Starvation Mode (based on truth, but stretched too far)
Options
Replies
-
Okay very interesting. I am hypoglycemic and I wasn't having problems for the first month but now I am starting to crash during my exercise routine after work. I do Cardio/Fat Burn on the Elliptical. I have tried to eat something that will stay with me (not cause my blood sugar to drop) about an hour before I go and work out. do you have any suggestions???0
-
Good post. I would like to point out that is anyone is on a 1200 calorie diet, there is no room for junk food and such a low intake. If you eat junk, you will miss something else as at 1200 calories it is already difficult to get the required nutrition even eating clean. So for those on a 1200 cal diet, look in your diary, if there is anything unhealthy you are probably lacking adequate nutrition. If you up your calories to 1400 or so, you will have some room to fit in some unhealthy food, but at 1200 you need to make every calorie count.
But you CAN'T put numbers out there like they apply to everyone. My wife is 5' tall and 115 lbs. when she was trying to lose 1 lb. a week her daily goal was 1200 cals. If she went over, it was bad. If she was under, she got a WARNING saying she was going to go into starvation mode. So she's supposed to eat EXACTLY 1200 calories a day? Oh yeah, that's totally realistic.
Maybe not 1200 for everyone, could be 1000 for someone or 1400 for another, but it is important while in a large caloric deficit to make every calorie count. So instead of a caloric intake per say, if you have a large deficit each calorie matters more.0 -
Contests on your weight loss...such a motivator for me!!0
-
Oh no! Does that mean I can't exercise like crazy then stuff my face?! :laugh:0
-
thanks for the info I get worried when im a little below 1200 cals.0
-
There is a reason that vitamins, essential fatty acids, and essential amino acids are called essential. It is because they are essential and therefore must be provided to the body from the outside. Unless you are an expert who can guarantee that you are providing these things in the correct amounts, eat your calories or you are damaging your body.0
-
Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.
I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.
So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.0 -
I would also like to point out that while the people on those weight loss reality shows are NOT eating the min required amounts of calories, they are also CLOSELY monitored by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. If anyone out there is eating less than the min while being monitored by a doctor, that's different than someone who consistently nets 900 or less just because they think eating less will make them weigh less.
In addition, the men who did the research in the 40's may not have hit actual starvation mode until MUCH weight loss had occurred months into the experiment.... but I'm sure if you dug deeper you would find that MONTHS into that research most of the weight they lost was in muscle, not in fat. I don't know about anyone else, but it's the FAT I'm trying to lose, and the MUSCLE I'm trying to maintain.... something to think about.0 -
Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.
I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.
So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.
AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!0 -
And I meant under 1000 calories, not 100. Obviously. Because that would be even more absurd.Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.
I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.
So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.
AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!0 -
And I meant under 1000 calories, not 100. Obviously. Because that would be even more absurd.Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.
I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.
So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.
AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!
Yes, there is a way you can be full on 1000 calories. We're not all 5'10" and big boned. Some of us are petite with a few extra lbs we'd like to lose and we require much less food than someone larger. And trying to dispell the starvation mode myth is far different from promoting anorexia.0 -
Like you, I've done some reading on this issue and am puzzled by the level of "fear of imminent death" that pops of here from time to time.
In my journeys around the Intertubes I've read quite a few articles on "starvation mode". I have no doubt that some people here have experienced starvation mode. And I'd bet beer money that those folks were suffering from serious, serious emotional issues that drove them to attempt to kill themselves.
What floored me, however, was that the mention of eating less than the magical 1200 calories per day brought on such negative, even hostile, responses. And I'm certainly not the only person who has experienced this. I found this link most interesting:
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
And that brings up a point…a suggestion. While it's interesting to mention the MN study, your statements would carry much more weight if you cite your source. Like you, I've read the results of the MN study from credible sources so I agree with the gist of your posting. My suggestion/urging is that you provide links to authoritative articles — that makes your case much stronger.
I'll use this as an example of an article that deals with another MFP tenet - 8 cups of water a day.
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/283/5/R993.full
I found this article most illuminating and highly educational. The author is an MD, IIRC, and he includes no less than 100 cites to published papers. That level of documentation convinces readers (well, it convinced this reader).
Again, thank you for your posting and it's interesting to see the responses.0 -
Okay very interesting. I am hypoglycemic and I wasn't having problems for the first month but now I am starting to crash during my exercise routine after work. I do Cardio/Fat Burn on the Elliptical. I have tried to eat something that will stay with me (not cause my blood sugar to drop) about an hour before I go and work out. do you have any suggestions???
