Weight gain and starvation myth
Options
justinejacksonm
Posts: 75 Member
Hey, just putting it out there because I know this is a frequently debated topic. The common known principal right now is that eating too little puts people into "starvation mode". I have hesitated to take this principle on face value on a number of reasons. 1: most everyone says this because that's what they read somewhere. Where was that info obtained? Is it just another bit of info regurgitated time and again without any true scientific basis? You can explain something using lingo so that it sounds legit but not necessarily true.
2: Your body is generally the one who knows. Unless you have a disorder or take something they suppresses appetite... Usually when your body is hungry, it wants food. If you're not hungry, don't eat. The opposite may be true also, if you have an issue or eat alot but eat alot with little nutritional value leaving your body in need.
3: No one seems to know where the magic "1200" minimum came from. Everyone varies in their needs. I work at Amazon, so compared to when I worked a desk job where I sat for 8.5 hrs plus 45 each way commuting, my caloric needs have changed substantially! And the same is true of anyone else. Some people are larger than others. Varying metabolism, etc.
4: if it's true that you gain weight by eating too little, then all the girls who habitually eat very little and are slim and petite should theoretically be huge! I looked at POWs and people in impoverished nations. Skinny! Same for vegans or those you see on hard core healthy diets, whether vegan, vegetarian, "clean" etc. Pretty much all of those people I watch on YouTube who share their eating habits definitely eat very little. And they're skinny.
That is, unless they're so incredibly hungry for such extended periods their stomachs become distended. That's starvation. They have no food.
The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!
I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse.
All the promise of the theory that eating small healthy meals "revving up my metabolism" and doing strength training will tone me to and burn more fat was a lie.
For me, I don't believe that 1200 is, in fact, a magic number at all. Maybe a guide. What you eat is HUGE because we eat for nutrients after all.
Even on a limited calorie diet of 800-1000 calories, atleast in America if you're getting those calories from nutrient dense foods- you're eating way more and getting more nutrition than a prisoner of war or Ethiopian (just to use a cliche).
2: Your body is generally the one who knows. Unless you have a disorder or take something they suppresses appetite... Usually when your body is hungry, it wants food. If you're not hungry, don't eat. The opposite may be true also, if you have an issue or eat alot but eat alot with little nutritional value leaving your body in need.
3: No one seems to know where the magic "1200" minimum came from. Everyone varies in their needs. I work at Amazon, so compared to when I worked a desk job where I sat for 8.5 hrs plus 45 each way commuting, my caloric needs have changed substantially! And the same is true of anyone else. Some people are larger than others. Varying metabolism, etc.
4: if it's true that you gain weight by eating too little, then all the girls who habitually eat very little and are slim and petite should theoretically be huge! I looked at POWs and people in impoverished nations. Skinny! Same for vegans or those you see on hard core healthy diets, whether vegan, vegetarian, "clean" etc. Pretty much all of those people I watch on YouTube who share their eating habits definitely eat very little. And they're skinny.
That is, unless they're so incredibly hungry for such extended periods their stomachs become distended. That's starvation. They have no food.
The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!
I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse.
All the promise of the theory that eating small healthy meals "revving up my metabolism" and doing strength training will tone me to and burn more fat was a lie.
For me, I don't believe that 1200 is, in fact, a magic number at all. Maybe a guide. What you eat is HUGE because we eat for nutrients after all.
Even on a limited calorie diet of 800-1000 calories, atleast in America if you're getting those calories from nutrient dense foods- you're eating way more and getting more nutrition than a prisoner of war or Ethiopian (just to use a cliche).
4
Replies
-
There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.3
-
Many of your "beliefs" are not correct. 1200cal a day for females is necessary for nutrition, unless they are very petite. If listening to your body works so well, or should, then why are so many off track? Listening to models or skinny's on YouTube is not where you'll get correct information. As for the centuries past when people existed on little, well, they didn't have cars, dishwashers, wash machines, tractors, trucks,...... and so people burnt more calories everyday. If you frequent these boards you'll get the correct information you seek, and some will go against what you now believe to be true. Welcome.11
-
You will not gain weight by under-eating, but you can find that your dietary needs are less than the average levels indicated by, for example, the formula used by MFP (which is a population average).
The effect is called "diet-induced thermogenesis." In my opinion, all it means is that your body conspires to burn a bit fewer calories when you have been on a diet for a while. It does this by making you feel sluggish so you sit still more. Also, I notice when I'm cutting, I get cold more easily. I don't think the effect is all that large and I think you can address it by keeping your activity level up. The same effect conspires to make you put the weight back on right after you lose it. Man, our bodies are sneaky about getting us to overeat!6 -
Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!11
-
duskyjewel wrote: »Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!
Heck, I want to know the secret for a woman to gain a lot of muscle weight very quickly just by eating some extra grapes.22 -
I believe there was a study that found by restricting calories the body slowly adjusted buy lower body temp, decreased blood pressure and caused lethargy or slow mental responses. Causing weight loss to hit a plateau. When the calories were restricted more, the same thing occurred. After the study, they all gained the weight back and then some. Its your body adjusting to the reduction of caloric expenditure to math the intake.
Working out and doing strength exercises actually caused me to be less hungry and had to force myself to get in protein. Makes me wonder how The Rock or Schwarzenegger are able to eat the meals they eat. I also found that the metabolism increase from more muscle is insignificant, even if you are able to add on 20 pounds of pure muscle, the adjustment to the metabolic rate is minimum.0 -
vanpienaar wrote: »I believe there was a study that found by restricting calories the body slowly adjusted buy lower body temp, decreased blood pressure and caused lethargy or slow mental responses. Causing weight loss to hit a plateau. When the calories were restricted more, the same thing occurred. After the study, they all gained the weight back and then some. Its your body adjusting to the reduction of caloric expenditure to math the intake.
No, there was a study (maybe several) that suggested - in a way that was widely critiqued, BTW - that ridiculously cutting calories caused slowdown of body processes that persisted well after loss was over; and at least one other study (Minnesota Starvation Experiment) that showed that cutting calories to the point of protracted extreme weight loss had major disfunctional effects on many aspects of physical and mental functioning, and that those physical and mental effects tended to slow weight loss (y'know, things like resting/sleeping all the time, and not having the will to do much else).
I'd pretty much guaranteed there has been no study that showed people eating so little that their weight loss permanently plateaued, and that they then couldn't lose more weight even if they ate still less. Think about it: If bodies ever behaved that way, no one would ever die of starvation, and sadly many thousands of people do just that every year worldwide.
Yes, it's possible to undereat so ridiculously that you burn few calories than expected. It's not possible to undereat to the point that you don't lose weight at all, forever . . . until you're dead, of course. Death tends to stop weight loss.Working out and doing strength exercises actually caused me to be less hungry and had to force myself to get in protein. Makes me wonder how The Rock or Schwarzenegger are able to eat the meals they eat. I also found that the metabolism increase from more muscle is insignificant, even if you are able to add on 20 pounds of pure muscle, the adjustment to the metabolic rate is minimum.
It's about 2 calories per day per pound of muscle, research suggests. Fat is also metabolically active, just less so than muscle. The "about 2 calories" is the difference between fat and muscle. You're right, it's objectively trivial, lost in the noise of inevitable logging errors.
I'd kind of guess that, on average, people with more muscle move more throughout the day than similar-sized people with more fat and less muscle, but (1) that would be a guess, not a study; yet (2) it might be meaningful, as a practical matter.9 -
duskyjewel wrote: »Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!
Hey, I don't mind muscle but I don't want to appear muscular. I want slim feminine legs, not quads like I'm an athlete. Personal preference I guess. I also tried the whole lifting heavier, eating more protein, etc once under the advice it's nearly impossible for a female to bulk up unless doing a ton of strength training and you'll just burn more calories. I did that for about 6 months and now I have developed traps I can't get rid of.0 -
justinejacksonm wrote: »duskyjewel wrote: »Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!
Hey, I don't mind muscle but I don't want to appear muscular. I want slim feminine legs, not quads like I'm an athlete. Personal preference I guess. I also tried the whole lifting heavier, eating more protein, etc once under the advice it's nearly impossible for a female to bulk up unless doing a ton of strength training and you'll just burn more calories. I did that for about 6 months and now I have developed traps I can't get rid of.
Women can absolutely "bulk up" if they're eating more, but a lot of time the perceived negative effects are due to fat, not adding "too much" muscle. Putting fat on top of existing muscle can lead to a look that many of us perceive as "bulky" and less pleasing.
In terms of adding large amounts of muscle, it's not a myth that it's difficult for women to do this accidentally.5 -
justinejacksonm wrote: »duskyjewel wrote: »Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!
Hey, I don't mind muscle but I don't want to appear muscular. I want slim feminine legs, not quads like I'm an athlete. Personal preference I guess. I also tried the whole lifting heavier, eating more protein, etc once under the advice it's nearly impossible for a female to bulk up unless doing a ton of strength training and you'll just burn more calories. I did that for about 6 months and now I have developed traps I can't get rid of.
You very easily achieve not looking bulking if you just don't get too lean and don't take anabolic steroids. There is also a bit of person perception. I suspect you got a little too lean which increased definition which make you believe you were bulky.1 -
Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.wilson10102018 wrote: »There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
This. Madonna is a good example. Not a lot of muscle on her, but when she got her bodyfat down pretty low, she appeared very muscular. So what's the answer? Don't get your body fat too low.justinejacksonm wrote: »duskyjewel wrote: »Wait, I'm so confused. How is gaining muscle a bad thing? More muscle helps you burn fat, and more muscle means your body fat percentage is lower. Why in the world would anyone be upset about gaining muscle?!
Hey, I don't mind muscle but I don't want to appear muscular. I want slim feminine legs, not quads like I'm an athlete. Personal preference I guess. I also tried the whole lifting heavier, eating more protein, etc once under the advice it's nearly impossible for a female to bulk up unless doing a ton of strength training and you'll just burn more calories. I did that for about 6 months and now I have developed traps I can't get rid of.
You very easily achieve not looking bulking if you just don't get too lean and don't take anabolic steroids. There is also a bit of person perception. I suspect you got a little too lean which increased definition which make you believe you were bulky.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.wilson10102018 wrote: »There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is an often touted reason for persons not being able to lose weight. A little science is a dangerous thing for people with enormous amounts of denial and aversion.
The tiny adjustments the body can make in metabolic rate has about nothing to do with weight loss by persons with large amounts of body fat. They would like to blame metabolic rate "I hardly eat anything and one chocolate chip cookie goes right to my hips" but the truth is that keeping a 250 lb bag of water, fat, and bones at 98.7 degrees in an environment where the ambient temperature is a lot lower is what takes calories. Try to keep a 5 gallon bottle of water at about 100 F outside all day and see how much energy it takes. And, that is pure physics. Nothing to do with metabolism. Sorry.1 -
"The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!
I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse."
I was thinking along these lines this morning, that maybe I've been able to maintain my weight for the better part of my life because of not being tied to mealtimes and typically eating when I get hungry. As a kid, my mom (bless her heart:D) was a terrible cook and worked full time. I'd just grab something easy for dinner to microwave when hungry, and if I had a big lunch, I'd forget about dinner all together. I had a good friend that I worked with for a few years in my 20s. We'd go out to lunch together and eat pretty much the same types of food. She was confused to why I stayed thin, and she was maybe 30-40 pounds overweight. We figured out that I'd usually just eat a snack after a big lunch, while she always cooked a big dinner and ate with her family....so pretty much twice the calories. If I ate a light lunch, I'd eat a big dinner...I'm sure some days I'd eat less than 1200, but then other days maybe a lot more. I'm thinking having a mom who couldn't cook versus one who fixed delicious sit down dinners every night could be a blessing in disguise! The only time I've gained a little weight is when my activity decreased a lot, after having my daughter and this year after quitting my job, AND I kept eating the same amount of food as I did when I would run around all day.justinejacksonm wrote: »Hey, just putting it out there because I know this is a frequently debated topic. The common known principal right now is that eating too little puts people into "starvation mode". I have hesitated to take this principle on face value on a number of reasons. 1: most everyone says this because that's what they read somewhere. Where was that info obtained? Is it just another bit of info regurgitated time and again without any true scientific basis? You can explain something using lingo so that it sounds legit but not necessarily true.
2: Your body is generally the one who knows. Unless you have a disorder or take something they suppresses appetite... Usually when your body is hungry, it wants food. If you're not hungry, don't eat. The opposite may be true also, if you have an issue or eat alot but eat alot with little nutritional value leaving your body in need.
3: No one seems to know where the magic "1200" minimum came from. Everyone varies in their needs. I work at Amazon, so compared to when I worked a desk job where I sat for 8.5 hrs plus 45 each way commuting, my caloric needs have changed substantially! And the same is true of anyone else. Some people are larger than others. Varying metabolism, etc.
4: if it's true that you gain weight by eating too little, then all the girls who habitually eat very little and are slim and petite should theoretically be huge! I looked at POWs and people in impoverished nations. Skinny! Same for vegans or those you see on hard core healthy diets, whether vegan, vegetarian, "clean" etc. Pretty much all of those people I watch on YouTube who share their eating habits definitely eat very little. And they're skinny.
That is, unless they're so incredibly hungry for such extended periods their stomachs become distended. That's starvation. They have no food.
The rest of the world for centuries lived on very little and many still do. Not fat!
I tried the whole forcing myself to eat every break even if I wasn't hungry abd ate the right things! Hard boiled egg, grapes, etc. Not only did I NOT lose weight... I actually gained more than I wanted very quickly in muscles. So no fat loss, muscle gain. I looked worse.
All the promise of the theory that eating small healthy meals "revving up my metabolism" and doing strength training will tone me to and burn more fat was a lie.
For me, I don't believe that 1200 is, in fact, a magic number at all. Maybe a guide. What you eat is HUGE because we eat for nutrients after all.
Even on a limited calorie diet of 800-1000 calories, atleast in America if you're getting those calories from nutrient dense foods- you're eating way more and getting more nutrition than a prisoner of war or Ethiopian (just to use a cliche).
0 -
Well there's denial and actual science. Hormones also do make a difference and things like rest and sleep do too. So to say that metabolism DOESN'T matter would be disingenous. Going from sedentary to one that requires more calories to sustain a higher metabolic rate due to increased activity is pretty obvious. And are you saying that as one loses weight their metabolic rate doesn't drop?wilson10102018 wrote: »
Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.wilson10102018 wrote: »There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is an often touted reason for persons not being able to lose weight. A little science is a dangerous thing for people with enormous amounts of denial and aversion.
The tiny adjustments the body can make in metabolic rate has about nothing to do with weight loss by persons with large amounts of body fat. They would like to blame metabolic rate "I hardly eat anything and one chocolate chip cookie goes right to my hips" but the truth is that keeping a 250 lb bag of water, fat, and bones at 98.7 degrees in an environment where the ambient temperature is a lot lower is what takes calories. Try to keep a 5 gallon bottle of water at about 100 F outside all day and see how much energy it takes. And, that is pure physics. Nothing to do with metabolism. Sorry.
There are a lot of snake oil salemen out there that "create" pseudoscience and somehow they have the solution.............which means money in their pocket. It's why forums like this exist. To refute some of the BS the diet and fitness industry promote just to make a buck.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
metabolism DOESN'T matter
Did I say that? I think I said adaptation of metabolic rate due to dieting made a tiny adjustment and did not significantly affect weight loss for persons who are well over weight. If I didn't say that, I am now.0 -
It may be more possible than many people think (though less of issue with very obese since not much daily movement anyway).
Still not going to gain weight, which is a myth attached to several terms often used.
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401
Shoot, even Layne references it this week as a side point, it's an adaptation, MORE than mere loss of body weight would cause. At start of video.
https://www.biolayne.com/media/videos/educational/diet-breaks-what-does-the-science-say/
5 -
Got it.wilson10102018 wrote: »metabolism DOESN'T matter
Did I say that? I think I said adaptation of metabolic rate due to dieting made a tiny adjustment and did not significantly affect weight loss for persons who are well over weight. If I didn't say that, I am now.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Well there's denial and actual science. Hormones also do make a difference and things like rest and sleep do too. So to say that metabolism DOESN'T matter would be disingenous. Going from sedentary to one that requires more calories to sustain a higher metabolic rate due to increased activity is pretty obvious. And are you saying that as one loses weight their metabolic rate doesn't drop?wilson10102018 wrote: »
Well science will prove that if one starts eating less than one burns, that metabolic rate will reduce. That's a given since mass is being reduced in that person.wilson10102018 wrote: »There is very little science involved in the claims that one's metabolism can make dramatic changes as a consequence of dieting. Take them with a grain of salt.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is an often touted reason for persons not being able to lose weight. A little science is a dangerous thing for people with enormous amounts of denial and aversion.
The tiny adjustments the body can make in metabolic rate has about nothing to do with weight loss by persons with large amounts of body fat. They would like to blame metabolic rate "I hardly eat anything and one chocolate chip cookie goes right to my hips" but the truth is that keeping a 250 lb bag of water, fat, and bones at 98.7 degrees in an environment where the ambient temperature is a lot lower is what takes calories. Try to keep a 5 gallon bottle of water at about 100 F outside all day and see how much energy it takes. And, that is pure physics. Nothing to do with metabolism. Sorry.
There are a lot of snake oil salemen out there that "create" pseudoscience and somehow they have the solution.............which means money in their pocket. It's why forums like this exist. To refute some of the BS the diet and fitness industry promote just to make a buck.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Physics, yes CICO, but I have been saying for a while, what controls CO is just as complex as CI. How familiar are you with the energy constraint model hypothesi?. It predicts that the at first, when starting a higher energy output trough activity, you will have a transient increase in CO, but after a time, the body will compensate by burning less calories elsewhere. Thus Keeping TDEE within a narrow window. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00027.20181 -
I think its important to understand time frame and how often one is eating at an unsafe caloric intake. There's also the whole "you're probably not getting enough nutrients to sustain your body" aspect of this. Eventually your organs just stop working or your hair falls out.
The body does try to hold onto energy when it realizes its not getting as much, although obviously this doesn't last forever and you're probably not going to notice it happening. Unless you're obsessively weighing yourself and even then, hard to tell.
As for your body just knowing, yes... sometimes this works but for a lot of people the hormone that release that trigger just doesn't work. Especially in the modern world when food is everywhere all the time. It's definitely not as reliable.
1200 calories is for a woman at average height I believe or the range of average height. It's lower if you're shorter or higher is you're tall and also depends on how active your daily life is. Generally the 1200 it is just a guideline till you know your specifics.
I'd also Iike to point out that just because people survived off little or still survive off very little, doesn't mean they're healthy...it merely meant they're alive, they could be very malnourished.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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions