Starvation mode... a myth?

2»

Replies

  • fleur23xx
    fleur23xx Posts: 37 Member
    @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.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,329 Member
    YOLOboi19 wrote: »
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Eyeballing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
  • fleur23xx
    fleur23xx Posts: 37 Member
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    fleur23xx 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.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Packages can be up to 20% off so you have no idea who much it weighs to begin with.
  • fleur23xx
    fleur23xx Posts: 37 Member
    edited August 2016
    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.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    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.
  • fleur23xx
    fleur23xx Posts: 37 Member
    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.
  • cgvet37
    cgvet37 Posts: 1,189 Member
    Starvation is lack of or very few calories.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Did you read any of the articles at all?
  • AngelinaB_
    AngelinaB_ Posts: 563 Member
    edited September 2016
    YOLOboi19 wrote: »

    Thanks for that. I know someone mentioned I think someone with the last name McDonald and how he's done some studies or something on that... just can't find them. Thanks again :)

    From the McDonald article posted. (great reading!)

    "I’m going to assume (and hope) that your readers are familiar with leptin. If not, basically it signals to the brain (and elsewhere) about energy stores in the body (and how much you’re eating) and when it drops it induces much of what is often incorrectly called the “starvation response” or “metabolic damage”. I say incorrectly because this simply represents a normal ADAPTATION to dieting that occurs because the body, fundamentally, doesn’t give a damn that you need to look good on stage. It wants to keep you from starving to death.

    So falling leptin causes a host of things to occur: metabolic rate slows, hunger increases, you get lethargic, thyroid goes down, testosterone drops, and a whole bunch of other *kitten* goes wrong"


    So the name is incorrect according to this article but the metabolism does indeed changes due to low cal dieting, lots of cardio and stress levels (cortisol)


  • AngelinaB_
    AngelinaB_ Posts: 563 Member
    edited September 2016
    fleur23xx wrote: »
    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...

    Great!

    Doctors who specialized on weight loss usually recommend walking as the exercise that leads to most weight loss. Must be all that cortisol-leptin talk. Gonna read more about it thx
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,225 Member
    fleur23xx wrote: »
    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.

    You mean the little details that can mean the difference between weight loss and weight gain for someone who only has a small amount of weight to lose? Someone who needs to lose 100 pounds has a much much bigger margin of error than someone who only needs to lose 10 pounds. It's not obsessing, it's approaching the situation realistically.
  • dragon_girl26
    dragon_girl26 Posts: 2,187 Member
    edited September 2016
    fleur23xx wrote: »
    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.

    If you're talking abut all of the entries in the MFP database, then yes, there are many inaccurate entries. The database is user maintained, so it's always best to double check what's on the nutritional labels on your food instead of just picking a random entry from the database. Even the green checkmarked "verified" entries, and bar code scanning, are incorrect, more often than not. In some cases it could cause your MFP diary to be off by quite a bit, so getting in the practice of double checking is a good idea.

Categories