Are you checking your sugar levels regularly? Good for you for taking the time to figure out what needs to be done to improve your diet. :-) Has your doctor given you a list of foods that are helpful and those that are harmful? The big offenders (sugar, white flour, alcohol, caffeine and tobacco) should eventually be eliminated and six small meals are consumed instead. As you know you are just trying to even out your sugar levels throughout the day.
I'm sure your doctor told you to try to eat six smaller meals instead of three larger ones?? If not, I'd start there. Next, if you are used to drinking 10 cups of coffee... slowly wean yourself off the caffeine, just don't do anything drastic. Your body has to adjust to your changes. The best carbs to eat for energy are the slow release ones (whole grains). You may benefit from including a bit of lean protein (2-3 oz.), some whole grains, and a veggie (and even a little fat) in each meal. This gives your body what it needs to function and gives you the slow release of energy as well as the protein for muscle and slower digestion (feeling full).
Some ideas would be to eat a snack about 20-30 minutes before exercising... something like a low-fat cheese stick, multi-grain cracker and an apple. Maybe an apple and some nuts (5-6 almonds) would be a nice snack. You might find your sugars go out of whack after eating fruit, and you may need to add more veggies instead. But you NEED the fiber from fruit and or veggies, so it's important that you fit them in.
I'm not a Dr., but those are some suggestions I'd feel comfortable giving you. Oh yes, NEVER skip breakfast... and be sure to look for ingredients that may be sabotaging your efforts, like glucose in your breakfast cereal, etc...0 -
I've read the study and cannot find anything that would allow me to come to that conclusion.In addition, the men who did the research in the 40's may not have hit actual starvation mode until MUCH weight loss had occurred months into the experiment.... but I'm sure if you dug deeper you would find that MONTHS into that research most of the weight they lost was in muscle, not in fat. I don't know about anyone else, but it's the FAT I'm trying to lose, and the MUSCLE I'm trying to maintain.... something to think about.
Could you be so good as to cite the section in the MN starvation study to back up this claim?0 -
And I meant under 1000 calories, not 100. Obviously. Because that would be even more absurd.Dear god, community justified anorexia here we come.
I can understand your issues with how often people use that term, and how it is blown out of proportion. However in order to be healthy, one must eat a reasonable amount of food. When exercising the necessary amount goes up. A person with an empty stomach will store more fat than a person who routinely eats proper amounts. Further a person with no outside calories remaining in their system still has to function, the body turns on itself for fuel and while it will burn some fat it also burns muscle and bone for this fuel.
So regardless of your views on this subject one MUST eat properly or you will cause more damage than good. Do I believe you have to eat back every calorie you burn? well I seldom do. However choosing to not eat and think it's okay. Will cause damage.
AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention. I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth." This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal. We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!
Yes, there is a way you can be full on 1000 calories. We're not all 5'10" and big boned. Some of us are petite with a few extra lbs we'd like to lose and we require much less food than someone larger. And trying to dispell the starvation mode myth is far different from promoting anorexia.
I disagree. Everyone requires more than 1000 calories, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. This has nothing to do with being "big boned and 5'10" (which I'm not, if that's what you assumed by my weight - I'm merely just a fatass with some bad habits that I'm working on) Annorexia is often characterized by the caloric intake of 900 calories or less on a consistent basis... Throwing in a 100 calorie pack of goldfish (just as an EXAMPLE) doesn't really make that much of a difference, the habit is still unhealthy and promoting that is a disservice to oneself as well as to others.0 -
I also think that starvation mode is nonsense and I'm tired of hearing it! If weight loss is nearly impossible when eating less, how is it possible that people starve anyway??
I have been eating 400-600 calories for a week now und I've finally broken my plateau (already lost 2 kg!)
I found this article interessting, even though I dont care about WW (sry if someone else already posted it)
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=355010 -
I also think that starvation mode is nonsense and I'm tired of hearing it! If weight loss is nearly impossible when eating less, how is it possible that people starve anyway??
I have been eating 400-600 calories for a week now und I've finally broken my plateau (already lost 2 kg!)
I found this article interessting, even though I dont care about WW (sry if someone else already posted it)
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501
starving yourself works for weight loss, it is just not healthy and you will lose muscle not just fat. BTW, ignoring starvation mode,you can not get the proper nutrition on 600 calories/day, you may become malnourished and end up having a bunch of negative health side effects, but hey its all good because you lost some weight. Try doing it in a healthy manner instead, maybe change your workout routine or add, not remove calories from your diet..0 -
I also think that starvation mode is nonsense and I'm tired of hearing it! If weight loss is nearly impossible when eating less, how is it possible that people starve anyway??
I have been eating 400-600 calories for a week now und I've finally broken my plateau (already lost 2 kg!)
I found this article interessting, even though I dont care about WW (sry if someone else already posted it)
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501
Have you been eating 400-600 calories a DAY? If so, that's terrifying and extremely unhealthy, and not the point of this thread at all. You're also, by definition, an anorexic, which really, really worries me.0 -
I also think that starvation mode is nonsense and I'm tired of hearing it! If weight loss is nearly impossible when eating less, how is it possible that people starve anyway??
I have been eating 400-600 calories for a week now und I've finally broken my plateau (already lost 2 kg!)
I found this article interessting, even though I dont care about WW (sry if someone else already posted it)
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501
Just because you don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's nonsense. Starvation Mode (poorly named) does not mean weight loss is impossible when eating less. It means that when you underfeed yourself for LONG TERM, your metabolism will decrease, therefore reducing your daily caloric needs and making it more difficult to lose weight. (This often turn into a nasty cycle where people's weight loss slows, so they eat less, which eventually causes their metabolism to slow a little more, so they eat less... and so on.) Eventally someone will *actually* starve if they keep decreasing their calories, but many people live in this grey area where they're eating enough to avoid starving but not eating enough to be healthy. Eating 400-600 calories/day is NOT healthy and your body cannot run the way it is supposed to on that amount. You might not immediately notice any bad effects, but eventually you will.
Please read these informative posts:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/175241-a-personal-view-on-exercise-cals-and-underfeeding
http://bankshealth.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/inaugural-blog-short-and-long-term-underfeeding/0 -
Perhaps that's how you interpret it but "starvation mode" is a medical term and people rely on a consistent interpretation. If you don't mean "starvation mode", I might suggest that you don't use that term. I really can't thing of a reason to be ambiguous when I'm trying to communicate.AMEN Mr Brown... while reading this post all I could think was that people were justifying and ok'ing other people's lack of caloric intake. The problem is that we are taking this entire thing entirely too literally. OBVIOUSLY none of us are STARVING. That's absurd. Especially those of us in The US- ha! The intended use of "starvation mode" is simply the idea that your body requires X amount of calories to function based upon your lifestyle, activities, exercise etc. and feeding your body less than required can lead to retention.
I beg to differ.I believe this is part of the basis for "zig-zagging" technique that some use to break a plateau - a method that to my understanding is quite helpful to many people. However, justifying eating under 1200 calories, or saying "I was under 100 calories today, but it's okay I was really full" is a joke. There is no way that you are "full" on under 1000 calories per day and as a community it would be a great injustice if we all accepted that this was acceptable because "starvation mode is a myth."
I've been losing weight since December 2010 and am pleased with my results. I rarely eat more than 1k net cals/day and I feel completely satisfied. I began training for a half marathon a few weeks ago so I've had to increase my total cals but, before I started running, I would regularly eat < 1k cals/day and was quite happy doing so.
Further, there are hundreds of thousands of people here in Southern California who have lost weight in a chain of clinics that have been around for over 40 years. They are on a diet of 800 to 1000 cals per day and some folks are as low as 700 cals/day.
Perhaps you feel hungry at that low a calorie level but the experience of others is that low calorie diets are an excellent way to lose weight.
Please review my food diary and you can review my weight loss stats here:
http://cbeinfo.net/weight.htm
Could you give an explanation of your diagnosis? Perhaps something in the DSM?This is borderline eating disorder behavior and I for one don't slap high-fives to people who are consistently under their calorie goal.
"moderation" - very difficult to define, isn't it?We seem to lack the concept of moderation. Weight loss is not just about transforming our bodies, but it is also about transforming our thoughts. It is just as unhealthy to underindulge as it is to overindulge. Moderation should be practiced and learned through modification in behaviors. There IS room in our diets for "junk" foods at times, not every day, and not in huge portions - learning the balance is part of the journey. Practicing unhealthy thinking habits will do you a great disservice - even if your body looks fabulous. Finding your center of peace and balance requires both the mind and body to be harmonious and that takes more than the willpower to keep your calories under 1200 every day. Let's not be absurd and justify each other's unhealthy THINKING - just as much as we encourage each other to break unhealthy physical habits, we should encourage each other to break unhealthy thinking habits as well. :-) PEACE!
And not everyone is "moderate" nor does everyone want to be moderate.
I didn't want to be moderate in my approach to losing weight. I wanted aggressive weight loss because I'd been fat for almost three years and I hated it. I chose a low calorie approach based on the medically supervised diet plan that I mentioned above. And every indication is that it has worked superbly.
I respect your desire to be "moderate", to eat 1k cals/day and I am glad that works for you. In return, please respect the fact that there are other ways to live our lives and other ways to lose weight in a safe, healthy manner.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions