starvation mode
Options
Replies
-
lol0
-
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »
you got a point there. I guess that's why eating protein and strength training is so important.rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »I think it's just the part, "your body holds onto your fat" that gets me. If you're not eating anything and your body "holds onto the fat cause it thinks you're starving" doesn't make any sense. Just like the myth about eating breakfast. Everyone eats breakfast, it's the first meal you eat upon waking up, whether it's 6am, 12pm or 6pm. That's why it's called breakfast. You're breaking a fast.
But, why does your body only burn so much fat per day before it starts burning muscle instead? In a sense, doesn't it try to hang on to fat if it thinks your starving it? It's not that you won't continue to lose (and lose fat) on a deficit, but you'll lose too much muscle if you go too extreme.
Yes, I'm happy to have found these boards for that info in particular (probably not a huge secret, but I wasn't that aware, at least about protein).
As for starvation mode - it is funny how many people think that you actually won't lose weight if you eat too little. That really doesn't make sense.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
I hear ya, it just might be more accurate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means" than "it doesn't exist".
I will say - whenever I've eaten very little (for whatever reason), I've lost weight very quickly. (Not recommending)
I am currently experiencing the flu as a dieting method. I've lost a lot of weight in a very short amount of time. I've been eating... just not a lot.
Would not recommend.
Yuk, I hope you feel better soon.
Thanks. I'm super annoyed to get it so relatively late in flu season. I got vaccinated in September!
0 -
pinkwebsprite wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
The link you provided indicates adaptive thermogenesis is a natural response to "long term" calorie restriction...which is true...but "starvation mode" as talked about by laymen means "my body is holding onto fat after 1 week of "assumed calorie deficit"
This is actually a better link for adaptive thermogenesis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Lol I didn't really think anyone thought you'd go into starvation mode after a week. my bad >_<
I know right but you see it here all the time..."you're in starvation mode" when an op complains they've been dieting for a week or two and haven't lost anything....it's a "SMH" moment for sure.
I regularly eat less then a 1000 calories and have for many months. I am also active when not at work. Also working out 3 times a week. I have
Not lost a single lb. In 5 months.
When I hear/read ppl say reduce cals and you will lose weight it pisses me off. Stop generalizing not all bodies respond the same way. Same goes for the crap around BMI.
So you're meticulously tracking that intake are you?
You've ruled out any medical conditions?
There's always a reason the scale doesn't move. Always.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
This is what I've always understood it to mean, when I've read about it, and what people I've discussed it with in real life have meant when they've referred to it. It's just a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis.
People on these boards often take it to mean something else (although people here also almost always assume they are using it incorrectly, and say "starvation mode doesn't exist", when the term does exist and refers to something real).
I hear ya, it just might be more accurate to say "I don't think it means what you think it means" than "it doesn't exist".
I will say - whenever I've eaten very little (for whatever reason), I've lost weight very quickly. (Not recommending)
I am currently experiencing the flu as a dieting method. I've lost a lot of weight in a very short amount of time. I've been eating... just not a lot.
Would not recommend.
Yuk, I hope you feel better soon.
Thanks. I'm super annoyed to get it so relatively late in flu season. I got vaccinated in September!
Wow, usually the vaccine gives you the flu a lot sooner!
0 -
pinkwebsprite wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
The link you provided indicates adaptive thermogenesis is a natural response to "long term" calorie restriction...which is true...but "starvation mode" as talked about by laymen means "my body is holding onto fat after 1 week of "assumed calorie deficit"
This is actually a better link for adaptive thermogenesis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Lol I didn't really think anyone thought you'd go into starvation mode after a week. my bad >_<
I know right but you see it here all the time..."you're in starvation mode" when an op complains they've been dieting for a week or two and haven't lost anything....it's a "SMH" moment for sure.
I regularly eat less then a 1000 calories and have for many months. I am also active when not at work. Also working out 3 times a week. I have
Not lost a single lb. In 5 months.
When I hear/read ppl say reduce cals and you will lose weight it pisses me off. Stop generalizing not all bodies respond the same way. Same goes for the crap around BMI.
Strong first post.
Open your diary.
0 -
pinkwebsprite wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
"This is a natural physiological response, and isn’t really controversial. It is well accepted by scientists, and the technical term for it is “adaptive thermogenesis”"
"Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think.
It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories."
un-bunch your panties.
The link you provided indicates adaptive thermogenesis is a natural response to "long term" calorie restriction...which is true...but "starvation mode" as talked about by laymen means "my body is holding onto fat after 1 week of "assumed calorie deficit"
This is actually a better link for adaptive thermogenesis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Lol I didn't really think anyone thought you'd go into starvation mode after a week. my bad >_<
I know right but you see it here all the time..."you're in starvation mode" when an op complains they've been dieting for a week or two and haven't lost anything....it's a "SMH" moment for sure.
I regularly eat less then a 1000 calories and have for many months. I am also active when not at work. Also working out 3 times a week. I have
Not lost a single lb. In 5 months.
When I hear/read ppl say reduce cals and you will lose weight it pisses me off. Stop generalizing not all bodies respond the same way. Same goes for the crap around BMI.
So you're either saying your body can create energy out of nothing or that your body burns less than 1000 calories per day.0 -
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »I think it's just the part, "your body holds onto your fat" that gets me. If you're not eating anything and your body "holds onto the fat cause it thinks you're starving" doesn't make any sense. Just like the myth about eating breakfast. Everyone eats breakfast, it's the first meal you eat upon waking up, whether it's 6am, 12pm or 6pm. That's why it's called breakfast. You're breaking a fast.
But, why does your body only burn so much fat per day before it starts burning muscle instead?
There are limits to how quickly fat stores can be converted to energy. Exceed those, and the body has to go elsewhere.In a sense, doesn't it try to hang on to fat if it thinks your starving it?
No.
0 -
rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »I think it's just the part, "your body holds onto your fat" that gets me. If you're not eating anything and your body "holds onto the fat cause it thinks you're starving" doesn't make any sense. Just like the myth about eating breakfast. Everyone eats breakfast, it's the first meal you eat upon waking up, whether it's 6am, 12pm or 6pm. That's why it's called breakfast. You're breaking a fast.
But, why does your body only burn so much fat per day before it starts burning muscle instead?
There are limits to how quickly fat stores can be converted to energy. Exceed those, and the body has to go elsewhere.In a sense, doesn't it try to hang on to fat if it thinks your starving it?
No.
Ok. It was a question because I was wondering, I haven't studied it much. I was assuming the time limit on fat store conversion was based on some evolutionary reason (protecting the body).
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
my thought as well.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, generating energy from nothing is what doesn't hold water.midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I once thought I could accellerate weight loss by reducing calories further. After gaining weight progressively for 3 weeks, I read something that indicated if one consumes fewer calories than their RMR, they could gain weight. A quick calculation showed my new calorie level was below estimated RMR. So I returned to a higher calorie level (which was above RMR and below BMR) and began to lose again.
I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of hate for sharing my experience, and some will call me a liar. I don't know the scientific reason behind why I started gaining when restricting calories further, but I will not do that again (at least not for more than a day or 2). It set me back and lost time.
if you really gained you were eating more than you thought.
you can eat lower than your RMR and lose weight and it not be unhealthy as long as it's not done for a prolonged period of time...and 3 weeks is not long enough.
That is an easy explanation, but doesn't hold water. I didn't change methods of measuring and logging food. I used a food scale before, during, and after the weight loss.
If I had, at the same time I dropped my calorie limit, stopped weighing food and started "eye-balling" everything... then returned to weighing when I resumed a higher calorie intake, then I could see your point.
CICO equation is math...there are variables but if you are sure of CI than it was your CO part that was off.
I also used a Fitbit both before, during, and after... so no changes to method of measuring calories out either.
I'll repeat: I don't know the scientific reason behind why I started gaining when restricting calories further. But just because I don't understand something does not make it untrue.
There's your answer, and I think he's right- your CO was off. My Fitbit drastically overestimates my burn. There is no true way to know how many calories you're burning. IMO a Fitbit is just a step counter.
I used the Fitbit before changing the CI side and was losing. I used the Fitbit after returning to higher intake and was losing. If the Fitbit and the CO side was off and causing me to gain, then surely I should have been gaining even faster when I was eating even more.
Then again, if I'm eating less than RMR, then I should lose even if I didn't exercise at all, right?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
I assume you are talking about my experience? It is right on topic with starvation mode. My experience does not prove that starvation mode is a myth, and apparently that upsets some MFP users?
Your experience doesn't make any sense. To gain 6 pounds in 3 weeks you'd have to have been at about a 1000 calorie surplus daily. At what is around a grown guy's BMR, that would be a sudden drop to a TDEE of less than 800 calories.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.0 -
However real adaptive thermogenesis is, it doesn't cover the "am I eating too little to lose any weight" posts that are legion here.
Totally agree. Generally if you aren't losing, it's time to crank down the caloric intake. There are some exceptions, but I suspect the biggest issue is incorrect logging of food causing more calories to actually be eaten than is being logged.
0 -
susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
Fact of the matter is .. Fasting raises your metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
I think both of these article are bad examples of what is being talked about.
First article uses lean population. So for majority are we lean to follow this study?
Second article talks about adrenaline release after 48 hours of no food.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
I assume you are talking about my experience? It is right on topic with starvation mode. My experience does not prove that starvation mode is a myth, and apparently that upsets some MFP users?
Your experience doesn't make any sense. To gain 6 pounds in 3 weeks you'd have to have been at about a 1000 calorie surplus daily. At what is around a grown guy's BMR, that would be a sudden drop to a TDEE of less than 800 calories.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »susanmagoozan wrote: »What you experienced is very interesting and I wonder if water weight could be a factor in your weight gain while undereating. Ever since the 5:2 fasting diet came out, I have been wondering if that diet contradicts what we used to be taught --that if you fast, you just slow down your metabolism because the body thinks it is being starved and wants to ration fat burn for the long haul). If this is so, wouldn't the fasting diets or eating below RMR be counterproductive? May I suggest we stick to this topic and leave the other issues aside and above all, reply to each other with courtesy and kindness and patience. Weight loss and maintenance is hard-- let's all be kind to each other!
I assume you are talking about my experience? It is right on topic with starvation mode. My experience does not prove that starvation mode is a myth, and apparently that upsets some MFP users?
Your experience doesn't make any sense. To gain 6 pounds in 3 weeks you'd have to have been at about a 1000 calorie surplus daily. At what is around a grown guy's BMR, that would be a sudden drop to a TDEE of less than 800 calories.
Correct, it doesn't make any sense... unless my RMR adjusted to a lower calorie intake (i.e. starvation mode). Is that what it was? I don't know - it may have just as easily been water weight. Just because you don't understand it does not mean it didn't happen. My point was that since this happened the last time I ate consistently at such a low calorie level, I'm not going to do it again. I'll eat at less than TDEE and above RMR and lose weight.
Your TDEE doesn't just drop by over 1000 calories because you ate under a number determined to be about what you would burn if you were sleeping 24 hours a day.
I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is that I gained weight when I decreased calorie intake. The only change I made was decreasing calorie intake. I didn't change scales (including food scale), I didn't get a new activity tracker, and I didn't even change the kids of foods I was eating... just ate less.
I'm also not saying I understand why. In fact, I've clearly stated several times that I DON'T see a scientific reason to explain the actual results.
There are a lot of people out there that believe the CICO equation is the only explanation, and that if something happens that cannot be explained by such equation, then it cannot be possible. They believe that there must be some other explanation, and they jump to the easy answer that someone is lying (or at least unintentionally eating more than they are logging or exercising less than they are logging). That isn't the case for me. If it were, I should have been gaining even faster before I decreased calorie intake, right?! I'm not going to jump to conclusions because I don't have enough data, but I'm going to leave open the possibility that a "starvation mode" does exist and can explain my gain at decreased calorie intake. I'm not saying that is what it is, but it is possible. In fact, it is the only possibility that I can think of (but that still doesn't make it so... just like if your knowledge tells you that my results are not possible, it doesn't automatically mean I'm lying).0 -
@midwesterner85
There are reams and reams of data that indicate starvation mode simply doesn't exist in the way you're talking about and reams and reams of data that indicate that under a verified caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
As between "you're a special snowflake," "you've made a mistake somewhere in your measurement," or "it's possible to gain weight outside of normal fluctuations when in a caloric deficit," the middle one is, by far, the most reasonable explanation.
If you believe this not to be the case, you should probably contact a research facility and become world famous for defying physics.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »@midwesterner85
There are reams and reams of data that indicate starvation mode simply doesn't exist in the way you're talking about and reams and reams of data that indicate that under a verified caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
As between "you're a special snowflake," "you've made a mistake somewhere in your measurement," or "it's possible to gain weight outside of normal fluctuations when in a caloric deficit," the middle one is, by far, the most reasonable explanation.
If you believe this not to be the case, you should probably contact a research facility and become world famous for defying physics.
A scientific explanation exists for what happened to me. I don't know what it is, and clearly you do not know what it is. I know what it isn't: inaccurate logging.0 -
Those commercials that claim a cup of coffee costs 35 cents a day? What kind of crap drinking peasant do they think I am? I'm not drinking any coffee that's less than $4 a cup!!!!!rocknlotsofrolls wrote: »I'm not trying to vent, but I'm getting so tired of this "starvation mode" myth. I wish people would remember those commercials with the starving kids in Africa. Do they look fat? People chiming in on things they don't know to be true really irritates me.
HA! Yes, that would be one terrible cup of coffee!!
You 2 are aware that coffee can be made at home, are you not? You can make a great cup of coffee for $0.35. At home.
What? I buy custom roasted coffee - it's not roasted till the day before shipping. Can't handle that stuff that's been on the shelf for so long someone has to dust it off to make it look presentable. Costs me about $1 an ounce (more depending on the roast - especially Kona from Hawaii closer to $3/oz) and I drink a lot of ounces.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions