the myth, starvation mode, and dont eat before bed.
Replies
-
Please note, and I'm very very serious on this. This website is designed for fully grown adults, and thus the very explicit rule that is right out there in the sign up page about a requirement of 18 years of age.
We take that rule seriously, posting things for people who are younger has no bearing here and shouldn't be done in my opinion first because very few of us have any experience with child and adolescent nutrition and health requirements, second because teen psychological factors can be daunting in even the most well adjusted child, never mind those who've battled weight issues, and third because it's against the forum rules to sign up and be under 18, and posting topics that cater to that demographic will encourage more adolescents to sign up for this site.
So if you're under 18 and on MFP, I STRONGLY urge you to leave this site, if you feel like you're having emotional problems that this site helps with, seek the help of a parent or a local school guidance councilor or trusted advisor. The topics being discussed on MFP do NOT affect the teenage body the same way it does with the body of someone in their 20's or 30's or older. And if you are replying about the need to take into account the emotions and/or eating habits of teens and adolescents, then that should be stopped, this isn't the site for that.
I know this sounds harsh, but there are very good medical and psychological reasons for it. The teen body is different, hormones are completely different which can really change how we store and process food. The teen mind is also quite different and in many ways, them reading some of these posts can result in emotional tail spins that could take years for them to recover from. Neither should you as adults, entertain teen posts, nor should you allow them to be on MFP, for their own sake, it's imperative that they seek the CORRECT help, not a peer (adult peer) website.
Please note I'm not speaking officially here as an MFP moderator, just a member that understands that there's a very good reason why MFP does not allow those under 18 on the site.0 -
Please note, and I'm very very serious on this. This website is designed for fully grown adults, and thus the very explicit rule that is right out there in the sign up page about a requirement of 18 years of age.
We take that rule seriously, posting things for people who are younger has no bearing here and shouldn't be done in my opinion first because very few of us have any experience with child and adolescent nutrition and health requirements, second because teen psychological factors can be daunting in even the most well adjusted child, never mind those who've battled weight issues, and third because it's against the forum rules to sign up and be under 18, and posting topics that cater to that demographic will encourage more adolescents to sign up for this site.
So if you're under 18 and on MFP, I STRONGLY urge you to leave this site, if you feel like you're having emotional problems that this site helps with, seek the help of a parent or a local school guidance councilor or trusted advisor. The topics being discussed on MFP do NOT affect the teenage body the same way it does with the body of someone in their 20's or 30's or older. And if you are replying about the need to take into account the emotions and/or eating habits of teens and adolescents, then that should be stopped, this isn't the site for that.
I know this sounds harsh, but there are very good medical and psychological reasons for it. The teen body is different, hormones are completely different which can really change how we store and process food. The teen mind is also quite different and in many ways, them reading some of these posts can result in emotional tail spins that could take years for them to recover from. Neither should you as adults, entertain teen posts, nor should you allow them to be on MFP, for their own sake, it's imperative that they seek the CORRECT help, not a peer (adult peer) website.
Please note I'm not speaking officially here as an MFP moderator, just a member that understands that there's a very good reason why MFP does not allow those under 18 on the site.
For the record, I was speaking of under age people in an emotional sense...meaning people underage might not be able to differentiate between right and wrong, or correct and incorrect, or even logical or illogical information...and that consideration for ANYONE'S emotional state/ability to reason (that is a driving factor for losing weight), underage or not...should be given when posting.
I don't personally know any teens on here...but I'm 150% sure there are.
Cris0 -
Please note, and I'm very very serious on this. This website is designed for fully grown adults, and thus the very explicit rule that is right out there in the sign up page about a requirement of 18 years of age.
We take that rule seriously, posting things for people who are younger has no bearing here and shouldn't be done in my opinion first because very few of us have any experience with child and adolescent nutrition and health requirements, second because teen psychological factors can be daunting in even the most well adjusted child, never mind those who've battled weight issues, and third because it's against the forum rules to sign up and be under 18, and posting topics that cater to that demographic will encourage more adolescents to sign up for this site.
So if you're under 18 and on MFP, I STRONGLY urge you to leave this site, if you feel like you're having emotional problems that this site helps with, seek the help of a parent or a local school guidance councilor or trusted advisor. The topics being discussed on MFP do NOT affect the teenage body the same way it does with the body of someone in their 20's or 30's or older. And if you are replying about the need to take into account the emotions and/or eating habits of teens and adolescents, then that should be stopped, this isn't the site for that.
I know this sounds harsh, but there are very good medical and psychological reasons for it. The teen body is different, hormones are completely different which can really change how we store and process food. The teen mind is also quite different and in many ways, them reading some of these posts can result in emotional tail spins that could take years for them to recover from. Neither should you as adults, entertain teen posts, nor should you allow them to be on MFP, for their own sake, it's imperative that they seek the CORRECT help, not a peer (adult peer) website.
Please note I'm not speaking officially here as an MFP moderator, just a member that understands that there's a very good reason why MFP does not allow those under 18 on the site.
Yeah of course, but you have to be realistic. All you have to do is change your birthday. Its not like you need to input a social security number to sign up. People under 18 will join.
And whoever determined an 18 year old was an adult was nuts anyways, your brain isn't fully developed until you are 24 and I was definitely still a child at 18.0 -
I thought i stated no one under 22 should use any advanced diet methods, but I guess not. So here is my statement.0
-
I love your argument! To the people who disagree... think about anorexia. If you don't eat, you're going to lose weight. And the first time you eat after not eating for 2 weeks, you aren't going to suddenly gain weight.0
-
Yeah of course, but you have to be realistic. All you have to do is change your birthday. Its not like you need to input a social security number to sign up. People under 18 will join.
And whoever determined an 18 year old was an adult was nuts anyways, your brain isn't fully developed until you are 24 and I was definitely still a child at 18.
regardless of whether there are actually people under age on here, accounting for it is an unreasonable thing to ask for.0 -
I love your argument! To the people who disagree... think about anorexia. If you don't eat, you're going to lose weight. And the first time you eat after not eating for 2 weeks, you aren't going to suddenly gain weight.
that would, of course, depend on how much you eat. But I would say in a general sense that you actually WOULD gain weight after 2 weeks of starvation rather easily. Plus you'd become pretty sick if you tried to eat to much. There's a reason why they put people who've been POW's and malnourished on very strict low calorie "re-feeding" diets to gradually introduce them to healthy amounts of food again, because the body takes time to recognize again that it's not starving, if you go from no food to a (relatively) high amount of food that person WILL gain weight in the form of fat very fast, far faster than if their metabolism was healthy.0 -
I have heard this before but I completely forgot about it.
Thanks.0 -
Why is this site rated "pg-13" if it's also for "adults?"0
-
I agree, everyone is made up differently, and different things work for different people. Everyone is not built the same, therefore all of us loose/gain weight uniquely. If people want to be healthy, there is work to be done to do so. Wether it be loose weight or excercise, or change eating habits. Just saying....
0 -
I just wanted to share this because fat can't be used only to fuel the body, glucose must still be present.
"At this point, most of the cells are depending on fatty acids to continue providing their fuel. But, as mentioned earlier red blood cells and the cells of the nervous system need glucose. Glucose is their primary energy fuel, and even when other energy fuels are available, glucose must be present to permit the energy-metabolism machinary of the nervous system to work........The need for glucose poses a problem for the fasting body. The body can use its stores of fat, which may be quite generous, to furnish most of its cells with energy, but the red blood cells are completely dependant on glucose, and the brain and nerves prefer energy in the form of glucose. Amino acids that yield pyruvate can be used to make glucose. To obtain the amino acids, body proteins must be broken down. For this reason, body protein tissues such as muscle and liver always break down to some extent during fasting....In an effort to conserve body tissues for as long as possible, the hormones of fasting slow metabolism.As the body adapts to the use of ketone bodies, it simultaneously reduces its energy output and conserves both its fat and its lean tissue. Still the lean (protein-containing) tissues shrink and performm less metabolic work, reducing energy expenditures. As the muscles waste, they can do less work and so demand less energy, reducing expenditures further. Although fasting may produce dramatic weight loss, a low-kcalorie diet and physical activity better support fat loss while retaining lean tissue." (Whitney, DeBruyne, Pinna, Rolfes)
This is why catabolism occurs...or starvation mode to some, even though I don't prefer the term. I do agree that humans don't need to consume multiple small meals daily. This may work for some to keep them on track in maintaining their calorie deficit or maintenance but it doesn't work for me; I prefer a big dinner.0 -
I just wanted to share this because fat can't be used only to fuel the body, glucose must still be present.
"At this point, most of the cells are depending on fatty acids to continue providing their fuel. But, as mentioned earlier red blood cells and the cells of the nervous system need glucose. Glucose is their primary energy fuel, and even when other energy fuels are available, glucose must be present to permit the energy-metabolism machinary of the nervous system to work........The need for glucose poses a problem for the fasting body. The body can use its stores of fat, which may be quite generous, to furnish most of its cells with energy, but the red blood cells are completely dependant on glucose, and the brain and nerves prefer energy in the form of glucose. Amino acids that yield pyruvate can be used to make glucose. To obtain the amino acids, body proteins must be broken down. For this reason, body protein tissues such as muscle and liver always break down to some extent during fasting....In an effort to conserve body tissues for as long as possible, the hormones of fasting slow metabolism.As the body adapts to the use of ketone bodies, it simultaneously reduces its energy output and conserves both its fat and its lean tissue. Still the lean (protein-containing) tissues shrink and performm less metabolic work, reducing energy expenditures. As the muscles waste, they can do less work and so demand less energy, reducing expenditures further. Although fasting may produce dramatic weight loss, a low-kcalorie diet and physical activity better support fat loss while retaining lean tissue." (Whitney, DeBruyne, Pinna, Rolfes)
This is why catabolism occurs...or starvation mode to some, even though I don't prefer the term. I do agree that humans don't need to consume multiple small meals daily. This may work for some to keep them on track in maintaining their calorie deficit or maintenance but it doesn't work for me; I prefer a big dinner.
That's a nice quote, I think with adequte protein intake, that wouldn't be a problem. About the 1 meal a day thing... It's more of a discpline issue I believe. Some people just can't do it, honestly... I can't do exactly 1 meal a day sometimes. I started out with drinking a protein shake in the afternoon to curve my appetite till later.0 -
Oh, I eat more than once a day but I don't eat 6 small meals because I never feel satisfied. I also look forward to sitting down with my family and having a traditional, but healthy dinner.0
-
Was doing some research this morning on "starvation mode" and found this health science article very informative. Not sure if it has been posted already or not.
http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
and this lady did an excellent job of explaining the above article
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html0 -
Was doing some research this morning on "starvation mode" and found this health science article very informative. Not sure if it has been posted already or not.
http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
and this lady did an excellent job of explaining the above article
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
Here's what's frustrating for me.
1. Yes you can lose weight in "starvation mode" but some people literally do stall completely. I've been there, and I've seen it dozens of times working with people at my gym.
2. What's the point of trying to eat as little as possible? If we are overweight to begin with, doesn't that kind mean we enjoy eating food. Sorry, but a life of anorexia is not one I want to live.
3.I've said this many, many times, a deficit of calories leads to a slow down of metabolism. Whether it's a 500 calorie deficit or a 2,000 calorie deficit. The difference is how extreme the slowdown happens.
4. What breaks this trend? A SURPLUS of calories. Think about it, if your body has enough calories to STORE some energy like glycogen, how can it be in "starvation mode"
5. What do I know? Maybe something because it's been 7 years since I lost over 100lbs and I am in the best physical shape of my entire life right now and I eat like a King on my spike day.
6. Losing as much weight as I did should have destroyed my metabolism and I should be stuck eating less and exercising daily to keep it off, but I don't. I eat somewhere around 20,000 calories a week and I workout between an hour and 2 hours a week.
If you want to lose weight and keep your metabolism strong, 6 days deficit, 1 day surplus, it really is as simple as that.
We can all agree the term "starvation mode" is the wrong term, but I don't see how anyone can argue that it doesn't happen. The "experts" who disregard it probably have never been fat their entire life. They don't have a clue of what it is really like. To me it's like a politician talking about Irag without ever being in a war.
Is this a problem for people who need to lose 10lbs? No, but for those who are trying to lose 50+ pounds, it absolutely is. Counting hands, how many of us have been through 2-3+ week plateau?
My hand is raised.
Sorry for the rant, but this is personal to me. IMO, there is nothing worse than this while dieting. We eat perfect, we exercise, and we don't lose weight. It's a huge slap in the face.0 -
Was doing some research this morning on "starvation mode" and found this health science article very informative. Not sure if it has been posted already or not.
http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
and this lady did an excellent job of explaining the above article
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
Here's what's frustrating for me.
1. Yes you can lose weight in "starvation mode" but some people literally do stall completely. I've been there, and I've seen it dozens of times working with people at my gym.
2. What's the point of trying to eat as little as possible? If we are overweight to begin with, doesn't that kind mean we enjoy eating food. Sorry, but a life of anorexia is not one I want to live.
3.I've said this many, many times, a deficit of calories leads to a slow down of metabolism. Whether it's a 500 calorie deficit or a 2,000 calorie deficit. The difference is how extreme the slowdown happens.
4. What breaks this trend? A SURPLUS of calories. Think about it, if your body has enough calories to STORE some energy like glycogen, how can it be in "starvation mode"
5. What do I know? Maybe something because it's been 7 years since I lost over 100lbs and I am in the best physical shape of my entire life right now and I eat like a King on my spike day.
6. Losing as much weight as I did should have destroyed my metabolism and I should be stuck eating less and exercising daily to keep it off, but I don't. I eat somewhere around 20,000 calories a week and I workout between an hour and 2 hours a week.
If you want to lose weight and keep your metabolism strong, 6 days deficit, 1 day surplus, it really is as simple as that.
We can all agree the term "starvation mode" is the wrong term, but I don't see how anyone can argue that it doesn't happen. The "experts" who disregard it probably have never been fat their entire life. They don't have a clue of what it is really like. To me it's like a politician talking about Irag without ever being in a war.
Is this a problem for people who need to lose 10lbs? No, but for those who are trying to lose 50+ pounds, it absolutely is. Counting hands, how many of us have been through 2-3+ week plateau?
My hand is raised.
Sorry for the rant, but this is personal to me. IMO, there is nothing worse than this while dieting. We eat perfect, we exercise, and we don't lose weight. It's a huge slap in the face.
I agree with a lot of what you said Russell. I also really believe everyone's body responds differently and they have to do what is best for them. Where I get annoyed is every single time someone complains "I'm not losing, what is wrong" 30 people will log in to tell them oh you don't eat enough, your body is in starvation mode. I can almost guarantee that isn't true for most of those people.
I think everyone hits a plateau because their body has their own internal schedule where it needs to stop and readjust itself. Does eating more calories help jump start it along? Maybe? Or maybe for that person it wouldn't have mattered what their calories were, higher or lower. After x amount of time it starts moving again.
Again my opinion only based on my readings of science and nutrition articles. I just think we need to stop telling every single person who hits a plateau, "Oh you are starving, eat more."0 -
Bump0
-
Was doing some research this morning on "starvation mode" and found this health science article very informative. Not sure if it has been posted already or not.
http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
and this lady did an excellent job of explaining the above article
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
Here's what's frustrating for me.
1. Yes you can lose weight in "starvation mode" but some people literally do stall completely. I've been there, and I've seen it dozens of times working with people at my gym.
2. What's the point of trying to eat as little as possible? If we are overweight to begin with, doesn't that kind mean we enjoy eating food. Sorry, but a life of anorexia is not one I want to live.
3.I've said this many, many times, a deficit of calories leads to a slow down of metabolism. Whether it's a 500 calorie deficit or a 2,000 calorie deficit. The difference is how extreme the slowdown happens.
4. What breaks this trend? A SURPLUS of calories. Think about it, if your body has enough calories to STORE some energy like glycogen, how can it be in "starvation mode"
5. What do I know? Maybe something because it's been 7 years since I lost over 100lbs and I am in the best physical shape of my entire life right now and I eat like a King on my spike day.
6. Losing as much weight as I did should have destroyed my metabolism and I should be stuck eating less and exercising daily to keep it off, but I don't. I eat somewhere around 20,000 calories a week and I workout between an hour and 2 hours a week.
If you want to lose weight and keep your metabolism strong, 6 days deficit, 1 day surplus, it really is as simple as that.
We can all agree the term "starvation mode" is the wrong term, but I don't see how anyone can argue that it doesn't happen. The "experts" who disregard it probably have never been fat their entire life. They don't have a clue of what it is really like. To me it's like a politician talking about Irag without ever being in a war.
Is this a problem for people who need to lose 10lbs? No, but for those who are trying to lose 50+ pounds, it absolutely is. Counting hands, how many of us have been through 2-3+ week plateau?
My hand is raised.
Sorry for the rant, but this is personal to me. IMO, there is nothing worse than this while dieting. We eat perfect, we exercise, and we don't lose weight. It's a huge slap in the face.
I agree with a lot of what you said Russell. I also really believe everyone's body responds differently and they have to do what is best for them. Where I get annoyed is every single time someone complains "I'm not losing, what is wrong" 30 people will log in to tell them oh you don't eat enough, your body is in starvation mode. I can almost guarantee that isn't true for most of those people.
I think everyone hits a plateau because their body has their own internal schedule where it needs to stop and readjust itself. Does eating more calories help jump start it along? Maybe? Or maybe for that person it wouldn't have mattered what their calories were, higher or lower. After x amount of time it starts moving again.
Again my opinion only based on my readings of science and nutrition articles. I just think we need to stop telling every single person who hits a plateau, "Oh you are starving, eat more."
Russell, I agree with you 100%! Well said and I love your passion about it!
Meinco, I agree with you about what you said about everyone having their own schedule, but about 90 % those people who come on here and say they are not losing weight are eating less than 1200 calories a day and not losing....I was one of them. I was told to eat more and eat my exercise calories back, and guess what.... I started losing again! I was in starvation mode and I agree, it is probably not the best term, when people hear starvation mode they think of children in 3rd world countries, but it is what it is, call it survival mode if you prefer. It does exist, I know tons of people who have been through it and I know how much it sucks!0 -
There are tons of articles out there that both support and deny starvation mode:
http://www.burnthefat.com/starvation_mode.html
http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742
http://optimalbodyweight.com/qa/weight-loss-tips/body/starvation-mode-weight-loss
http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories/burning_calories/starvation.htm0 -
I believe in the numbers, 3,500 calories of a deficit to lose a pound of fat. If someone has a weekly deficit of 7,000+ calories they should lose 2lbs. Does this always happen? No, usually because of water weight.
The problem is water weight shouldn't bring on a 3-4 week stall.
So then the problem if they are being honest with their food intake and exercise, has to be on the calories OUT. If they are are exercising than the activity is there leaving metabolism as the issue. This is a huge problem, because we can exercise until we are blue in the face and burn very little fat. Our body will use very little fat for exercise energy. Metabolism is our biggest opportunity to burn fat for energy, and if it's not strong, we will have a hard time burning fat.
There's a fine line between losing weight and burning fat. You can lose weight while not burning much fat, and visa versa if you do it correctly.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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