Does this make sense to anyone else?

mrslondon · April 2011

I DID go to my doctor, and i spoke to a nutritionist at my gym and when I explained to them that I was eating 1200 calories a day and I was not losing any weight, they both told me to eat a little less. My doctor told me that supervised, I can eat a diet between 800-900 calories a day and I will not die and my organs will not shut down. Guess what. Im not dead, I have energy and im ACTUALLY LOSING WEIGHT. I have lost 7lbs, over 2 weeks, not too fast, i have energy to workout and i feel great. Im not saying dont ever eat, thats just stupid im just saying that eating less wont kill u as long as you are eating more than a cracker a day obviously

Well I'm glad it's working for you. 7 lbs in 2 weeks IS actually pretty fast, for what it's worth. 2 lbs a week is a healthy rate for someone with a lot of weight to lose, and you're losing faster than that. Did your doctor look into other potential health issues that might be slowing your weight loss? Thyroid issues? Hormonal imbalances? Or did he just tell you to not eat so much?

If eating fewer calories is working for you and you're not losing muscle mass, then awesome. But that does not mean that it's the healthy choices for everyone, or even the majority of people. Most people will wreck their metabolism eating so few calories. It's just a fact.

My doctor found no other issues with my health, just that I have been eating too much, so he said if 1200 calories a day is not working, to change something until something works (healthily of course). Maybe 7lbs is too quick to lose weight but im a heavy person and from what I am learning, heavier people lose weight faster than people who are closer to their recommended weight. Ive seen it in shows like heavy, where these people lose 30lbs in a week. I would never say that what im doing is right for everyone. I know that from my own experience, hence why I had to adjust according to my own body. I was told by my doctor, that once I lose about 20lbs, to start eating more calories, until eventually i am at a good healthy weight and i can eat a higher calorie diet like most other healthy people.

Im sorry that i have offended you because I even brought up this topic but i don't appreciate feeling curious one minute when I posted this thread, to feeling upset because I have been belittled by a complete stranger. Good luck on your journey

pkpzp228 · April 2011

I DID go to my doctor, and i spoke to a nutritionist at my gym and when I explained to them that I was eating 1200 calories a day and I was not losing any weight, they both told me to eat a little less. My doctor told me that supervised, I can eat a diet between 800-900 calories a day and I will not die and my organs will not shut down. Guess what. Im not dead, I have energy and im ACTUALLY LOSING WEIGHT. I have lost 7lbs, over 2 weeks, not too fast, i have energy to workout and i feel great. Im not saying dont ever eat, thats just stupid im just saying that eating less wont kill u as long as you are eating more than a cracker a day obviously

Well I'm glad it's working for you. 7 lbs in 2 weeks IS actually pretty fast, for what it's worth. 2 lbs a week is a healthy rate for someone with a lot of weight to lose, and you're losing faster than that. Did your doctor look into other potential health issues that might be slowing your weight loss? Thyroid issues? Hormonal imbalances? Or did he just tell you to not eat so much?

If eating fewer calories is working for you and you're not losing muscle mass, then awesome. But that does not mean that it's the healthy choices for everyone, or even the majority of people. Most people will wreck their metabolism eating so few calories. It's just a fact.

+1, do what works for you. just keep in mind that the end goal should be building and maintaining a healthy lifestyle, this begins with your diet.

katnotfat · April 2011

I think that these topics are there so that people can ask questions, post their comments and all that fun jazz. I know we come on here, wanting to be able to confide in people, gain some support, and get questions answered. I really hope that everyone here is doing well for themselves and that they still can feel comfortable with asking the questions, advice, etc.
London- Heh, I don't really have a big opinion for you, but from experience, when I don't eat my exorcise calories I do get tired. For myself, I'm trying to change my calorie intake so that I can start to see the results better. I think it also depends on how long you are talking about "starvation mode" I have trouble eating all of my calories on the days that I work out, then MFP says that I am in trouble in going into starvation mode. I don't plan on doing that everyday, but it's hard sometimes to plan out what more I have to eat on the days I work out.
I thank you for being curious and posting your questions. I can't say that I'm someone that knows all the answers... heh, especially since I haven't really lost anything yet.... but I have had my own questions, and want to respect everyone here, and I want to feel comfortable asking questions still. We may be nieve, but asking questions is a great way to START your lifestyle change.
I'm a positive person, heck I work in social work... can't stay too negative.
Good luck to everyone and kudos for those who have educated themselves, and continue to do so in order to become healthier people in the long run!

freerange · April 2011

"Just to clarify, starvation mode is a MYTH. You would have to endure months of sustained malnutrition or extreme exercise for your body to "hold onto" anything.
And, while you may not eat much volumetrically, you are probably making up for it in caloric intake when you DO eat. People don't become overweight by not eating much."

I read this as part of a review about a diet. Is this just me or does this make sense to everyone else also, or is it just a bunch of crap??

Yes it makes sense, ever see pictures of the WWII concentration camps, those poor folks were actually starving and they weren’t holding on to any fat.

Ya the people in those camps were skinny.....gross, but still skinny and you do say that they were STARVING which to me would mean that they weren't eating AT ALL! So of course they weren't holding onto any fat from food......THEY HAD NO FOOD!

If you want to look like an anorexic then become an anorexic!

As the child of Jewish parents, one of whom survived a concentration camp (Auschwitz), I find the constant reference to concentration camp survivors to prove or disprove "starvation mode" rather tasteless. Please refrain.

Thank you all.

Didn’t mean to offend, but it is true, I could have used famine in Ethiopia, it really doesn’t matter the example. The truth is if you are not eating as much as you expend you will lose weight. I wasn’t trying to make the case for starving yourself, I believe it is very unhealthy to be at an extreme calorie deficit for any length of time. All bodily functions require calories in order to operate, So just the fact that a person is alive proves that the body isn’t “holding on to” anything. The metabolism will slow down, you will become sluggish, and all sorts of other bad things will happen, but you cannot remain the same weight if you are in a calorie deficit.

IMO people that think they are in starvation mode, are either holding water (which is a whole other subject) or they are not really in a calorie deficit. Overweight people that only eat a little and don’t lose weight is a myth, it just is not physically possible to eat less calories then you expend and not lose weight.

ATT949 · April 2011

This is interest to me, as well.

One thing that I'd like to see is actual research about this instead of people repeating what they've "heard" or "remember". I'd also like people to cite their sources and be precise in their terminology.

For example, I've heard people refer to "lean muscle mass" and, for the life of me, I can't find a definition for that. "Lean body mass" is a well known term but when someone says that I'll lose "lean muscle mass" because of my very low calorie diet, their credibility suffers. But I digress…

What little I've read clearly demonstrates that "starvation mode" is real. Mind you, it's also true that water kills people.

An example of a source that's got good and bad info - well, that's got good info and incomplete info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_mode

I like that source. It provides some insight into the topic and provides some info on the digestive process (I wasn't clear on the role of glycogen, for example, though it's been 40 years since I studied biology) but it's unclear about some key points.

Some thoughts:

"Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low caloric intake levels. During short periods of caloric abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source."

It defines starvation mode but what's undefined in the very first sentence? "prolonged periods" and "low caloric intake levels"

How long is prolonged? What are the parameters of "low"? What is the impact of exercise in that it relates to "intake levels"?

Is "caloric abstinence" the same as "low" (semantically it would be a significant semantic stretch to call them synonyms)

"prolonged periods of starvation" - this sounds like many days with no food or almost no food. Think Biafra, North Korea, POW camps, Auschwitz. Those were starvation.

Another thought - maybe starvation mode is defined here by the symptoms, rather than by calorie levels and number of days of low/no calories. Logically, that may be completely acceptable, right? To white, if you're eating very little but you're not losing all of your body fat and you're not losing mental sharpness, and you're not losing muscle mass then, by definition, you're not in starvation mode.

shaunshaikh · April 2011

monkeybuttsmommy · April 2011

This might help. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/fewer-calories-stalls-metabolism.aspx

mustangurl · April 2011

I have to say that I am with most people in that if I don't eat enough, I feel very weak and dizzy. my suggestion would be instead of altering the amount of calories you eat, change what those calories come from. i think most people would agree that what kind of calorie is just as important as how many. you could eat a whole box of twinkies and be within your calorie range for the day but think of all the excess sugar and fat and carbs!!!!! i have changed my diet to include plenty of fresh veggies and fruits and i shy away from fried stuff and fatty meats. i have also cut back on eating potatoes and rice so much. sure you want to lose a whole bunch of weight but you also need to do it healthy. also something to consider is adding more exercise time or intensity. I would definitely get a second opinion on eating so few calories in a day cause that makes it really hard to get all the nutrients you needs too!!! just my .02 on the matter

ATT949 · April 2011

Thank you for taking the time to compile all of those links.

You've provided an excellent resource!

mustangurl · April 2011

This is interest to me, as well.

One thing that I'd like to see is actual research about this instead of people repeating what they've "heard" or "remember". I'd also like people to cite their sources and be precise in their terminology.

For example, I've heard people refer to "lean muscle mass" and, for the life of me, I can't find a definition for that. "Lean body mass" is a well known term but when someone says that I'll lose "lean muscle mass" because of my very low calorie diet, their credibility suffers. But I digress…

What little I've read clearly demonstrates that "starvation mode" is real. Mind you, it's also true that water kills people.

An example of a source that's got good and bad info - well, that's got good info and incomplete info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_mode

I like that source. It provides some insight into the topic and provides some info on the digestive process (I wasn't clear on the role of glycogen, for example, though it's been 40 years since I studied biology) but it's unclear about some key points.

Some thoughts:

"Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low caloric intake levels. During short periods of caloric abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source."

It defines starvation mode but what's undefined in the very first sentence? "prolonged periods" and "low caloric intake levels"

How long is prolonged? What are the parameters of "low"? What is the impact of exercise in that it relates to "intake levels"?

Is "caloric abstinence" the same as "low" (semantically it would be a significant semantic stretch to call them synonyms)

"prolonged periods of starvation" - this sounds like many days with no food or almost no food. Think Biafra, North Korea, POW camps, Auschwitz. Those were starvation.

Another thought - maybe starvation mode is defined here by the symptoms, rather than by calorie levels and number of days of low/no calories. Logically, that may be completely acceptable, right? To white, if you're eating very little but you're not losing all of your body fat and you're not losing mental sharpness, and you're not losing muscle mass then, by definition, you're not in starvation mode.

just thought i'd tell you something i learned in school (that i didn't know either) wikipedia is almost like this forum, any body can go in there a say stuff about a topic. stuff on wikipedia is not from reliable sources!!!

shaunshaikh · April 2011

ATT, first off, the worst thing you can do in a debate is quote wikipedia as your source. Second of all, there's a difference between Starvation Response which you have outilned and the Starvation Mode which is frequently referred to on this website. I gave a mountain load of links for you to peruse through at your own leisure, but suffice it to say that you can ignore starvation mode all you want, but when you or someone you know gets to that 10-20 pounds left and isn't losing weight anymore despite having large caloric deficits, then I think you're going to be hard pressed to find another reason for it.

baisleac · April 2011

Overweight people that only eat a little and don’t lose weight is a myth, it just is not physically possible to eat less calories then you expend and not lose weight.

Tell that to my mother who is 80 lbs overweight and eats about 1100-1300 calories per day. At 5'8" her BMR should be much higher than it actually is, but because she's been eating too little for so long her metabolism has effectively shut down (not completely obviously or she'd be dead).

She ate even less than she does now, for years, and yes... she did lose weight. The minute she went back to maintenance she gained it all back and more. Now, her maintenance calories are lower; she can't get proper nutrients on the amount of calories she would need to eat to lose weight and she never has enough energy to do the things she wants to do.

shaunshaikh · April 2011

Overweight people that only eat a little and don’t lose weight is a myth, it just is not physically possible to eat less calories then you expend and not lose weight.

How can you be sure that what you are expending is as much as you think? How do you know that your metabolism is really what MFP tells you that it is instead of 50% that value or less?

GypsyRoaddog · April 2011

I am amazed at the rudeness of some ppl here & how vigorously they defend their *opinions*. Ppl with no nutritional training and at best with information they got from books, in which there are dozens of conflicting *opinions*. Everyone's *opinion* is valid - if it works for you, so be it. But like religions, I have to question someone's need to put their *opinion* on others. This is why I rarely check these boards -- self-deluded "experts" will defend their *opinion* post after post, for the need, I suppose, to prove they're RIGHT!
My best to all; I'll stick to entering my cals in my diary & working out at the gym every day. I'll leave advice giving to those who defend their *opinions* and certainly post no response to Jews who take offense at the mention of concentration camps, those who shudder at the mention of starving Ethiopians, & other realities that are not *opinions*, nor to those that defend their *opinions* so vigorously.
I am going to meditate; see you in the Silence.
Respectfully,
gyps

ajbeans · April 2011

Im sorry that i have offended you because I even brought up this topic but i don't appreciate feeling curious one minute when I posted this thread, to feeling upset because I have been belittled by a complete stranger. Good luck on your journey

For what it's worth, I do apologize for my tone. I'm not normally such a grouch. It is a frustrating thing to see this topic get beaten to death on the forums, but that's not your fault. I was not at all being sarcastic in my last post when I said that it was awesome that it was working for you, and I do wish you luck.

I see a lot of people on these boards looking for excuses to not eat, or believing that food is the enemy, developing borderline eating disorders, and telling other people that it's ok to basically starve themselves and to lose pounds at all costs. Again, not your fault, and that's not what you were doing. I'm just explaining the frustration. There are a lot of unhealthy behaviors that get perpetuated in this community, and it's sometimes hard to sift through all the information to find the right path. So again, I apologize for my rudeness. I do wish you well on your journey, and I hope that I haven't deterred you from seeking support here at MFP.

freerange · April 2011

Overweight people that only eat a little and don’t lose weight is a myth, it just is not physically possible to eat less calories then you expend and not lose weight.

How can you be sure that what you are expending is as much as you think? How do you know that your metabolism is really what MFP tells you that it is instead of 50% that value or less?

There is the rub, take for example a 200lb person with 50% body fat, they are really eating for a roughly 150 pound person, because fat does not burn calories at near the rate muscle does. So yes it can seem they are eating very little, and it can seem they are in calorie deicit, but they may not be. My advice is always seek medical advice, you can get your BMR checked to see what it really is, these places like MFP are only a rough guide.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Replies

Categories