Does this make sense to anyone else?

mrslondon · 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??

sbwood888 · April 2011

Ah, here we go again. There are some who will argue starvation mode until the cows come home. I have a hard time believing it because if it were true, then people with gastric bypasses would not lose weight. Right? Seems logical to me.

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.

sbwood888 · April 2011

[/quote]
QUOTING

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.
[/quote]

Oh, I never thought about this! TRUE!

ajbeans · April 2011

Oh for crying out loud. It's been proven time and time again that not eating enough and working out too much destroys your metabolism. But if you don't believe it, don't eat. I'm so sick of seeing this argument over and over again on these boards. Why not tag onto one of the THOUSANDS of existing threads on the topic and stop cluttering up the forums with the same argument fifteen times a day?

ajbeans · April 2011

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.

They weren't holding onto any muscle either. They were UNHEALTHY. That's the point of "starvation mode." Your body burns your muscle. Then turns to your organs. And your metabolism is wrecked.

elliecolorado · 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??

I can wee this topic turning into a fight very soon. But I agree with that statement. And agree with what was stated above, people with gastric bypass wouldn't lose weight if under 1200 calories a day caused you to go into 'starvation mode'

new_me_9_67 · April 2011

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.

They weren't holding onto any muscle either. They were UNHEALTHY. That's the point of "starvation mode." Your body burns your muscle. Then turns to your organs. And your metabolism is wrecked.

Second that.

both my wife and I have tried not eating our workout calories and felt sluggish when we did and guess what... we both gained weight.

Just saying

bmontgomery87 · April 2011

Or you could just eat right and excercise...not starve yourself...and see results.

The problem with starving yourself is that even if you lose fat, you're also going to lose a lot of your muscle mass which isn't good.

tabi26 · 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!

lodro · 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.

skinnyme125 · April 2011

first of all there is a BIG differance between "starvation" and "starvation mode" People who are starving have little to no food at all for extreeme long periods of time and are not getting the proper nutriants that the body needs. Those going through "starvation mode" have tricked the body to think that it is getting too few calories to make it through the day. So in return will hold on to everything it gets. I have seen lots of fat people who eat very little through the day and can not lose weight. Their body will not let them because they are not eating enough to get them through the day. That is why they are tired and have no energy to go and burn any of those callories off. If they would eat more calories then they would have the energy to get through the day and go out and do something to start building muscle and that in itself will help them to lose the fat. The people who are fat and eat very little still are getting food so they are not "starving". The people that are actually starving have not eaten enough in a weeks time to sustain themselves for even a day's time, sometimes even longer. This is actually simple sience if you are willing to take the time to study it from a reliable source not just some internet sight. Go to a nutritionalist or take a nutrition course at the local college or just order a nutrition book off ebay from an old college course. THAT will be real information and not just someones oppinion.

TiDinzeo · April 2011

If you weren't eating enough per day to cover what your body burns, yes it would lose fat. What happens in 'starvation mode' is when you start to eat at a regular level again, your body will retain as many calories as it can. This is an evolutionary response caused by times when food was scarce, floods, famine and the like. It helped the human race to survive because the people whose bodies did this lived, those who didn't died. The time of there being enough food for everyone, in the west at least, is in evolutionary terms, still very recent. We haven't had time yet for us to evolve past this response.

No, eating less than your BMR calories every now and then probably won't trigger it. Everyone's had days that for one reason or another they haven't eaten much or anything at all.

No-one's saying that you'll get fatter by eating less than your BMR. It's when you return to eating a surplus number of calories that your body will store as much of it as fat as it can.

As to the comment about people with gastric bypass, the likelihood is that they're still eating enough calories to cover their BMR, daily activities and any exercise they do as it's volume that the gastric bypass limits, not number of calories.

Also, there's a lot of comment on the message board about this magic number of 1200 calories. Everyone is different. A 6'7" man would need more calories to survive than a 5'7" woman would need to survive. One size does not fit all.

mrslondon · April 2011

Oh for crying out loud. It's been proven time and time again that not eating enough and working out too much destroys your metabolism. But if you don't believe it, don't eat. I'm so sick of seeing this argument over and over again on these boards. Why not tag onto one of the THOUSANDS of existing threads on the topic and stop cluttering up the forums with the same argument fifteen times a day?

There is really no reason to be so damn rude. I had simply read this somewhere and I had personally not seen it on the forums so just wanted to see what people thought. If it bothers you so much, don't read the threads. Sorry to those who have taken a serious offence because I posted this

LaurnWhit · April 2011

Amen lodro!

Kjarlune · 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??

5 bite diet? Dr. Lewis? It is a quote from him too if it isn't....I did it for one week because I had plateaued and I lost 14 pounds...I have not gained it back but I did go back to eating right because after day 5 as much as I had a great deal of energy, I was walking down the stairs and almost passed out. Not the best way to learn but I did jump off my plateau....I do very much believe that for a long term it is unhealthy...

ajbeans · April 2011

Oh for crying out loud. It's been proven time and time again that not eating enough and working out too much destroys your metabolism. But if you don't believe it, don't eat. I'm so sick of seeing this argument over and over again on these boards. Why not tag onto one of the THOUSANDS of existing threads on the topic and stop cluttering up the forums with the same argument fifteen times a day?

There is really no reason to be so damn rude. I had simply read this somewhere and I had personally not seen it on the forums so just wanted to see what people thought. If it bothers you so much, don't read the threads. Sorry to those who have taken a serious offence because I posted this

What bothers me is that clearly you have seen it discussed on the forums or you wouldn't have brought it up here. You're right, I didn't have to read the post. But I did. And since you posted this topic for discussion, you need to be open to the fact that people are going to have an opinion. And my opinion is that everybody needs to stop finding excuses to starve themselves, and instead treat our bodies right, feed ourselves healthy food, exercise, and stop trying to force our bodies to lose insane amounts of weight in a short amount of time. We need food to live. When we don't get it, bad things happen. Call it starvation mode, call it slow metabolism, call it low energy, call it whatever you want, but our bodies need food, and we need to take in more than we put out in order to survive and be healthy. It's not a difficult concept.

pkpzp228 · April 2011

Or you could just eat right and excercise...not starve yourself...and see results.

The problem with starving yourself is that even if you lose fat, you're also going to lose a lot of your muscle mass which isn't good.

True that, eat or don't. Sure you can go on a 500 kcal a day diet and I'm sure you would lose weight, you'd probably be a sickly little frail miserable soul too. Or you can eat for performance. Start by trying to eat like there is a starvation mode, one of the beauties of MFP is that it's a tool that helps you refine your eating habits. You may find that the daily estimation of intake is a little high, maybe low. Use the tools to build a more healthy lifestyle and quit looking for excuses for why "my" is the right way and get with the program.

Unless you look like bmontgomery87 I don't think you're qualified to be telling me the rules of metabolism regulation.

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

mrslondon · April 2011

Oh for crying out loud. It's been proven time and time again that not eating enough and working out too much destroys your metabolism. But if you don't believe it, don't eat. I'm so sick of seeing this argument over and over again on these boards. Why not tag onto one of the THOUSANDS of existing threads on the topic and stop cluttering up the forums with the same argument fifteen times a day?

There is really no reason to be so damn rude. I had simply read this somewhere and I had personally not seen it on the forums so just wanted to see what people thought. If it bothers you so much, don't read the threads. Sorry to those who have taken a serious offence because I posted this

What bothers me is that clearly you have seen it discussed on the forums or you wouldn't have brought it up here. You're right, I didn't have to read the post. But I did. And since you posted this topic for discussion, you need to be open to the fact that people are going to have an opinion. And my opinion is that everybody needs to stop finding excuses to starve themselves, and instead treat our bodies right, feed ourselves healthy food, exercise, and stop trying to force our bodies to lose insane amounts of weight in a short amount of time. We need food to live. When we don't get it, bad things happen. Call it starvation mode, call it slow metabolism, call it low energy, call it whatever you want, but our bodies need food, and we need to take in more than we put out in order to survive and be healthy. It's not a difficult concept.

I have not seen this in the forums before, if I had, i would have added my quote to those forums. I was on yahoo and read about something called "the 17 day diet" and someone had written what I quoted in the comments, so i wanted to see what people thought. Unfortunately, there are lots of different opinions about losing weight. I was always taught (which has been confirmed as correct by both my nutritionist and my doctor) that there is an idiot proof guide to losing weight. Eat healthy, always eat more than 600 calories a day, and burn more than you take in. I guess if they are both wrong then they shouldn't be allowed to practice anymore. Ill let them know that their years of teaching and learning have all been wrong

ajbeans · 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.

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!!!

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Replies

Categories