Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science
Replies
-
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.0 -
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.
Again, I provided 5 more studies which were more indepth.
It doesn't seem like anyone wants to read them, but the data doesn't lie.0 -
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.
Again, I provided 5 more studies which were more indepth.
It doesn't seem like anyone wants to read them, but the data doesn't lie.
Well right now I'm not slogging through all that so in part you're right.
There is plenty of data to prove the opposite as well. Everyone needs to read everything provided and make up their own mind.
One thing I have learnt from my own body is I can drop below 1200 and lose and lose and lose. It also means I don't keep it off because as the study shows your metabolism slows to deal with the amount coming in.
That doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Starvation mode is very real for some people. My mother can't drop below 1200 without it kicking in. I can.
I just wanted to point out the MAJOR flaw using the original study posted as proof that starvation mode doesn't exist. Your links in no way invalidate that.0 -
bump0
-
Not everyone is on MFP to lose weight. For instance, I'm not. I"m watching Calories, because I really don't want to eat more than roughly 1000 Calories a day. That is, for me a caloric restriction of about 50%. I do this, because actual medical research points to the fact that
a. severe caloric restriction has a number of health benefits as long as there is sufficient nutrition
b. severe reduction of carbohydrates (and fasting) has a beneficial effect on certain types of brain cancer.
I'm in a trial to test both these assumptions.
http://www.asnneuro.org/an/002/e038/an002e038.htm
http://www.lef.org/protocols/cancer/brain_tumor_03.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20009300
https://www2.bc.edu/~seyfridt/braincancer.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/10/1226.abstract
Actually I have heard about this study and it may well debunk the "starvation is bad" approach to the whole thing - someone mentioned it to me at work when I was spewing the starvation is bad stuff. How are you going keeping with the calorie restriction? I just don't think I could do it. Even if you do get to live longer and have less cancer I could never stick to 1000 calories a day I would go spare. I have heard that the inability to do physical activity is a severe draw back. Are there police that check you are eating your 1000 calories a day or is it an honour system? If it is a big enough study it will let us know I guess which team is right - "team eat" or "team starve". I guess I was born on "team eat" and will quite happily die for it if it turns out that's what it is doing to us!
It's hard. And I only consented because my cancer is advanced stage anyway. So I figured I don't have that much to lose.
I do weigh everything and of course there will be a margin of error, but not much, hopefully. Since I am in the program I'm expected to comply with its guidelines.
I don't do lots of cardio, but I do walk a lot (at a 6KM/hour pace, distance between 10 and 15 km, 3 times a week), and I've noticed that while fasting, this is actually easier.0 -
I don't know whether it's a myth or not. I can tell you that I've eaten more on this plan than any other I've tried and my metabolism is way more efficient than it was 5 years ago. Lots of people on here have lost lots of weight by following the recommended calorie allowance. What I'd like to know is how many people lost their weight on 800-900 calories per day and how long did it take you to gain it back?0
-
Just one more little logical musing...
If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not
Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place...
0 -
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.
Again, I provided 5 more studies which were more indepth.
It doesn't seem like anyone wants to read them, but the data doesn't lie.
Plenty of data to prove the opposite as well?
I couldnt find anything beyond rare singular accounts.
Quite a statement from someone who couldnt bother slogging through all that research.
Well right now I'm not slogging through all that so in part you're right.
There is plenty of data to prove the opposite as well. Everyone needs to read everything provided and make up their own mind.
One thing I have learnt from my own body is I can drop below 1200 and lose and lose and lose. It also means I don't keep it off because as the study shows your metabolism slows to deal with the amount coming in.
That doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Starvation mode is very real for some people. My mother can't drop below 1200 without it kicking in. I can.
I just wanted to point out the MAJOR flaw using the original study posted as proof that starvation mode doesn't exist. Your links in no way invalidate that.0 -
Just one more little logical musing...
If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not
Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place...
Starvation mode is not when someone is literally starving. It's when someone eats just enough to live. Their metabolism slows to deal with the tiny amount of calories they're getting.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
This link explains it.0 -
well I don't really care anymore either way but...... I try to eat at least 1200 calories per day then I exercise then I have to try and eat even more so at this time this really isn't working for me why eat when you are not hungry ????0
-
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.
Again, I provided 5 more studies which were more indepth.
It doesn't seem like anyone wants to read them, but the data doesn't lie.
Plenty of data to prove the opposite as well?
I couldnt find anything beyond rare singular accounts.
Quite a statement from someone who couldnt bother slogging through all that research.
Well right now I'm not slogging through all that so in part you're right.
There is plenty of data to prove the opposite as well. Everyone needs to read everything provided and make up their own mind.
One thing I have learnt from my own body is I can drop below 1200 and lose and lose and lose. It also means I don't keep it off because as the study shows your metabolism slows to deal with the amount coming in.
That doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Starvation mode is very real for some people. My mother can't drop below 1200 without it kicking in. I can.
I just wanted to point out the MAJOR flaw using the original study posted as proof that starvation mode doesn't exist. Your links in no way invalidate that.
So you're saying I should take one study of 6 men and agree that this is the final proof that starvation mode doesn't exist?
Yeah. Not point debating with you if that's your stance on the topic.0 -
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.
Again, I provided 5 more studies which were more indepth.
It doesn't seem like anyone wants to read them, but the data doesn't lie.
I've read them,
1 is rubbish by a writer, not a scientist, and has misquotes all throughout. Case in point, a starvation diet is not the same thing as starvation mode, and he consistantly throughout the article interchanges the two. Also he pointed to the Minnesota study and says that it proves that the body doesn't enter starvation mode until the body reaches 5% body fat, which it doesn't say at all. And in fact states that there was a 25% reduction in RMR after stage 1 of the test. If you actually read the Minnesota study, the conclusions not only fully support the theory of starvation mode, but they also point out the long term psychological damage that underfeeding can do to a human.
2 is a blog. I know her, it has no science back ground.
the rest prove the point and are just reposts of other studies already listed.
This isn't meant to discourage, but it kind of proves the point. Research needs to be scrutinized, not just quoted.0 -
I feel the need to point out AGAIN that a study done on 6 MEN can in no possible way represent the way everyone's bodies work.
If that was the standard for medicine we'd still be in the dark ages.
Again, I provided 5 more studies which were more indepth.
It doesn't seem like anyone wants to read them, but the data doesn't lie.
I've read them,
1 is rubbish by a writer, not a scientist, and has misquotes all throughout. Case in point, a starvation diet is not the same thing as starvation mode, and he consistantly throughout the article interchanges the two. Also he pointed to the Minnesota study and says that it proves that the body doesn't enter starvation mode until the body reaches 5% body fat, which it doesn't say at all. And in fact states that there was a 25% reduction in RMR after stage 1 of the test. If you actually read the Minnesota study, the conclusions not only fully support the theory of starvation mode, but they also point out the long term psychological damage that underfeeding can do to a human.
2 is a blog. I know her, it has no science back ground.
the rest prove the point and are just reposts of other studies already listed.
This isn't meant to discourage, but it kind of proves the point. Research needs to be scrutinized, not just quoted.
Big fist bump, Banks!!0 -
well I don't really care anymore either way but...... I try to eat at least 1200 calories per day then I exercise then I have to try and eat even more so at this time this really isn't working for me why eat when you are not hungry ????
I agree with this. For the majority of people, eating when not hungry leads to overeating. Overeating leads to weight gain.
Our bodies guide us to tell us when we are thirsty and when we are hungry. If people would listen to their bodies we would all be better off.0 -
Not sure what I believe. What I do know is that at the mo when I eat 1200 a day I have more nutrients than when I eat 1700.
The last few weeks I have been making a massive bowl of soup and having it for lunch and tea and trying to have fruit as snacks ( although not always suceeded!), that is the only way I can be as low as 1200, there is room for improvement on that but not much without feeling really hungry and faint ( I exercise 1-2 hours a day)
In the week I am on about 1700 but am bad with snacks at work!
So I wonder which is better 1200 85% good quality and not eating exercise cal so net 1200. Or 1700 70% good quality???0 -
I totally disagree w/ this post. It is referring to a sixty hour study not a prolonged peroid of time. For all the girls out there wanting to be thin, tired of being teased or whatever this post is very misleading. It says, don't believe what you've heard, you can eat as little as you want and you'll be fine. MFP puts the warning up when we go under the recommended limit for the day. For most of us it's a rare occurance. We are trying to eat healthy, we know we need to nourish our body to keep it functioning at peak performance. We don't eat 600 cals every day. I don't think you can summarily dismiss "starvation mode" because a study done say it will be fine after 60 hours no problems. New dieters, desparate teenagers, and all the rest of the misinformed masses will think all will be well. They can starve themselves to their target weight and then everything will be fine. Except that it won't. Some will lose weight, some will get sick, some will end up anorexic, some will gain weight. 60 hours is not a sufficient length of time to determine if the metabolism will be permanently damaged. So say 60 hours is ok, what then? how often should you starve yourself? three days on, one off? twice a month? At what point does your body say, enough is enough, I quit. How do you know when to stop? When you are so tired you want to sleep all the time? When your hair falls out? Where do you draw the line? A plant needs sun and water to grow strong. If you put it in a closet w/ no water does it get thin, delicate leaves and morph into a dainty flower? No. It dies. End of.
I totally agree. I think if we dont feed our body enough it:
a)starts feeding on itself and not in a healthy way
b)decides to save every damn gram of fat that you put on your mouth because hey, who knows when youll eat again. And then it goes to your hips etc.
I think 1200 is not the number for everyone and of course it varies for each individual, but we should really be careful what we do to our body.0 -
OMG - THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have NO idea ...
I'm friending you. lol...
Truly, I've gotten alot of flak because I will NOT LOSE at 1200 a day. My metabolism is so slow that that is maintenance for me. And there's reasons my metabolism is that slow (fat:muscle ratio) and it can/will change - but that's what it is for now and no one has believed me. I know my body damnit - I'm the one that's lived in it for 37 years. and you are very dead on with the nutrient issue.. that's a real challenge at a lower calorie count and one I actually do worry about.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I know my body better than anybody so how dare you tell me how to treat it?? If I'm hungry after a work out, I eat. Plain & simple. If I'm not guess what, glass of water & I'm good to go!
PS thanks to the original poster! Makes sense, more so than what others have debated.0 -
I don't know my body at all.................that's why I am using this site to help me undo the abuse of too high blood sugar and those extra pounds I need to lose. Before I started using this site I grazed all day eating anything I wanted............and all the wrong things. Now I am more aware of what I am eating and I do follow the min. 1200 rule. Tomorrow is my first week official weigh-in but I have sneaked a peek at the scale and I can tell you this is working for me.0
-
I think that "starvation mode" is reached at different points by people. 1200 is a generic point at which you are reaching the critical "mode". It is a general guideline, not the holy grail of calorie counting.
To lose weight, one must be in a caloric deficit - that we can all agree on. How we choose to get there is a personal choice. As far as I can see, we are all adults here, right? Our choices are the reason we got here. Our coices will be the reason why we do or don't reach our goals.
So instead of trying to talk somebody into your way of thinking, prove your point by reaching your goals. What works for you may or may not work for me, and visa versa.
I will not be eating my exercise calories. The whole point (for me) in doing cardio is to BURN more calories than I would if I didn't exercise . I mean, I probably would eat alittle more if I ran for an hour. That's common sense. But to make sure you are eating every little exercise calorie - especially if you aren't hungry - is over the top IMO. Listen to your body.
There are days when I go under the magical 1200 calories. Nothing bad happens. Having said that, I'm only 5'2" and my BMR is only like 1100 anyway. I'm losing 1 - 2 pounds weekly. Whether or not I keep it off is going to be my choice as well. If I start picking up on my old habits, it WILL come back on. If I lose all my weight by exercising like a crazy person making sure to eat all my exercise calories (as alot believe is the golden ticket to prevent regain), I can promise you, the weight will still come back on if I begin to eat too much. The key is moderation. And the reason why I'm 30 pounds overweight is because I CHOSE to be fat. I ate all the foods I ate (good or bad) TO EXCESS. The result was weight gain. Now the only result that is acceptable to me is WEIGHT LOSS. 1200 calories or less. Exercise or no exercise. All a daily choice I have to make. The proof of our theroies is in the pudding. If we all reach our goals, what does it matter HOW we got there (short of an eating disorder)?0 -
Just one more little logical musing...
If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not
Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place...
Starvation mode is not when someone is literally starving. It's when someone eats just enough to live. Their metabolism slows to deal with the tiny amount of calories they're getting.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
This link explains it.
Hi, thanks but that does not answer my question...I'm not arguing with metabolism slowing down, I just can't see how it would completely stop you losing weight. You'd be losing weight more slowly perhaps, but you would still be losing it.
As for the link, it's written about one single person and it's embellished throughout for dramatic effect - that is a piece of anecdotal evidence if I ever saw one, so I would be hard pressed to call it 'explanation'.
I've just watched a video of Maru the cat that likes to walk around with a paper bag/plastic cup on its head (no, really! :laugh: ) - does this make it a proven fact that all cats behave this way? I didn't think so...0 -
Just one more little logical musing...
If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not
Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place...
Starvation mode is not when someone is literally starving. It's when someone eats just enough to live. Their metabolism slows to deal with the tiny amount of calories they're getting.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
This link explains it.
Hi, thanks but that does not answer my question...I'm not arguing with metabolism slowing down, I just can't see how it would completely stop you losing weight. You'd be losing weight more slowly perhaps, but you would still be losing it.
As for the link, it's written about one single person and it's embellished throughout for dramatic effect - that is a piece of anecdotal evidence if I ever saw one, so I would be hard pressed to call it 'explanation'.
I've just watched a video of Maru the cat that likes to walk around with a paper bag/plastic cup on its head (no, really! :laugh: ) - does this make it a proven fact that all cats behave this way? I didn't think so...
Starvation mode, as it is called, is not the same as anorexia - there are distinct differences (that I don't have time to get into at the moment - but feel free to mail me later and I'd be happy to go over it.) As for starvation mode and why the metabolism slows down and that, no you don't necessarily stop losing weight, you lose a higher ratio of muscle to fat - here are some threads that explain the processes.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat
There are others, just do a search (and read through this entire thread for other links to reliable studies (not the ones that point to blogs, unless you want more "personal opinion"))0 -
1200 calories is the absolute minimum amount necessary for the body to function. Of course, it will vary depending on the person, but if one eats below 1200, they can get seriously ill in a short period of time.
Starvation mode refers to a prolonged period of time that a body is denied the nutrients necessary for its survival. Just because you fast for a day, doesn't mean your body will enter starvation mode. I try to fast every month, having a 1-day water-only fast. This does not mean that my body enters starvation mode, and I don't think MFP or any personal trainer or nutritionist will disagree.
For years I ate 1000 calories or less and don't have anything medically wrong with me from it, thankfully. 0 -
I also read online th 'starvation mode' only occurs once a person is eating 50% of what they're needing to eat a day. This was when I was reading the study of where they put a bunch of men in to 'starvation mode' giving them 50% of their daily needed calorie goal... Most of them went mental from it.0
-
BUMP.....Very interesting..thanks0
-
Just one more little logical musing...
If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not
Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place...
Starvation mode is not when someone is literally starving. It's when someone eats just enough to live. Their metabolism slows to deal with the tiny amount of calories they're getting.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
This link explains it.
Hi, thanks but that does not answer my question...I'm not arguing with metabolism slowing down, I just can't see how it would completely stop you losing weight. You'd be losing weight more slowly perhaps, but you would still be losing it.
As for the link, it's written about one single person and it's embellished throughout for dramatic effect - that is a piece of anecdotal evidence if I ever saw one, so I would be hard pressed to call it 'explanation'.
I've just watched a video of Maru the cat that likes to walk around with a paper bag/plastic cup on its head (no, really! :laugh: ) - does this make it a proven fact that all cats behave this way? I didn't think so...
Starvation mode, as it is called, is not the same as anorexia - there are distinct differences (that I don't have time to get into at the moment - but feel free to mail me later and I'd be happy to go over it.) As for starvation mode and why the metabolism slows down and that, no you don't necessarily stop losing weight, you lose a higher ratio of muscle to fat - here are some threads that explain the processes.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat
There are others, just do a search (and read through this entire thread for other links to reliable studies (not the ones that point to blogs, unless you want more "personal opinion"))
Thanks - I wasn't equating starvation mode with anorexia, anorexia is a psychological condition whereas starvation mode is a physiological state that can be (but does not have to be) linked to anorexia. My point was that I don't believe a slower metabolism can ever outweigh the consequences of consuming less than maintenance calories in the long run - which is how it is physiologically possible to become a bag of bones. So the case for stating 'you stop losing weight if you're not eating enough' kind of falls down, because it cannot explain how it is possible to become underweight...
Like I said before, once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place. There is a world of difference between saying 'starvation mode stops you losing weight' (an oversimplified, categorical statement that many people seem to accept unquestioningly) and saying 'the ratio of fat to muscle burned changes for the worse if you starve yourself' (which is a lot more specific and plausible). But even the second statement could be made more specific - are we talking about people with high/normal/low BMI? Are we talking about people who exercise, and if so, how much? What time frame are we talking about? What other factors may influence the outcomes? (lifestyle, medical conditions, good/bad nutrition etc.)
I am all for trying to understand how things work, but if we want to do that, we cannot ignore differences in context and just make a statement that is supposedly true in every case...so we have to overrule our very human urge to generalise from our limited experience 0 -
Seems to me that this site should have a lot of interesting data on this topic! Just a thought...0
-
Bump.
I am consuming between 1000 and 1200 calories a day and this is a very interesting read.0 -
Thanks for posting this0
-
Are people here who are eating around 1200 losing weight?
4 years ago I was under 9 stone ( am 5'7). I ate quite healthy, about 1700 cal a day and maintained my weight. I exercised about 1 hour a day. I then started training for a marathon, people said I should eat more, I did, treats became the norm, I over compensated for the extra calories. In those 4 years, despite running 52 marathons/ ultra marathons I have put on 1.5 stone v gradually. I stopped counting calories. In nov I though enough was enough, clothes too tigh, felt fat so joined mfp and started logging cal. Before that I guess I was eating about 2300 cal a day and was putting weight on. A typical week would be running 60 miles and 2 body pump classes. If I ate my exercise calories I would be eating more than 2300 and just keep putting on.
I have adjusted the exercise cal now and use 80 per mile as over 100 I think is too much. I also think thatbmy maintenance cal are prob about 1600 rather than the 1900 mfp says so I have adjusted all that and aiming for a 500 deficit a day ie 1100 + exercise but using my own figures for exercise
Have come to a biit of a standstill at the mo as I am injured and think I am misjudging cal, my point is though that for me I need to be on a net of 1200 or less otherwise I won't lose, maybe I am just too efficient at running!0 -
Are people here who are eating around 1200 losing weight?
4 years ago I was under 9 stone ( am 5'7). I ate quite healthy, about 1700 cal a day and maintained my weight. I exercised about 1 hour a day. I then started training for a marathon, people said I should eat more, I did, treats became the norm, I over compensated for the extra calories. In those 4 years, despite running 52 marathons/ ultra marathons I have put on 1.5 stone v gradually. I stopped counting calories. In nov I though enough was enough, clothes too tigh, felt fat so joined mfp and started logging cal. Before that I guess I was eating about 2300 cal a day and was putting weight on. A typical week would be running 60 miles and 2 body pump classes. If I ate my exercise calories I would be eating more than 2300 and just keep putting on.
I have adjusted the exercise cal now and use 80 per mile as over 100 I think is too much. I also think thatbmy maintenance cal are prob about 1600 rather than the 1900 mfp says so I have adjusted all that and aiming for a 500 deficit a day ie 1100 + exercise but using my own figures for exercise
Have come to a biit of a standstill at the mo as I am injured and think I am misjudging cal, my point is though that for me I need to be on a net of 1200 or less otherwise I won't lose, maybe I am just too efficient at running!
Hellen:
I've been doing this for a year and I've thoroughly experimented with my calorie consumption, primarily based on the 1200 goal. I'd always suspected I was a slow burn but had no evidence and after starting here, the whole "starvation mode" concept really worried me because I *have* starved myself (but not to the point of starvING in the clincal sense... but I did lose muscle density, I'm sure). I REALLY wanted to learn how to do this right and continued to be frustrated in that nothing I did that seemed "right" according to many that I talked to that clearly have a much greater understanding of these things than I do from a scientific/chemical perspective.
I took their word and upped my food and exercised - and cried or got angry. Alot. I gained (mostly due to other unrelated factors) - I didn't lose. Finally, I went with my gut and dropped my ending caloric results. If I ate 1300, I burned 350-400, ending my day on 900-950. And in the last 6 weeks or so, I've lost 10 lbs. I gained 3 back (TOM) and am 1 away from getting back to that 10 lb mark. It's still slow for me - I'm TERRIBLE with water and I know that's a huge part of my slow down. I'd probably lose 1.5-2 a week instead of .5-.75 if I were better with that. Everything's a process though. I didn't grow up with water being pushed as a healthy choice so now there's some relationship issues with it, but I'm working on that.
So, do people lose with lower calories? You betcha'. But I'm also not stupid about it. I track my protein, iron & calcium - being a woman far too close to 40, those are absolutely critical nutrients and some days I"m on, some I'm not. I'm trying to pay attention to the foods that are high in these things and still low in cals & fat and get more of them in my diet. I need to be more consistent about my workouts - I'm a week on and two off... I'm slow to develop or change habits. The last week, for example, I've been consuming between 1250-1350 (or thereabouts - sometimes more) and guess what? Not losing. I'm not gaining either. This is maintenance for me in where I am physically at this point in time.
That's another thing... caloric needs change. They aren't stable or consistent over time. So, the point in which our bodies begin to do itself damage because we aren't fulfilling its nutritional needs will also vary. I would guess that someone who has a 5-10% body fat probably is going to have alot less time that they can be extremely restrictive than someone who is 20-25% body fat. There's less to go through before the system needs to turn to muscle tissue for nutrients.
dzilo is so right.. there's far too many confounding factors and variations for any one answer to fit all situations. I really really think what is being argued is semantics at this point. I don't think any of us disagree that the system will suffer if it doesn't get what it needs for too long a time span. The measurements of what each person requires before that happens and the amount of time it takes to get there though is going to be different. So, maybe a more appropriate set of terms is what is really called for because I dont' see anyone quibbling over the ultimate consequences.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -- Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions