the myth, starvation mode, and dont eat before bed.

Options
12467…19

Replies

  • Mad_Dog_Muscle
    Mad_Dog_Muscle Posts: 1,251 Member
    Options
    *BUMP*
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    Why would anyone EVER want to use scientific studies to critically assess a theory after all? What's better than going on a hunch, using anecdotal evidence and personal whim? It's much more likely to produce the expected result after all. I mean, what if the scientific studies don't even AGREE with you!? What would you do then?

    --

    You claim you don't need scientific studies, and yet you use the scientific studies you WANT to bring up because they agree with you. You claim that hunger increases the number of IGF-1 receptors (in what tissues, you haven't mentioned). WHERE. Have you found that information. Was it off somebody's website on a distant corner of the internet? Because I've googled it and there's nothing commendable. Give me a scientific study - a peer reviewed paper. Something with that kind of weight and importance should come from a respectable journal, too. Furthermore, increasing the number of IGF-1 receptors does not necessarily result in growth. Growth and the cell cycle are FAR more complex than that.

    You will need to learn to appreciate *all* the scientific evidence out there, critically assess their content and not exclude studies because they don't support your argument.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483226
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606872

    The links above are more of a cause and effect. First pretty much says taking IGF-1 can increase longevity, and become more immune to stress. I believe that everything is all related. So if IGF-1 increases life span. Low caloric diets have been linked to increase of life span. Hunger is stress, so when you eat you recover from the stress, this will cause a toughening to stress. Same thing how exercise works. The only way to be less immune to stress is to stress the energy system, and recover so it gets stronger.

    You might be right, I might be DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD WRONG. I might be the most wrong person on the face of this planet. My waistline is going down, so who cares???
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    Ladyhawk, the 2 post still don't explain why it happens. I don't think its really matters. But okay i'll agree with it, it has been said multiple times by credible sources..

    It might have nothing to do with weight at all, that's what i am saying. They say "it's because a person is over weight they lose less muscle mass" That might be wrong. I was just reading, that high fat diets help perseve muscle mass.

    "One important by-product of the “metabolic shift” that takes place when you move from a
    high carb diet to the Anabolic Diet is that fat becomes a protector for protein in the body. When
    you’re utilizing carbs as your main source of energy, the body will take muscle protein, break it
    down and form glucose from it to burn for energy, once immediate energy stores are exhausted.
    This is where catabolic activity (muscle breakdown) takes place. You’ll be sitting there, happily
    working, and you’re actually making your muscle shrink away as you do it."

    This is out of the book "the anabolic diet" He just says that eating more fats, changes your metabolism to a fat utilizing metabolism. Instead of a carb utilization metabolism. Where is the proof in this? one name "stu mittleman" He is an elite marathon runner, who has ran from San Diego to New York, He runs on average 3 marathons a day. His diet is mostly made up of protein and fat. How can he accomplish such long distances? Because he's utilizing his energy from fat, not from carbs, and he talks about this in his book. Maybe fat people utilize more fat for energy than a thin person causing them to preserve more muscle tissue.

    This is just a theory, nothing more. My point is, there is an assumption in the theory, the theory is that "fat people lose less muscle than thin people on a restrictive caloric diet." Yes that might be true, but it doesn't mean because they're fat, it might be because their metabolism can be using energy differently.
  • MyaPapaya75
    MyaPapaya75 Posts: 3,143 Member
    Options
    Nice post....personally I have never been in "Starvation Mode" and I have never known anyone in Starvation Mode...I just dont believe you can be in such a critical state physically and not have to seek some type of medical help to get your body back on track...its not as simple just to feed yourself more and "Starvation Mode" miraculously vanishes and you have no medical setbacks from it...its a much overused word along with Plateau's .....
  • helenium
    helenium Posts: 546 Member
    Options
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483226
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606872

    The links above are more of a cause and effect. First pretty much says taking IGF-1 can increase longevity, and become more immune to stress. I believe that everything is all related. So if IGF-1 increases life span. Low caloric diets have been linked to increase of life span. Hunger is stress, so when you eat you recover from the stress, this will cause a toughening to stress. Same thing how exercise works. The only way to be less immune to stress is to stress the energy system, and recover so it gets stronger.

    You might be right, I might be DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD WRONG. I might be the most wrong person on the face of this planet. My waistline is going down, so who cares???

    1. You didn't give me any evidence that IGF-1 receptor numbers increase when hunger increases. At all.
    2. Read up on "correlation vs. causation".
    3. The fact that I believe you're spreading wrong, potentially dangerous information does not mean I am relieved and appeased when I hear that your waistline happens to be diminishing. I'm not concerned about you as such, but the people you are educating without scientific backing.
  • ramseyrose
    ramseyrose Posts: 421 Member
    Options
    [/quote]
    I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
    [/quote]

    After page 2 I got fed up so I don't know if this has been mentioned. Your signature says you have spent 16 years reading books; therefore your statement above is rather contradictory.

    I am not going to pass comment on your post because it's each to their own. I would like to ask though why you are using this site? If your theory works surely you have been at your ideal weight for years!
  • HMonsterX
    HMonsterX Posts: 3,000 Member
    Options
    This is obviously a very emotive subject.

    There are many, many ways to lose weight, we all know that. We all have experience of different ways, and we will all claim they work.

    But lowering those scale numbers is only a small part of our goal. Its also how we feel, how fit we are, how strong we are, and how likely we are to keep it off and maintain healthy living.

    In my experience ive found that the smaller changes i make, the more likely i am to keep it going. If i deny myself things, i find i really want them, and when i stop "dieting" i end up going back to them, and gaining the weight. This i feel is the problem with actual "Dieting". For me now, its about education. Knowing what is in the foods you eat. Also, dont deny yourself things. If i want something, i know i can have it, just work it into my daily calories. Now i know i CAN have it, i find i dont really want it.

    Im just coming out of "starvation mode", and upping my calories has me losing weight again. Nothing different, just eating 3-400 calories more a day. There are several theories out there, its down to us to get educated, try things, and see which works for us, as we are all different. :)
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    I don't need scientific studies to tell me anything. I go by personal experience, not someone who has been "taught" to read books, and believe them, just because "someone said so"
    [/quote]

    After page 2 I got fed up so I don't know if this has been mentioned. Your signature says you have spent 16 years reading books; therefore your statement above is rather contradictory.

    I am not going to pass comment on your post because it's each to their own. I would like to ask though why you are using this site? If your theory works surely you have been at your ideal weight for years!
    [/quote]

    I understand your point. The reason is because maybe I didn't apply what i knew. Why am I using this site, to track my calories. What are you fed up about. Have you even tried what i mentioned? if not, how can you say it does work or doesn't work? My weight has fluctuated many times. Not because the theories didn't work, just a discipline issue which has nothing to do with diet. But I am doing good now. I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. The typical advice does work, I have lost weight like that before. Never said it doesn't work. The typical advice is what I used when i was in to body building. I do believe there are better ways. That doesn't put the outdated theories invalid, they're still valid.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    References? Evidence? Scientific, reproducable studies?

    Here is a short list of scientific studies that validate the concept of "starvation mode" (or famine response or adaptive thermogenesis, whichever you prefer). There are many others, but this is a good start on evidence for lowered metabolism and loss of lean mass in extreme caloric restriction (VLCD or underfeeding).

    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

    WHere did i say... "lower caloric levels don't decrease muscle mass???"

    You said:
    1. Starvation mode .... The theory is, if you don't eat enough calories, your metabolism will slow down,

    Which you claim is a myth.

    And then said:
    Does it make sense that when you're hungry, get rid of the most essential part of your body muscle mass??? NO. It does its best to preserve it when you're hungry.

    That seems to be a pretty clear statement that you believe that extreme calorie restriction will not decrease muscle mass.

    I think the point he was making is that while you will lose some muscle mass, what you will lose most of is fat, as the least essential material in the body. And the one that is actually designed to be used as a long term energy store. Just as when you exercise first thing in the morning before eating you burn more fat than you do later in the day when you have plenty of glycogen stores.
  • ramseyrose
    ramseyrose Posts: 421 Member
    Options
    I understand your point. The reason is because maybe I didn't apply what i knew. Why am I using this site, to track my calories. What are you fed up about. Have you even tried what i mentioned? if not, how can you say it does work or doesn't work? My weight has fluctuated many times. Not because the theories didn't work, just a discipline issue which has nothing to do with diet. But I am doing good now. I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. The typical advice does work, I have lost weight like that before. Never said it doesn't work. The typical advice is what I used when i was in to body building. I do believe there are better ways. That doesn't put the outdated theories invalid, they're still valid.

    I was fed up with the ongoing debate. I never said anything about it working or not working; as I said each to their own. I am glad it is working for you. Personally I couldn't go through the day eating very little.
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483226
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21606872

    The links above are more of a cause and effect. First pretty much says taking IGF-1 can increase longevity, and become more immune to stress. I believe that everything is all related. So if IGF-1 increases life span. Low caloric diets have been linked to increase of life span. Hunger is stress, so when you eat you recover from the stress, this will cause a toughening to stress. Same thing how exercise works. The only way to be less immune to stress is to stress the energy system, and recover so it gets stronger.

    You might be right, I might be DEADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD WRONG. I might be the most wrong person on the face of this planet. My waistline is going down, so who cares???

    1. You didn't give me any evidence that IGF-1 receptor numbers increase when hunger increases. At all.
    2. Read up on "correlation vs. causation".
    3. The fact that I believe you're spreading wrong, potentially dangerous information does not mean I am relieved and appeased when I hear that your waistline happens to be diminishing. I'm not concerned about you as such, but the people you are educating without scientific backing.

    If science was right, there wouldn't be so many dead people due to drugs Science works on the null hypothesis. Which is also highly invalid. How do you know it's wrong, what I am saying? You're not proving any scientific evidence that provides my theories are wrong. Where is your scientific evidence that says "it doesn't increase IGF-1 receptors?" Most of my theories come from Ori Hofmekler, look him up on youtube. Look him up in google images, and tell me he looks unhealthy... I am doing a hybrid of his theory. Most of what I am doing is a hybrid of the top body building theories, which body builders use to get extremely lean during competition. You can't argue with results. Youre concerned I am educating people without scientific backing. 99% what you have learned about health/nutrition has no scientific backing. What my concern is, not really about the scientific backing, my concern is that people are fed a bunch of bs in the community(health/fitness) with out even thinking about it. Not once have i said "do my method" I advise against using my method, I have said that many times. This is still experimental. I don't want anyone to get hurt or anything. WHat bothers me the most is that people just blindly follow something based on what someone has said. With out even thinking about it, or testing it. That's what this post is all about, to make people think about it, look at things from another side. These methods are pretty solid in the body building community. If science says "they don't work." and people get results, who cares about the scientific backing. MANY MANY MANY TIMES have scientific theories have been proven invalid over time.
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    I understand your point. The reason is because maybe I didn't apply what i knew. Why am I using this site, to track my calories. What are you fed up about. Have you even tried what i mentioned? if not, how can you say it does work or doesn't work? My weight has fluctuated many times. Not because the theories didn't work, just a discipline issue which has nothing to do with diet. But I am doing good now. I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. The typical advice does work, I have lost weight like that before. Never said it doesn't work. The typical advice is what I used when i was in to body building. I do believe there are better ways. That doesn't put the outdated theories invalid, they're still valid.

    I was fed up with the ongoing debate. I never said anything about it working or not working; as I said each to their own. I am glad it is working for you. Personally I couldn't go through the day eating very little.

    Okay herb, thank you, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am glad you have an open mind, and yes I do agree the debate is completely stupid. If people don't agree, that's fine, no need to sit there and criticize. With out even trying it.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    Seing as it is obvious people have lost weight both ways - eating more, eating less, low carb, low fat, bla bla bla......... Clearly it ALL works. I don't know why everyone seems so determined that their way is THE ONLY way, because it demonstrably isn't. There are many paths to the same result.

    Both sides of this debate always come across as preachy, and it is such an inconsequential and minor debate, I really don't know why anyone cares.


