Cycling+Walking but Not loosing weight
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Of course they would be super underweight. It's not like if I don't eat 1200 calories today that my body says, "Well, tomorrow, I am going to only use 1000 calories to do what normally takes me 1800 calories to do." Body type, length of calorie reduction, age, weight, activity level...all of these are factors. But to say it isn't real b/c anorexics are not fat is ridiculous.
There are plenty of scientific studies that support the view that the body will adjust it's metabolism based on long, sustained lowered caloric intake. Might not be the same for everyone...and I'm also not supporting a ridiculous extreme fringe argument that you can 'train' your body to live off zero calories a day if you just cut calories a little at a time over a long period! But there have been scientific studies to support that the body does adjust to lower caloric intake, at least up to a point.
But that's not starvation mode! Adaptive thermogenesis, or metabolic slow down, yes, is a thing. For it to have a significant impact takes a prolonged amount of time, we don't even know how long OP has been doing what she claims she is. So to trot out "starvation mode" to someone who isn't losing is the vast majority of the time totally unhelpful and not what is happening.
"Starvation mode" is not a real term but people usually imply it's some magical state where your body can conserve all calories consumed and maybe even generate energy from nothing. So that definitely does not exist.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
Adaptive thermogenesis is not the same thing as starvation mode. Yes your metabolism lowers a bit but not by massive amounts. Plus blogs are not good scientific proof, especially blogs from people trying to sell products2 -
singingflutelady wrote: »
So much this.VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
Adaptive thermogenesis is not the same thing as starvation mode. Yes your metabolism lowers a bit but not by massive amounts. Plus blogs are not good scientific proof, especially blogs from people trying to sell products
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »no it doesn't
Yes it does. And unlike 99% of the people on here, I will post references to SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS that support my statement.
The Biology of Human Starvation, Keys et al., 1950, Univ. of Minnesota Press
Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores, Dulloo, Jaquet, 1998, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Check out this link for more info if you're interested...
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
I think the point she was making was that it's unhelpful to claim that the starvation response shows up just because you lose a bit of weight. It takes an massive amount of weight loss, to the point of near death, before it kicks in and even then people still lost weight in the Minnesota study, they just lost much more slowly. Adaptive thermogenesis is much less pervasive and can happen at any weight due to a prolonged caloric deficit but isn't nearly as drastic.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Starvation mode isn't a thing. If they were eating less than they burn they would be losing weight. Full stop.
Well...you can have your opinion if starvation mode isn't a thing. I prefer to listen to medical scientific research that says otherwise.
No, science says that starvation mode isn't a thing.
2 -
Speaking in terms of efficiency, it is a combination of both. That is just lazy thinking and oversimplification.red99ryder wrote: »My doctor told me you get fit in the gym and loose weight at the dinner table. .
Good luck
That train of thought implies that just eating correctly would build muscle, improve your blood pressure & heart rate, help balance your endocrine system and do a host of other things.
Especially since he didn't bother to define "fit".
Catchy, oversimplified 5 second sound-bite medical advice. Like we don't get enough of that on TV shows.
No need to understand the real problem or big picture, just repeat it until it is accepted as being "true".
That kind of thinking is why doctors measure your "BMI" instead of body fat percentage.
You can get and answer that is simple and fast.
It doesn't matter how wrong and meaningless it often is.
Just eating less might make you lose weight but that can be muscle / lean body mass just as often as fat.
If you think that is ideal then you are way off base.
I doubt anyone who thinks the process through logically and realizes the repercussions would be just as happy to lose muscle as they would fat.
Why? Because there are several repercussions off the top of my head and they are all bad.
It is virtually impossible to out-train a bad diet, but not exercising enough leads to other problems aside from weight gain.
The two components work in synergy. Proper exercise is muscle sparing, but dieting alone is usually catabolic - it eats muscle.
** HFLC diets may be an exception to the catabolic state, the research is still ongoing, but no one said anything about ketogenic here.
Unless your doctor is a nutritionist and in as good or better shape than the most "fit" people offering advice here, you might want to consider the points of view from people who have actually done the work instead of someone ..
.. who slept through that part of med school a few decades ago..
.. and was being taught from a textbook written the decade previously..
A doctor is not a nutritionist or fitness expert just because he cut up a bunch of cadavers.
Exercising into deficit is proven to work and is usually far healthier for you than eating at a calorie restriction that bounces between "malnourished" and "eating disorder".
Sorry for the rant.
Obligatory:
0 -
MissusMoon wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Starvation mode isn't a thing. If they were eating less than they burn they would be losing weight. Full stop.
Well...you can have your opinion if starvation mode isn't a thing. I prefer to listen to medical scientific research that says otherwise.
No, science says that starvation mode isn't a thing.
Exactly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 974 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions