someone was brave enough to start this thread amongst a group of self proclaimed experts ! You hit it on the nail head and quite frankly out of the park. Love the replies on how it will eat the muscles first.....really. I believe the body will break down what it needs nutritionally first whether it is fat, muscle, our maybe it will just take some glycogen from the muscles. I always wondered why I could go two days and eat nothing (Saturdays and Sundays) and hit the gym on a Monday and perform some of my heaviest lifts or have one of my best cardio workouts and my muscles have disappeared according to the rules implied by "the experts". Like I said, the bravery of the originator of this post I admire and I +1 your post.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I think I feel my body digesting my eyes due to starvation mode.....never saw that one coming.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Let's raise the discussion. Why SHOULD we eat breakfast?
I eat breakfast because I'm hungry.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This thread is from May.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Hey it's Steve from the University of One Textbook! I thought that Guyton was the only book for you?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Hey it's Steve from the University of One Textbook! I thought that Guyton was the only book for you?
Hagan works off Guyton.
Nothing Hagan writes about is contrary to what Guyton states or implies.
You have to read Guyton to understand the subtle points in Hagan's book.
Guyton is very readable, by the way. The serious fitness buff or weight-control person shouold download a copy. It is not the most recent edition, however, but there are no major changes.
And remind me Steve, where did you go to school to gain all this vast knowledge again?0 -
If you eat less than 1200 calories a day will you magically store fat and not lose weight? No, is it healthiest way to do it? Maybe not,0
-
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the OP about the actual starvation mode point.
However, when I was a stupid desperate fat girl about a year ago I ate about 700-800 calories per day thinking that if I kept it up for a few weeks I'd lose weight. I carried it on for about 3-4 weeks before I gave up due to being starving (excuse the pun). I "lost" 7 or 8 lbs (seems a little steep and suspicious for just 3 or 4 weeks no?)hut I looked no different (I wasn't actually properly fat, just getting a little chubby at 145 lbs, so that little weight on me should have shown somewhere). I started eating normally again, and normally being 1400 calories or so per day so nothing excessive, and within about 4 days those 8 lbs had come right back on again.
I'm no expert, but I'd say 2 lbs weight gain per day with eating maximum 1400 calories means I obviously never lost any real weight in the first place. Obviously if people don't eat much for long periods of time they lose weight, just because…they do. Holocaust victims hardly got food and were stick thin, anorexia sufferers don't eat much/at all and they can get dangerously skinny. THATS real starvation. That's like 200 calories.
When I started eating 1200-1300 to lose some weight in June this year, I lost 8 lbs within a few weeks yet again. This time, I'd lost fat and you could see it in my face, my arms, my legs and my stomach and I started receiving compliments from people who were noticing.
I genuinely just think my body was just losing some water weight, maybe about 1 lb of fat, and as soon as I got some food in me it clung for dear life onto each and every bite. Either way, I'm no diet expert and I don't know the science behind it, but I just know it did not work for me.0 -
The orriginal post actually makes me feel a bit better. My Doctor put me on a 1000cal diet and I was concerned because of all of the hype I read about 1200 minimum. It is difficult and I try to keep it around 1000-1200 a day, but I've actually started to lose a little bit of weight.
Good luck with that. I think I would shoot myself (or others) on 1000 cals/day...I'm at 1600 and wake up REALLY hungry and have to fight the munchies at night. I'm trying to start "retraining" myself to make my meals a bit smaller and add in more healthy snacks between meals...keep my blood sugar at a more consistent rate...to see if that helps with the hunger pangs. I'm never losing more than 2 pounds a week (at most) so I don't think my target is too low...but my losing has slowed down as of late (although this week was almost 2 again so maybe it was just a temporary plateau....)0 -
Double posted by accident0
-
I bet your dad works for general mills.
Let's raise the discussion. Why SHOULD we eat breakfast?
Start up the metabolic machinery, perhaps?
It's easy to be a hater.
Show us what you believe.
Not sure where I claimed you should eat breakfast. I say eat it if you want. You claim in your book eating breakfast makes us fat and we can't lose weight if we eat breakfast, which is absurd.
Do you realize how pathetic you look promoting your book every post, with your picture on your profile but refusing to admit it's you.
Well, clearly you are on this board for fitness reasons.
And that's OK.
But most are here because of weight issues. They are here because they have not gotten any answers that make sense to them anywhere else, or that are insulting to them, or assumes that gaining weight is their fault.
Most have failed program after program.
That is who I am posting for.
Maybe you are pushing your own approach to weight loss. If so, let's hear it.
Otherwise, instead of crypto-ad hominem attacks on me, show me the EVIDENCE to prove me, and Hagan, wrong.
Have some respect for those who read these boards looking for information.
I'm showing them respect by letting them know your book isn't necessary and neither is the whole skip breakfast or else you can't lose weight nonsense.
There is a book on How to lose weight. I never heard of this book. It must not work.0 -
The weight loss from VLCD is not from losing fat but actually muscle tissue loss which is very bad for the body. Good point on the water retention part though.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The weight loss from VLCD is not from losing fat but actually muscle tissue loss which is very bad for the body. Good point on the water retention part though.0
-
As the OP, I am blown away by the responses and have learned so much from all of them! I so appreciate the support! Thank you!!1
-
moulding55 wrote: »As the OP, I am blown away by the responses and have learned so much from all of them! I so appreciate the support! Thank you!!
Wait, what, @moulding55? Did you mean to post on this thread, or on your thread here, where this one was linked:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10914059/calorie-deficit-vs-starvation-mode
I'm not sure the OP of this thread, @vismal (male), is around here any more.
I 100% understand that this software environment can be very confusing. (BoyOhBoy, do I!) If you really are vismal, it's great that you're back. But if you meant to post as an update on that other thread, I'm sure people who comment there would appreciate your very kind comment if they see it. :flowerforyou:2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions