Starvation mode... a myth?
Options
Replies
-
I'm sorry I can't find the article again but I remember reading somewhere that you will enter ketosis after about 4 days of fasting because that's how long it takes for your body to use up its fat reserves and then has to go into ketosis. It also warned of the awful side effects. Very unhealthy, I'd say! I can barely last half a day with no food, let alone 4 whole days! This statement does make me wonder if diets such as 5:2/16:8 etc are just another more structured way to calorie control and not exactly 'fasting'.0
-
Strictly speaking from experience, I was not losing weight on a low calorie diet and doing lots of cardio. It worked for me in the past, but maybe my body is rebelling from years of dieting. I was running, biking, and also did some short but intense workouts such as HIIT with bodyweight. I was eating anywhere from 1000-1400 most days, depending on how many calories I burned. I am only 4'11 and myfitnesspal recommends 1200 for me. Well the weight was not budging and I only had about 5 lbs I wanted to lose. The smaller you are, the harder it is to lose and that weight was hanging on for dear life! Undereating and over-exercising was obviously not working for me so I took a different approach. I now eat 1500-1800 calories a day (depending on activity level), sometimes higher on weekends. I now only focus on HIIT workouts, supersets, and only go on long walks if I want to get some low impact exercise. I only walk because this does not raise cortisol and actually lowers it. I believe undereating and over-exercising was messing with my hormones because as soon as I stopped doing that, I have lost about 3 lbs, which is a good improvement for my small frame. I also think adding weights to my workout routine has helped me build muscle, which burns more calories at rest. I don't know if my body was in starvation mode or whatever you want to call it, but this is my experience. I am done listening to the "move more, eat less" advice because that did not work for me and thank god it didn't because I was not happy eating 1000-1400 calories a day. Imaging eating 1400 calories/day after running 7 miles...1
-
I'm sorry I can't find the article again but I remember reading somewhere that you will enter ketosis after about 4 days of fasting because that's how long it takes for your body to use up its fat reserves and then has to go into ketosis. It also warned of the awful side effects. Very unhealthy, I'd say! I can barely last half a day with no food, let alone 4 whole days! This statement does make me wonder if diets such as 5:2/16:8 etc are just another more structured way to calorie control and not exactly 'fasting'.
Regarding the body using up its fat stores in 4 days....I wish! This wouldn't make sense to anyone who is overweight and beyond... If it took us 4 days to lose or fat reserves, no one would be overweight...
And I wouldn't be here.
1 -
Strictly speaking from experience, I was not losing weight on a low calorie diet and doing lots of cardio. It worked for me in the past, but maybe my body is rebelling from years of dieting. I was running, biking, and also did some short but intense workouts such as HIIT with bodyweight. I was eating anywhere from 1000-1400 most days, depending on how many calories I burned. I am only 4'11 and myfitnesspal recommends 1200 for me. Well the weight was not budging and I only had about 5 lbs I wanted to lose. The smaller you are, the harder it is to lose and that weight was hanging on for dear life! Undereating and over-exercising was obviously not working for me so I took a different approach. I now eat 1500-1800 calories a day (depending on activity level), sometimes higher on weekends. I now only focus on HIIT workouts, supersets, and only go on long walks if I want to get some low impact exercise. I only walk because this does not raise cortisol and actually lowers it. I believe undereating and over-exercising was messing with my hormones because as soon as I stopped doing that, I have lost about 3 lbs, which is a good improvement for my small frame. I also think adding weights to my workout routine has helped me build muscle, which burns more calories at rest. I don't know if my body was in starvation mode or whatever you want to call it, but this is my experience. I am done listening to the "move more, eat less" advice because that did not work for me and thank god it didn't because I was not happy eating 1000-1400 calories a day. Imaging eating 1400 calories/day after running 7 miles...
How accurate is your calorie counting? Do you use a food scale to weigh everything?
I, too, was very close to my goal weight and for years could not lose my excess weight. Thought I was doomed to live at the upper end of the BMi chart. The good people of MFP got me on the straight and narrow with the help of a food scale and have never looked back.2 -
Funny thing is, MFP's very own blog had an article a few days ago by someone talking about "starvation mode". It's no wonder there is confusion and misunderstandings.0
-
Jaidann1962 wrote: »Funny thing is, MFP's very own blog had an article a few days ago by someone talking about "starvation mode". It's no wonder there is confusion and misunderstandings.
1 -
Ah - I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!0
-
@queenliz99 My calorie counting is pretty accurate. I measure out everything and usually weigh things, but not always and sometimes rely on eyeballing. But I only eyeball things that are easy, like a pound of meat divided into 4 quarters which will be 4 oz. For things like sweet potato, I weigh it. But to get to the point, nothing has changed with how I log my calories. I actually don't even obsess about how much I eat anymore. If I want something, I eat it. If I'm hungry, I eat. I mainly log just to see where I'm at now. I am always at least 200-300 calories over what MFP recommends, lol. I should be gaining. But as I mentioned in my post, I have been lifting weights and could be burning more at rest, but not sure.0
-
Jaidann1962 wrote: »Ah - I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!
0 -
@queenliz99 My calorie counting is pretty accurate. I measure out everything and usually weigh things, but not always and sometimes rely on eyeballing. But I only eyeball things that are easy, like a pound of meat divided into 4 quarters which will be 4 oz. For things like sweet potato, I weigh it. But to get to the point, nothing has changed with how I log my calories. I actually don't even obsess about how much I eat anymore. If I want something, I eat it. If I'm hungry, I eat. I mainly log just to see where I'm at now. I am always at least 200-300 calories over what MFP recommends, lol. I should be gaining. But as I mentioned in my post, I have been lifting weights and could be burning more at rest, but not sure.
So what you're saying is that your counting is not accurate at all.5 -
@stevencloser Um ok, whatever you say. I just said I measure and weigh everything, for the most part, so where are you getting that? If you mean because I said I don't obsess about what I'm eating anymore, I meant I listen to my body and eat. I don't let a calorie goal set by MFP dictate what I should eat. But I still log it.0
-
Hello all!
I realize many people have some strong opinions about whether or not one should eat the lowest amount of calories they can to lose fat the fastest but I'd like to know if anyone has any solid evidence as to the fact that if you go too low your body will enter into "starvation mode"-- retain more calories than it should.
I'm not necessarily talking about ketosis or anything like that, just curious if one's goal is to lose fat and retain muscle, couldn't one just go on a protein fast (eating their 1g/lb. of body weight requirement in protein and no carbs or fat) to maximize their fat loss and minimize muscle loss?
Again, I'd really prefer some solid evidence in the form of scientific articles/journals or from a reputable source.
Thanks y'all!!
The issue is not just some magical starvation mode, but that your body can only oxidize a certain amount of fat per day, any deficit above that will result in weight loss, but it will be from lean tissues rather than fat. Add to that the fact that such an approach does nothing to either teach or help adapt to a proper amount of calories meaning a higher likelihood of putting the weight back on where the likelihood is quite high already.0 -
@stevencloser Um ok, whatever you say. I just said I measure and weigh everything, for the most part, so where are you getting that? If you mean because I said I don't obsess about what I'm eating anymore, I meant I listen to my body and eat. I don't let a calorie goal set by MFP dictate what I should eat. But I still log it.
For the most part is the key. I wouldn't say eyeballing is an accurate method of measuring calories.5 -
4
-
singingflutelady wrote: »@stevencloser Um ok, whatever you say. I just said I measure and weigh everything, for the most part, so where are you getting that? If you mean because I said I don't obsess about what I'm eating anymore, I meant I listen to my body and eat. I don't let a calorie goal set by MFP dictate what I should eat. But I still log it.
For the most part is the key. I wouldn't say eyeballing is an accurate method of measuring calories.
I said I only eyeball meat portions that state on the package are 1 pound. I mean really, divided into quarters, they will be roughly 4oz more or less and will not make a huge difference if some portions are a little more than others. I don't find it worth it to obsess over little details like if a meat portion is 4.2 oz. I think you guys are missing the point here. I am doing things the same way I did before so I am eating more now than before, the end. I'm not here to argue over how I measure my food, lol. If my post is not helpful, move on.
0 -
Packages can be up to 20% off so you have no idea who much it weighs to begin with.1
-
Oh wow, this is my first time posting on MFP discussion board here and I had no idea people are so obsessed with little details here. You realize even the same food item will come up with several different calorie counts right? It is impossible to be 100% accurate. There is no need to be that obsessive anyway, I've been seeing results and I'm happy. I eventually plan on not counting at all and just intuitively eating since I don't have a set calorie goal I'm eating anyway. But if obsessing over every little bite makes you people happy, then different strokes for different folks.0
-
I don't obsessively count but I'm also not claiming that I am a special snowflake and that my body doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics (hint it doesn't). Something was off with your calculations if you weren't losing.4
-
Like I said, if my post wasn't helpful, move on. You have your opinion, great, I'm just telling my experience. I wanted to post for that one person that might have the same issues as me and this might help them. I was going through hormonal issues from going off birth control too which I think had a part. There are a lot of other factors involved besides calories in and out. I know some overweight women, including my mother in law, who eat very little but are overweight. I never understood it and just assumed they like to eat. Now I've had a change of heart. I've never been overweight, not even close, but now I'm more sympathetic.0
-
Starvation is lack of or very few calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions