Starvation Mode Myths and Science
Replies
-
Let's be honest though. There are Starvation Mode Nazi's who would have you beleive that missing your mid-morning snack would cause you to spiral into starvation mode. I think a lot of that is proliferated by people trying to sell something. I think that's what Fit4Europe was getting at. And I agree.
:drinker:
Until I found this I felt pretty discouraged. I get my 90g protien in. I weight train 3x a week. I eat 1,000 calories and I'm not ashamed of it0 -
Wow great info! Thx for posting!0
-
Bump to read later!0
-
I was just about to post a thread about this, but thankfully I searched first - this thread is way more helpful than mine would have been.
I dont think anyone is condoning eating 700 cals a day, but equally if you have a day when you miss your goal by 300 cals, you're not going to kill yourself. I think that eating sensibly and excersising sensibly are the main things.0 -
bump0
-
Thanks for sharing. Wonderful information.0
-
bump0
-
*thumbs up*
A generally well researched post with views on the subject from several points - what's not to like. I especially like reference to the study showing the differences between how fit and overweight/obese bodies react to extreme caloric deficits.0 -
bump.0
-
An oldie but a goodie.
Bump!
0 -
Great post!!!
Gotta bump it 0 -
great information thank you0
-
Bump!0
-
bump0
-
Any information on how this relates to the reported "Life Extending" benefits of an ultra low calorie diet?
those regimes typically have you at about 1800 cals/day. not 1200!0 -
Ran across this postand there is a lot of great info here. I will say from experience that I have been working out 2 times per day 7 days per week for several months. After Xmas, I reduced my calories to 1300 per day and my weight loss stalled out. 3 weeks ago, I increased to 1600 per day and immediately dropped 3 pounds.
So while I don't think I entered "starvation mode" - there is something to be said about increasing calories for weight loss. I resisted because it was counter-intuitive to me, but the proof is in the pudding.0 -
Bump to digest later.
0 -
Thank you for the post. I have been researching this topic and have found mixed responses. The responses from medical or research driven individuals agree with you. I think that to many people with the wrong education or just hear sayers post a lot of mis information on these sites. Use your own head do your own research and use your common sense.0
-
I agree, and so many myths about eating calories, dont eat, exercise, dont exercise, or my favorite I read, "heavy people cannot go into starvation due to their body size" so...I took that as I can never starve my body because I am overweight. I am lost on it all, thanks for the research.0
-
Thank You for posting this!!! So many people have this crazy talk about "starvation mode" and it's just simply not true.0
-
great post!
thanks for the info!0 -
Good stuff here.0
-
Any information on how this relates to the reported "Life Extending" benefits of an ultra low calorie diet?
those regimes typically have you at about 1800 cals/day. not 1200!
All "studies" on extending life have been done on animals. So it's difficult to draw direct comparisons. There was an earlier study completed that seemed to show low calorie would extend life. However, a new long term study just completed and showed no difference in life extension. Obviously, no one's saying quality of life is not a lot better as a healthier person. Just that eating low calorie for the pure goal of life extension is probably not a good idea, as the evidence is so far mixed (or, not a lot of evidence showing it extends life).
Recent article on it if anyone wants to read some of the details: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html?_r=00 -
Any information on how this relates to the reported "Life Extending" benefits of an ultra low calorie diet?
those regimes typically have you at about 1800 cals/day. not 1200!
All "studies" on extending life have been done on animals. So it's difficult to draw direct comparisons. There was an earlier study completed that seemed to show low calorie would extend life. However, a new long term study just completed and showed no difference in life extension. Obviously, no one's saying quality of life is not a lot better as a healthier person. Just that eating low calorie for the pure goal of life extension is probably not a good idea, as the evidence is so far mixed (or, not a lot of evidence
showing it extends life).
Recent article on it if anyone wants to read some of the details: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html?_r=0
I'll read this article later but was curious if the reason it is said to possibly increase life span is because eating low-cal forces you to make better food choices? I was interested in what another poster also said about NYT article how hungry people learned to love apples and I think this resonates for me. 1200 is a mental game of good food choices for me. If I go over but with good choices, I don't care.0 -
Thank you for the intelligent post, it helped me a lot.0
-
True, but... which one would you rather have?Oh, and I agree that the whole one or two days of eating well below your caloric target does not induce "starvation mode". Kinda silly.
Almost as silly as "muscle weighs more than fat". A pound of muscle and a pound of fat both weigh. . . .a pound!
0 -
Interesting stuff! The post hit on something that always bothered me about the eating more to lose more fat idea that is so ubiquitous on boards like these. Yes, the body will down-regulate metabolism in response to calorie restriction, but never enough to offset the calorie restriction. So when someone complains they are gaining weight on a 1200 calorie diet, and the advice is to increase calories, it's like advising a person running out of gas to floor the accelerator.... sort of. The increase in calories may increase your metabolism, but that will be more than offset by the increase in calories.
On the other hand, a lot of people seem to buy this, and claim that increasing calories did put them back on track to fat loss. Enough that, although it's hard for me to understand how the arithmetic would work out, I wonder if it can be completely accounted for by the ubiquity of bro-science.
Usually when I hear someone complain they are eating at very low calorie levels and failing to lose weight or gaining, my first thought is either that they are miscalculating their calories or having water retention fluctuations.
Who knows. So far my weight loss is going by the numbers so I guess I can't complain too much. The thing I really like about mfp and getting quantitative on everything is that, for the most part, it has eliminated any surprises. Nothing more irritating than thinking you're doing all the right stuff and not seeing the results you want.0 -
Interesting stuff! The post hit on something that always bothered me about the eating more to lose more fat idea that is so ubiquitous on boards like these. Yes, the body will down-regulate metabolism in response to calorie restriction, but never enough to offset the calorie restriction. So when someone complains they are gaining weight on a 1200 calorie diet, and the advice is to increase calories, it's like advising a person running out of gas to floor the accelerator.... sort of. The increase in calories may increase your metabolism, but that will be more than offset by the increase in calories.
On the other hand, a lot of people seem to buy this, and claim that increasing calories did put them back on track to fat loss. Enough that, although it's hard for me to understand how the arithmetic would work out, I wonder if it can be completely accounted for by the ubiquity of bro-science.
Usually when I hear someone complain they are eating at very low calorie levels and failing to lose weight or gaining, my first thought is either that they are miscalculating their calories or having water retention fluctuations.
Who knows. So far my weight loss is going by the numbers so I guess I can't complain too much. The thing I really like about mfp and getting quantitative on everything is that, for the most part, it has eliminated any surprises. Nothing more irritating than thinking you're doing all the right stuff and not seeing the results you want.
When people tell others to eat more, they are not telling them to eat as much as they would like. That would clearly make no sense. They are telling them to do some research, determine their BMR and TDEE, and eat between those numbers. If you eat less than TDEE, you should lose.0 -
Interesting stuff! The post hit on something that always bothered me about the eating more to lose more fat idea that is so ubiquitous on boards like these. Yes, the body will down-regulate metabolism in response to calorie restriction, but never enough to offset the calorie restriction. So when someone complains they are gaining weight on a 1200 calorie diet, and the advice is to increase calories, it's like advising a person running out of gas to floor the accelerator.... sort of. The increase in calories may increase your metabolism, but that will be more than offset by the increase in calories.
On the other hand, a lot of people seem to buy this, and claim that increasing calories did put them back on track to fat loss. Enough that, although it's hard for me to understand how the arithmetic would work out, I wonder if it can be completely accounted for by the ubiquity of bro-science.
Usually when I hear someone complain they are eating at very low calorie levels and failing to lose weight or gaining, my first thought is either that they are miscalculating their calories or having water retention fluctuations.
Who knows. So far my weight loss is going by the numbers so I guess I can't complain too much. The thing I really like about mfp and getting quantitative on everything is that, for the most part, it has eliminated any surprises. Nothing more irritating than thinking you're doing all the right stuff and not seeing the results you want.
When people tell others to eat more, they are not telling them to eat as much as they would like. That would clearly make no sense. They are telling them to do some research, determine their BMR and TDEE, and eat between those numbers. If you eat less than TDEE, you should lose.
I get that. I just don't understand how this advice can ever result in greater fat loss if the increase in metabolism is more than offset by the calories themselves.0 -
The big thing about starvation mode and calories is that when you are low on blood sugar it also affects your brain and how you feel. Most overweight people actually overeat when they feel low. So if you make your self feel low, you will actually crave more food than you would have done otherwise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions