is starvation mode real?
Replies
-
Even if starvation mode existed you would still lose weight. Just less of it.
Some years ago, an obese man ate nothing for a year under close medical observation. He only consumed vitamin tablets to ensure his body got the nutrients it needed but otherwise ate nothing at all. He went from 207kg to 82kg. Eating nothing for one year is about close to guaranteed "starvation mode" as I think you could get and he still lost weight. Read about his story here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm
By the way, he did it under very strict medical supervision and nobody should EVER attempt to repeat what he did. I can't emphasize that enough. Learn from his experience don't mimic it.
That was very interesting, thank you for sharing! I find stuff like this incredibly fascinating and thoroughly enjoyed it
0 -
Look to your logging.0
-
Faithful_Chosen wrote: »'Starvation mode' as I think you intend it ("I only eat a super low amount of food and I am still not losing! I am not losing because I eat a super low amount of calories!") is complete BS. Sorry. If you are not losing, you are not eating at a deficit. You may thing you are only eating 1200 calories but I assure you that you are, in fact, not if you are not losing. Your diary is closed, but the biggest issue, ususally, is that people who say this do not weigh all their food, do not log their 'cheat days' or binges, or don't log that one little midnight snack that no one saw so it did not happen. Weight loss is super simple: calories in versus calories out. Sugar intake has zero influence on that, only the amount of food you eat, the drinks you drink, and the amount of calories you burn. Take in less than you burn and you lose, take in what you burn and you maintain, take in more than burn and you gain weight. Simple as that
THIS!!!!
People generally underestimate their calories in. They don't measure/weigh their food, they don't count those little snacks in between meals that seem insignificant but in fact add up, and they might have a big meal every now and then that has so many calories it throws out their deficit for the week. I know because I've had issues in the past.0 -
-
Not weighing it, but measuring. 1 cup etc. Mostly no meat, no canned foods.0
-
I measure my food, no not weighing it, but cups, spoons, etc. I've just started this app Tuesday so learning through it too, guess that's why my information is private. ..yes, definitely need to exercise more and be consistent.Faithful_Chosen wrote: »'Starvation mode' as I think you intend it ("I only eat a super low amount of food and I am still not losing! I am not losing because I eat a super low amount of calories!") is complete BS. Sorry. If you are not losing, you are not eating at a deficit. You may thing you are only eating 1200 calories but I assure you that you are, in fact, not if you are not losing. Your diary is closed, but the biggest issue, ususally, is that people who say this do not weigh all their food, do not log their 'cheat days' or binges, or don't log that one little midnight snack that no one saw so it did not happen. Weight loss is super simple: calories in versus calories out. Sugar intake has zero influence on that, only the amount of food you eat, the drinks you drink, and the amount of calories you burn. Take in less than you burn and you lose, take in what you burn and you maintain, take in more than burn and you gain weight. Simple as that
0 -
Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you. 0
-
Only use measuring cups/spoons with liquids. Solids need to be weighed on a food scale in order to be accurate.
I'm not exercising but I'm still losing weight. Exercise is good for health but it's not required for weight loss.
I'm weighing my solid food with a food scale and that's the number one thing that's helped me keep track of my calorie intake accurately.
I'm also eating any type of food that I want in moderation. I haven't eliminated anything. It's not necessary for weight loss.0 -
-
hissweetpea461 wrote: »
0 -
Believe it or not sometimes eating more calories for a period promotes weight loss.0
-
Maybe my information is messed up I'm not 130 overweight. Thank God. Im 40 still NOT great.0
-
Only use measuring cups/spoons with liquids. Solids need to be weighed on a food scale in order to be accurate.
I'm not exercising but I'm still losing weight. Exercise is good for health but it's not required for weight loss.
I'm weighing my solid food with a food scale and that's the number one thing that's helped me keep track of my calorie intake accurately.
0 -
Okay so i need to get a food scale. I definitely will. Thank you.0
-
Weighing your food is probably the first step you need to take. In terms of weight loss, it doesn't matter what you eat but how much, so weighing is key. I'll guarantee you'll be surprised at the difference between measuring with a cup and actually weighing out exact portions.0
-
sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Right. What that guy said is malarkey. Doesn't exist. I stupidly did a VLCD program many years ago. They set you at 800 calories a day. They had rules at what you could eat and when....yadda yadda. I worked out quite a bit as well. I lost a crap ton of weight. I never had a weigh in that I didn't. I also wasn't healthy. I'd never do that again, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that my body didn't go into starvation mode or flip out....mainly because both do not exist.sheldonklein wrote: »sakurablush wrote: »I came to the conclusion when I researched the subject that there was no such thing as starvation mode. I'm hardly an expert, but I got the impression eating too high a deficit for an extended period of time (6 months+) will see your body adapting to this. You'll still lose weight, but your metabolism readjusts to running on the fuel you're giving it.
As people are saying here, logging every bite and weighing food could help.
Indeed, the term is called "adaptive thermogenesis" and takes a large deficit with a good amount of time before this happens.
But to answer the question " starvation mode" is a myth.
Just to put it out there, as it seems every single response so far has been to tell you, how youre lying to yourself in regards to logging food.
In certain instances especially with women. Where they do crazy amounts of cardio and eat like 900 calories a day the body will flip out and not lose weight. In fact can quite possibly gain.
Doubtful that is the case here as you did not mention those specifics.
What you call "flipping out" is what others are calling starvation mode. Which you correctly say does not exist.
Since my response was deleted i will simply post this link.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
So NO my example is spot on and not "malarky" as you so eloquently put0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.0 -
angelexperiment wrote: »hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.
In response to this, let me just hang this here... http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Faithful_Chosen/view/why-you-should-eat-to-your-mfp-goal-including-true-exercise-calories-7639820 -
If your nutritionist told you that you might be in starvation mode, you need a new one. Preferably a registered dietitian. Many nutritionists can get certified with little more than a weekend course.hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
I concur with others, a food scale is what you need along with diligently tracking everything you eat. Sounds like you are just starting on MFP, welcome. Read the helpful links provided above, especially the sexy pants thread.
Good luck!
0 -
angelexperiment wrote: »hissweetpea461 wrote: »Wasn't aware of the term starvation mode I spoke with a Nutritionalist, he said I was killing my moteblisem. Don't weight my food, but rather measure it. Just joined this site Tuesday so I'm expecting more awareness of dietary habits through my journal definitely benefited from your insight. Thank you.
Well it is true what he said. Your nutritionist went to school for this listen to him not a bunch of people on the internet.
you may have ave damaged your metabolism and now need to repair it:) you need to eat more for that to happen. And get a food scale to accurately measure food.one with gram and oz and tare function. I did not lose weight for 6 months. I literally ate 500 to 800 cals. At first I lost 5 lbs then nothing. I measured as you are. I had 1 yogurt and 1 apple and ate 4 0z of chicken and broccoli. I figured out I needed to eat more and I damaged my metabolism. I began to eat normally fir 6 weeks then I started to eat a set calorie amount and weigh my foods and exercise. Then the weight started to come off.
"Nutritionist" and "nutritionalists" are titles with no defined qualifications, required education or certification, etc. There are groupons for non-vetted, non-accredited courses that will give you a certificate. It isn't much different than becoming "ordained" via an online site that requires nothing more than simply providing your name and receiving a print it yourself certificate.
"Killing your metabolism" is a time consuming process that results from loss of lean mass and damage to organs ... not something that happens because you ate too little for a few days. What really happens is adaptive thermogenesis ... not starvation mode or killed metabolism ... the actual reduced calories out due to the loss of the body's capability to burn calories at rest compared to a normal human being.
The one thing your example and the OP have in common is admitted inaccurate logging. In fact, a quick glimpse at your diary shows you still don't accurately log for precise caloric counts.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions