Why not just starve?

Options
13»

Replies

  • Jade_Butterfly
    Jade_Butterfly Posts: 2,963 Member
    Options
    Well just a little food for though. The first thing you lose when you starve yourself is water weight, then your body will go after your muscle not fat. So not good. Then you have no energy to do anything. Simple formula eat+exercise=muscle which =fat loss and increased metabolism.
  • Time2BSkinny
    Time2BSkinny Posts: 91
    Options
    Same thing happend to me! I know I will probably gain it back.

    But you are right- no question is a dumb question!
  • VixFit2011
    VixFit2011 Posts: 663 Member
    Options
    Because if you lose weight too fast by starving your body will "eat" itself for nutrients and then as soon as you eat you'll gain but probably be very ill. Ask yourself this question ...Do you want to live?
  • mrsauton
    mrsauton Posts: 3
    Options
    What is the definition of extreme calorie deficit?
  • stuffinmuffin
    stuffinmuffin Posts: 985 Member
    Options
    It may not have totally been the starving that caused you to lose weight while you were sick. Your body was fighting something and probably fighting fiercely. It was busy. Starving when you feel healthy is extremely difficult to sustain. And your body will do whatever it can to get by on as little calories as possible so even the slightest increase in calories will cause weight gain.

    Completely agree, you probably lost the weight because your body was doing extra work fighting off the illness. Don't remain on the low calories, now you have recovered you need to go back to your normal calorie amount and exercise when well enough! : )
  • sweetCJ
    sweetCJ Posts: 144
    Options
    WOW. I don't think she was asking how to lose weight fast and I don't think your answer was appropriate. Next time, if you have an answer like that, keep it to yourself. This is NOT helping anyone.
  • reba971
    reba971 Posts: 80
    Options
    Thank you to everyone who gave all the great answers to my question. I promise you I wont starve. I love food, and I actually don't even want to get to my "ideal" weight according to all these charts. I want to get to about 150 which is 20 pounds heavier than my "ideal" weight.

    I hope to be feeling all better soon, and I will resume my normal 1200 calories each day.
    Again, thank you for all the great info.
  • crystal_sapphire
    crystal_sapphire Posts: 1,205 Member
    Options
    starving works but it's a super ****ty cycle to be in. It's not sustainable in the long term unless you stick with a starvation diet the rest of your life. Instead when you eat you're going to start binging and your body will be more susceptible to holding onto that weight
  • ATT949
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    OK, here goes.
    I have been sick for about 5 days now with a stomach virus. I am past the bad part, but still eating less than 1000 calories a day. I did finally start exercising again yesterday. But here is my question. If starving is such a bad way to lose weight...then why does it work so well? I have lost more weight in the last 5 days then I have in the last 5 weeks! So, I guess my real question is why not do this for a while and get some of the excess weight off and then start to slowly eat more and exercise more? I know there are all kinds of theories about metabolism, and what this will do to it, but I am not sure anymore. I feel great, I look better, I just wonder what would happen if I keep up the less than 1000 calories and exercise????
    That's a very valid question. Less is good, lots less has been good for me, but there's the law of diminishing returns.


    Consuming 800 to 1k net calories a day can be an excellent way to lose weight. It's called a "very low calorie diet" and it's been proven to be safe and effective. In fact, it's been used by a company here in Southern California for over 40 years to help hundreds of thousands of people lose weight and keep it off.

    Yes, hundreds of thousands of people. And over 40 years.



    The diet I'm on is based on their system and, in the 160 days since I started, I have lost 80 pounds in a very predictable pattern.

    I've gone from 44" relaxed fit jeans to 36" slim fit, my chest has dropped from 52" to 47", and my neck has gone from 18 1/2" to 15 1/2".

    I'm off BP meds and my fitness level has improved significantly. I'm working out three times per week on an elliptical and twice per week with dumbbells. (I was hoping to be able to get ready for a half marathon in August but I don't think I'm going to be able to pull that off.)



    A VLCD is not for everyone. Many folks here at MFP abhor the idea of eating less than 1200 calories per day. Personally, I have no qualms with folks who choose to lose weight by eating 1200 calories. It's their body, their choice.



    If 800 to 1k is good, that does not mean that less is better. Some people at the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless consume as little as 700 net cals but that is for about a week or so and that is done only if the client has complied with the rule of weighing in every day.

    Once you get lower than 700 cals, you're getting into the calorie range that causes what's medically described as "starvation".

    I've seen citations of two medical sources in the postings about "starvation mode" here on MFP and both of them refer to…starvation. Think Auschwitz. Think North Korea. The two studies that I read dealt with feeding subjects 400 calories (+/-) per day for extended periods. And the subjects suffered serious, though temporary, issues.

    There are some days where I end up eating very few calories but that's a mistake. I don't mind the extra "attention to detail" that I put in on a VLCD but I've decided that 800 cals is as low as I want to go.

    My thinking - see if a VLCD works for you.




    *I'm almost "getting to done" so I have to start thinking about my diet when I stop losing. My girlfriend, who runs one of the 44 weight loss clinics for the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless explained it to me last night . If you go the VLCD route, send me a PM when you're ready, and I'll go over it with you.
  • MissMoxy08
    MissMoxy08 Posts: 32
    Options
    Ok, so everyone seems to keep missing the point that the question is why not -- temporarily-- starve yourself to supress your appetite and then start eating and exercising. Essentially, why not fast? While some diets promote this, it probably isn't the best method to take. Even though you eventually start eating and exercising, for this diet to continue working and for you to continue losing weight, you'll have to fast more than once and this yo-yo effect is very very bad for your body. Even though people fast for dieting and religious purposes, it isn't ideal for losing weight. One key reason you lost weight like you did while you were sick is because being sick suppressed your appetite. Your body went into an "emergency SOS" mode. Your body was more concerned with fighting off the illness and put eating on the back burning. It drew from your stored energy to fight off the sickness. If you were to just stop eating by choice, it most likely would not have the same effect. Without a higher priority, your body will focus on wanting food. You'll have hunger pains, be extra sensitive to the smell of food, you'll get headaches, you'll feel faint, and you'll salivate alot more. In short, it's miserable. Just to give you an idea of the experience, most religious practices that involve fasting usually use fasting as a way of self punishment for the lord they serve. Probably not a diet plan you want to adhere to. And if you keep this up over time it will do damage to your body just the same an anorexia, even if you just starve yourself sparingly. It's like trying to run a car with very little oil. It will ruin the whole engine and it can't be fixed.

    But yes, it's ok to enjoy this spring board you got in your diet. You were miserable for days so you should utilize the one benefit to your suffering. Your stomach has had time to shrink so be aware of when you're full and don't eat your usual portion sizes so you don't stretch it back out. Be careful with the exercising. Your body just went through alot. To you it may have just been a nasty cold but to your body it was a small trauma. Don't over do it.

    And as for support for my statement I'd like to add that I have a degree in psychology from one of the top psychology departments in the US and took courses on Motivation and Emotion (why your body reacts the way it does) and an Eating Disorders class and Behaviorial Neuroscience.
    (Note: Just so I'm not taken the wrong way, I'm in no way bragging, I'm just trying to state what little qualifications I have behind my statement. I'm in no way an expert.)
  • cupotee
    cupotee Posts: 181 Member
    Options
    Because it's hard to keep it up. Can you go another 4 months, or however long you need on a low cal diet? What about after you hit your goal weight? Starvation works (and I think its ridiculous that people are so afraid of "starvation mode"- Fat people die of nutrition deficiencies, not energy deficiencies.) but you have to have a massive amount of self control. And there's the whole nutrition thing, you can't guarantee absorption with supplements. But yeah, starvation absolutely works, but use this high to kick start your diet, not an unhealthy habit :)
  • ATT949
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    im going to get crucified for this... but i dont really believe that if you go back to HEALTHY eating habits and reasonable calories, you'll get fat/gain ridiculous amounts of weight etc.
    I'm not aware of any medical evidence that any particular type of diet, when you stop that diet, causes one to gain weight.

    Think about someone who breaks their leg playing basketball so they go to the ER, get a cast, and spend a month letting their leg heal. Then they go out, play hoop again, and break their leg.

    Does it make sense to blame the hospital and the ER staff who fixed his leg? No. What it means is that he hasn't learned to not break his leg!

    Same with diets. Fad diets, crash diets, 1199 calories per day diets, and 1201 calories per day diets don't not work if that person changes their behavior and starts eating more calories than they expend. It's not because the 1201 calories per day diet "doesn't work"! It's cause that person hasn't changed their eating habits.
    if you look at anorexics who go through rehab - and im talking they have SERIOUS problems and have been starving themselves for prolonged periods of time - they're not all overweight when they come out.
    Well, that is the point of rehab, eh?

    The issue, though, is not that the OP wanted to starve herself. She was asking a very valid question about eating less than 1k cals/day. Maybe 999 works for her. Or 900.

    i don't condone starving yourself, at all. i couldn't do it. but i don't think that doing it and then eating again will cause you to gain bunches of weight... as long as you're not going back to your old eating habits that made you overweight to begin with.
    I haven't seen anything from a medical source that contradicts what you've said.

    Further, my understanding, from someone who has seen hundreds of people lose weight on a very low calorie diet, is that folks who stay "compliant" with "maintenance mode" do maintain their weight levels.
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Options
    OK, here goes.
    I have been sick for about 5 days now with a stomach virus. I am past the bad part, but still eating less than 1000 calories a day. I did finally start exercising again yesterday. But here is my question. If starving is such a bad way to lose weight...then why does it work so well? I have lost more weight in the last 5 days then I have in the last 5 weeks! So, I guess my real question is why not do this for a while and get some of the excess weight off and then start to slowly eat more and exercise more? I know there are all kinds of theories about metabolism, and what this will do to it, but I am not sure anymore. I feel great, I look better, I just wonder what would happen if I keep up the less than 1000 calories and exercise????
    That's a very valid question. Less is good, lots less has been good for me, but there's the law of diminishing returns.


    Consuming 800 to 1k net calories a day can be an excellent way to lose weight. It's called a "very low calorie diet" and it's been proven to be safe and effective. In fact, it's been used by a company here in Southern California for over 40 years to help hundreds of thousands of people lose weight and keep it off.

    Yes, hundreds of thousands of people. And over 40 years.



    The diet I'm on is based on their system and, in the 160 days since I started, I have lost 80 pounds in a very predictable pattern.

    I've gone from 44" relaxed fit jeans to 36" slim fit, my chest has dropped from 52" to 47", and my neck has gone from 18 1/2" to 15 1/2".

    I'm off BP meds and my fitness level has improved significantly. I'm working out three times per week on an elliptical and twice per week with dumbbells. (I was hoping to be able to get ready for a half marathon in August but I don't think I'm going to be able to pull that off.)



    A VLCD is not for everyone. Many folks here at MFP abhor the idea of eating less than 1200 calories per day. Personally, I have no qualms with folks who choose to lose weight by eating 1200 calories. It's their body, their choice.



    If 800 to 1k is good, that does not mean that less is better. Some people at the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless consume as little as 700 net cals but that is for about a week or so and that is done only if the client has complied with the rule of weighing in every day.

    Once you get lower than 700 cals, you're getting into the calorie range that causes what's medically described as "starvation".

    I've seen citations of two medical sources in the postings about "starvation mode" here on MFP and both of them refer to…starvation. Think Auschwitz. Think North Korea. The two studies that I read dealt with feeding subjects 400 calories (+/-) per day for extended periods. And the subjects suffered serious, though temporary, issues.

    There are some days where I end up eating very few calories but that's a mistake. I don't mind the extra "attention to detail" that I put in on a VLCD but I've decided that 800 cals is as low as I want to go.

    My thinking - see if a VLCD works for you.




    *I'm almost "getting to done" so I have to start thinking about my diet when I stop losing. My girlfriend, who runs one of the 44 weight loss clinics for the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless explained it to me last night . If you go the VLCD route, send me a PM when you're ready, and I'll go over it with you.

    VLCDs are not "proven safe"...they are proven to have many risks, some of which can be deadly. Sometimes, a person is in immediate medical danger from obesity related health issues, which may justify the risks associated with VLCDs. That does not mean the risks are not there, it just means that for certain people (morbidly obese), the benefits may outweigh the risks.

    Suggesting to the OP that she "try a VLCD" is irresponsible at best. She is NOT at a level of obesity that would make it necessary or desirable or safe.

    I'm sure you won't look at it, but here are just some of the scientific medical studies done on the risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese persons, the risks are far higher in someone who is not obese) - which include, but are not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney damage, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death.

    Starvation mode (or famine response or adaptive thermogenesis or whatever you'd like to call it) is NOT starvation. It is a point before starvation, and a higher cal level. Look up the definitions.

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck
    http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
    http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-I/dp/0816672342/ref=pd_sim_b_3
    http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-II/dp/0816672334/ref=pd_sim_b_2
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
    http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
    http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
    http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
  • MissMoxy08
    MissMoxy08 Posts: 32
    Options
    OK, here goes.
    I have been sick for about 5 days now with a stomach virus. I am past the bad part, but still eating less than 1000 calories a day. I did finally start exercising again yesterday. But here is my question. If starving is such a bad way to lose weight...then why does it work so well? I have lost more weight in the last 5 days then I have in the last 5 weeks! So, I guess my real question is why not do this for a while and get some of the excess weight off and then start to slowly eat more and exercise more? I know there are all kinds of theories about metabolism, and what this will do to it, but I am not sure anymore. I feel great, I look better, I just wonder what would happen if I keep up the less than 1000 calories and exercise????
    That's a very valid question. Less is good, lots less has been good for me, but there's the law of diminishing returns.


    Consuming 800 to 1k net calories a day can be an excellent way to lose weight. It's called a "very low calorie diet" and it's been proven to be safe and effective. In fact, it's been used by a company here in Southern California for over 40 years to help hundreds of thousands of people lose weight and keep it off.

    Yes, hundreds of thousands of people. And over 40 years.



    The diet I'm on is based on their system and, in the 160 days since I started, I have lost 80 pounds in a very predictable pattern.

    I've gone from 44" relaxed fit jeans to 36" slim fit, my chest has dropped from 52" to 47", and my neck has gone from 18 1/2" to 15 1/2".

    I'm off BP meds and my fitness level has improved significantly. I'm working out three times per week on an elliptical and twice per week with dumbbells. (I was hoping to be able to get ready for a half marathon in August but I don't think I'm going to be able to pull that off.)



    A VLCD is not for everyone. Many folks here at MFP abhor the idea of eating less than 1200 calories per day. Personally, I have no qualms with folks who choose to lose weight by eating 1200 calories. It's their body, their choice.



    If 800 to 1k is good, that does not mean that less is better. Some people at the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless consume as little as 700 net cals but that is for about a week or so and that is done only if the client has complied with the rule of weighing in every day.

    Once you get lower than 700 cals, you're getting into the calorie range that causes what's medically described as "starvation".

    I've seen citations of two medical sources in the postings about "starvation mode" here on MFP and both of them refer to…starvation. Think Auschwitz. Think North Korea. The two studies that I read dealt with feeding subjects 400 calories (+/-) per day for extended periods. And the subjects suffered serious, though temporary, issues.

    There are some days where I end up eating very few calories but that's a mistake. I don't mind the extra "attention to detail" that I put in on a VLCD but I've decided that 800 cals is as low as I want to go.

    My thinking - see if a VLCD works for you.




    *I'm almost "getting to done" so I have to start thinking about my diet when I stop losing. My girlfriend, who runs one of the 44 weight loss clinics for the medically-supervised-weight-loss-plan-company-that-shall-remain-nameless explained it to me last night . If you go the VLCD route, send me a PM when you're ready, and I'll go over it with you.

    VLCDs are not "proven safe"...they are proven to have many risks, some of which can be deadly. Sometimes, a person is in immediate medical danger from obesity related health issues, which may justify the risks associated with VLCDs. That does not mean the risks are not there, it just means that for certain people (morbidly obese), the benefits may outweigh the risks.

    Suggesting to the OP that she "try a VLCD" is irresponsible at best. She is NOT at a level of obesity that would make it necessary or desirable or safe.

    I'm sure you won't look at it, but here are just some of the scientific medical studies done on the risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese persons, the risks are far higher in someone who is not obese) - which include, but are not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney damage, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death.

    Starvation mode (or famine response or adaptive thermogenesis or whatever you'd like to call it) is NOT starvation. It is a point before starvation, and a higher cal level. Look up the definitions.

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck
    http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
    http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-I/dp/0816672342/ref=pd_sim_b_3
    http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-II/dp/0816672334/ref=pd_sim_b_2
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
    http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
    http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
    http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/


    *Like* lol
  • amoffatt
    amoffatt Posts: 674 Member
    Options
    Unless some of the posts were deleted, I didnt see anyone attacking anyone. The OP was asking "why not..." because there was a result in not eating. Some responses were what was asked..."Why not" they were personal opinions, personal expierence, researched answers and so forth. The old saying "Dying to be thin..."

    I am a victim of anorexia and here I am having to fight my weight and do it the right way, because it worked...but my body was telling me it was struggling, survival mode was loosing...but I looked great, (I thought) I was thin, isnt that what matters? I "feel" some individuals take some comments (even the innocent and helpful ones) the wrong way. :happy:
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Options
    Unless some of the posts were deleted, I didnt see anyone attacking anyone. The OP was asking "why not..." because there was a result in not eating. Some responses were what was asked..."Why not" they were personal opinions, personal expierence, researched answers and so forth. The old saying "Dying to be thin..."

    I am a victim of anorexia and here I am having to fight my weight and do it the right way, because it worked...but my body was telling me it was struggling, survival mode was loosing...but I looked great, (I thought) I was thin, isnt that what matters? I "feel" some individuals take some comments (even the innocent and helpful ones) the wrong way. :happy:

    Yes, some posts were moderated.

Categories