    Do what works for you. Why does anyone care what anyone else does?
  • ilsie99
    ilsie99 Posts: 259
    Options
    In one meal today i ate about 3000 calories.

    What did you eat in one sitting that comprised 3000 calories and didn't distend your stomach? Six sticks of butter?
  • dave4d
    dave4d Posts: 1,155 Member
    Options
    I've read a few articles on paleo type dieting, where they mention the way the caveman ate, and a lot of it makes sense. The only problem I see is, if you look at the primitive tribes in Africa, South America, Etc. These people follow similar ways of eating that the caveman followed. Do they have 6 pack abs? Do they have bulging muscles? No. Most look severely malnourished with bulging stomachs, low muscle mass, and disease. They are basically malnourished. I would imagine the caveman was similar in their appearance as well. It's not a very good example for someone trying for a healthy life.

    Now I do agree with eating clean, and as close to natural as possible. Whether it is 6 small meals a day, or one large one, I don't think it makes much difference, as long as you keep your average calories in a healthy range, and work for balanced nutrition.
  • daisabelle
    daisabelle Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    Hmmm interesting. My weight loss has slowed down considerably. My calorie intake has been increasingly low, barely making 1100 a day. I've also been exercising 5x a week burning around 500 calories each session. I think I'm going to increase my calorie intake to 1300 and eat a lot cleaner. My brothers wedding is in 5 weeks and i'd really like to lose about 7lb. I think that's why I'm getting so obsessive with having low calories, but it doesn't seem to be doing me any favours!
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    I've read a few articles on paleo type dieting, where they mention the way the caveman ate, and a lot of it makes sense. The only problem I see is, if you look at the primitive tribes in Africa, South America, Etc. These people follow similar ways of eating that the caveman followed. Do they have 6 pack abs? Do they have bulging muscles? No. Most look severely malnourished with bulging stomachs, low muscle mass, and disease. They are basically malnourished. I would imagine the caveman was similar in their appearance as well. It's not a very good example for someone trying for a healthy life.

    Now I do agree with eating clean, and as close to natural as possible. Whether it is 6 small meals a day, or one large one, I don't think it makes much difference, as long as you keep your average calories in a healthy range, and work for balanced nutrition.

    That's very interesting. I do remember reading something about african americans. I don't remember what exactly, like they are more prone to heart disease or something along those lines.
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    Hmmm interesting. My weight loss has slowed down considerably. My calorie intake has been increasingly low, barely making 1100 a day. I've also been exercising 5x a week burning around 500 calories each session. I think I'm going to increase my calorie intake to 1300 and eat a lot cleaner. My brothers wedding is in 5 weeks and i'd really like to lose about 7lb. I think that's why I'm getting so obsessive with having low calories, but it doesn't seem to be doing me any favours!

    This is common daise, Not once have i said "decreasing calories will not cause muscle atrophy" Eating low calories does cause muscle loss. You just found a new median with your weight. The solutions are, reduce your calories more, reduce some carbs but maintain the same total caloric intake, or exercise more. I wouldn't advise lowering your calories due to lose of muscle mass.
  • jen0619
    jen0619 Posts: 414
    Options
    This was an interesting read thanks for that. :)

    I don't eat clean all the time, I do eat before bed, I don't do low carb, I don't zig zag my calories, I go over my calories during the week and I exercise regularly. No problems here.

    :)
  • helenium
    helenium Posts: 546 Member
    Options
    I'm not going to continue arguing because I believe it is pointless and I have better things to do. This will be my last point. If you think that science is useless/bad because it disproves theories... I don't know where to start explaining what science is. Science *IS* disproving theories. There is NOTHING else to it.

    If the null hypothesis is so terrible, please prove to me that there isn't a giant teapot in the sky about to pour scalding tea upon us all. If you say "well, that is preposterous", then you're obviously assuming the null hypothesis to be true, and don't mind it after all.

    I have also learned through years of internet arguments that neither of us are going to change our mind and we're going to be doing the typing equivalent of wasting a lot of breath. I probably won't check this thread again.

Categories