is starvation mode real?
Replies
-
Which, if even true, doesn't change the fact that answers for outliers aren't the answers for the overwhelming majority of people asking these questions. I mean, hell, I could give answers that apply to me as a 6'9" man or I could give answers more likely to apply to the person asking the question. If you feel that in any particular case that the problem is related to high levels of training, rather than errors in logging and tracking, feel free to to give the answer you feel to be appropriate. In the meantime, most people will continue to answer most questions with the most likely solutions.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that athletes at that level of exertion and performance probably aren't turning to MFP in droves for their training and weight loss advice.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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 put
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.
I've seen plenty of people training for marathons and triathlons on here. Some are competitive. I can only stand in awe. And cherish my short little bicycle rides.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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 put
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.
It is not uncommon for recreational athletes, particularly those training for particularly long endurance events (marathons or imperial century rides and longer) to either not lose much weight or even gain.
Now it certainly may be chronic stress / cortisol / down regulation of metabolism in part. However, the more obvious answer is that they drive hunger and unconscious food seeking behaviours which coupled with just how badly most people suck at accurate calorie counting (myself included) leads to greater calorie intake over time than believed.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Which, if even true, doesn't change the fact that answers for outliers aren't the answers for the overwhelming majority of people asking these questions. I mean, hell, I could give answers that apply to me as a 6'9" man or I could give answers more likely to apply to the person asking the question. If you feel that in any particular case that the problem is related to high levels of training, rather than errors in logging and tracking, feel free to to give the answer you feel to be appropriate. In the meantime, most people will continue to answer most questions with the most likely solutions.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that athletes at that level of exertion and performance probably aren't turning to MFP in droves for their training and weight loss advice.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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 put
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.
I've seen plenty of people training for marathons and triathlons on here. Some are competitive. I can only stand in awe. And cherish my short little bicycle rides.
No doubt the average person is having a tracking issue. Not arguing that at all.
However, I enjoy any post backed by solid research, however unlikely it is to apply to the average MFP forum user, even if it doesn't apply to me. I just think it's interesting.
0 -
Can I ask why you're getting a hysterectomy? If it 's due to fibroids, those suckers can weigh a lot and also they wreak havoc with your hormones. They can contribute to you having issues losing.0
-
Was never an issue for my body, i lost 60lbs in just under 6 months eating well below, didn't feel good though0
-
What does CICO stand for please? What is it?0
-
lyndapage74 wrote: »What does CICO stand for please? What is it?
Calories in Calories Out0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
Yes, plus (as I'm sure you've seen), after you lose a certain amount of weight, MFP will prompt you to update your goals, and you will get less calories.
0 -
That study that gets bandied about is misinterpreted.stevencloser wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm in maintenance after losing 122 pounds. I'm maintaining on 3700 calories a day. It's not like I don't have experience with that perspective.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's probably less than tracking error for most people. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to be able to adjust your intake to take this change into account, even if this phenomenon is affecting you.DeguelloTex wrote: »
And, again, all using the term like that does is muddy the issue and lead to posts like the OP's in which people wonder if eating "too little" stops weight loss, when it doesn't. But, hey, if you think it's helpful to use terms in a way that confuses the issue, I support your choice to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Except that's not starvation mode, typically isn't what people mean when they use the term, and only muddies the water. I mean, you can be perfectly fine calling protein carbs, but that doesn't mean it's helpful.From what I've read, if you have a buddy of the same weight and height and activity level but you have lost a decent amount of weight and she has never had to diet, you will need less calories than she does to maintain your body weight. I'm perfectly fine calling that starvation mode, and if there is a famine, I'll live long enough to have buddy barbecue. (I know, I know, that was wrong!)
Seems like starvation mode to me. You deprived yourself of calories for a time. Your body adapted by requiring less calories.
I see what you and msf74 are getting at. Of course it doesn't stop weight loss, no one would starve to death. I'd be happy with that, I'd never eat another bite as long as I lived.
But it does slow weight loss down, which is very frustrating for people trying to lose or maintain.
I'm looking at it more from the maintenance or only a few pounds left to lose perspective. When you realize your buddy is happily chowing down on a couple hundred more calories a day than you are, it does hit home that the price you pay for becoming very overweight could last a lifetime.
The 3700 is higher than predicted by online calculators for my age, size, and level of activity, so whatever mode I'm in, it doesn't appear to be starvation.
While I don't have nearly as high maintenance as you, I too am still pretty much on point or even a bit higher than calculators tell me, after 50 pounds lost. As seem to be many, many more people on here.
Yet there's always people mentioning that one study saying there's an up to 20% decrease when people lose more than I think it was 10% of their initial bodyweight, completely disregarding the many examples of the opposite.
I've seen the main author of that study talking about it on a video, and while I don't want to accuse him of being wrong, the many people who do not experience this effect make me think there was a problem in his study or people are generally misinterpreting his results all over the place.
It only applied to people that did no resistance training, and it only reduced by 20% the calories burned by doing light leg activities - in the study it was based on energy burnt while doing cycle at 25 Watts of intensity or less. Any high burn activity, there is no way to be more efficient. Any resistance training and the subject's body won't make those kind of adaptations.
Yet people proclaim loudly that it is 20% less period. It isn't. Not even close.0 -
Lauren8239 wrote: »Can I ask why you're getting a hysterectomy? If it 's due to fibroids, those suckers can weigh a lot and also they wreak havoc with your hormones. They can contribute to you having issues losing.
I was curious about this as well. I am the same age as the OP, and also have fibroids and anemia. Will know tomorrow how currently well controlled the anemia is.
My GYN has offered me a hysterectomy or UAE, but since at 48 years old I am surely so close to menopause, which will shrink the fibroids naturally, I am trying to hold out for menopause.
0 -
hissweetpea461 wrote: »I'm not saying that I'm in starvation mode. I asked if it's real. I'm having difficulties losing weight. I weigh 183 and have lots of muscle mass med bone structure height 5"5" going through menopause (48) facing hysterectomy and gallbladder problems...
@hissweetpea461 - something is wrong in your stats because your ticker says you have 127 pounds to lose. You can update your diet profile here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or treated as the rare exception that very, very rarely applies to the situation at hand. It's much, much more likely that someone is failing to lose weight because she is overestimating exercise or underestimating calories than due to some esoteric explanation._Terrapin_ wrote: »
I kept a link on my wall for quite a while related to this marathoner and it wasn't a blog. It was someone confirming her weight gain and normal imbalances impact weight gain when excess training occurs and the body is constantly stressed. I stopped posting it on MFP because people couldn't believe it. Water, cortisol, and excess training and underconsumption....not hard to understand.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 put
Indeed, it seems anything contradicting the "collective think" here on MFP is bashed.
While I doubt I'll ever be guilty of overtraining (cause lazy!) there are some athletes on this forum who might benefit from that information.
It is not uncommon for recreational athletes, particularly those training for particularly long endurance events (marathons or imperial century rides and longer) to either not lose much weight or even gain.
Now it certainly may be chronic stress / cortisol / down regulation of metabolism in part. However, the more obvious answer is that they drive hunger and unconscious food seeking behaviours which coupled with just how badly most people suck at accurate calorie counting (myself included) leads to greater calorie intake over time than believed.
This is a great point. When I was running longer and harder, I was really hungry and didn't know how to moderate that hunger, so I ate...A LOT....and I gained weight even though I was running.
Now, I have the tools to be able to moderate and eat properly to (1) maintain my weight while (2) properly fueling my body for my running and weight lifting. Funny, once I learned about portion control, willpower around food, moderation, I stopped eating enough to gain weight. And, I'm still running.0 -
lyndapage74 wrote: »What does CICO stand for please? What is it?
Off topic, but the children in your avatar are absolutely adorable!!0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions