if your body goes into starvation mode, how long does it take to get out of it?
Replies
-
No, what you are describing is actual starvation... what the thread is about is a mythical condition where the body quits burning calories and 'hangs onto fat' because you are dieting. Starvation is real, starvation mode is not.20
-
The answers here are correct but you've shared an experience that most have not been through. @BeeUtifullyUnique8459
You've been through so much. In a nutshell, do you think this is the right thing for you now without triggering some behaviors.
5 -
I definitely gained weight by not eating enough.
220lbs. 5'3".
Your body will hold the fat.1 -
Heck the 1st GI doctor I saw after the fast weight gain said "you're just eating too much. That's why you're gaining weight."
He flat out refused to look at/believe what I was actually eating. Thank God I didnt drop my intake even more. Took the oncologist to run the proper bloodwork & start the IVs.
But it's still hard for me to believe that if I eat more I will lose weight. It just mentally doesnt make sense. Only time will tell.
But I certainly doubled in size quickly once my body crossed that threshold.1 -
Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.3 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
Okay, as one of the people who disagreed, I will standup and explain why I disagreed. It is a phyical impossibility for your body to stop burning calories as long as it is alive. The only time that a body stops buring calories is when it dies. Yes, in extreme cases, long term calorie restriction might result in the body down-regulating non-essential functions such as hair growth, nail growth and reproduction, but there is a minimum number of calories that are required to keep the body alive and ALL of those calories WILL be burned on a daily basis.
Don't believe me - look up the Minnesota Starvation experiment for a very good example of what happens with long term and extreme calorie restriction.
What the PP poster is describing is not FAT gain - it is water gain and the body's reaction to actual starvation. The extended stomach, the damage to the internal organs, etc. Look up some pictures of people who are actually starving (like those pictures they always show of the starving children in Africa) and you will see prime examples of what ACTUAL starvation is and looks like.13 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.1 -
I have gone through starvation too more than once and definitely lost weight. Yes I retained some fluid but it didn't stop my body from disappearing (from bmi 22 - bmi 14.5 pretty quickly). Before I got my feeding tube I was getting maybe 300-500 calories a day for months.15
-
brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
7 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
And as someone who was here for years before we had any buttons...
The disagree (and other) buttons are a blessing.
Prior to this, a minor squabble over semantics could erupt into a 16 page battle that had nothing to do with the OP, the actual topic or anything except people needing to argue and be right.
It was a nightmare and unhelpful for everyone -except whoever felt so slighted by the use of a word that they felt they needed to spend 4 hours of their time arguing about it.
A single disagree to a reasonable correct response is usually understood (in pretty much all forum settings) to be an indication of an error or a lost or misinformed soul. A whole pile of disagrees indicates incorrect info.
Without 16 pages of side arguments and .gifs.13 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
1 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD. Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
If you look at the bottom left hand corner of the posts, you will see the date that the response was posted. The vast majority of the posts in this thread are from 2014. The disagrees that you are referring to are probably converted over from the 'WOO' button that was active during that timeframe - except for the disagree that I did against the post that resurrected the thread today.7 -
If starvation mode existed in the context that it is thrown around in the diet world our species would have become extinct long ago...11
-
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.
I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.1 -
BeeUtifullyUnique8459 wrote: »Ugh all these replies are WRONG!!
STARVATION MODE IS REAL!
Rare but REAL.
IT DOES NOT HAPPEN FAST.
I have a team of doctors treating me right now for this!!
I lost the feeling of being hungry or thirsty. & I work a lot, my kids are grown so no one else to feed... over time i just didnt think about it.
It wasnt on purpose...
I was hospitalized in march with concerning but not really figured out gut issues & bloodwork.
No real answers over the next couple months- they even thought possible cancer.
Symptoms progressed.
I started gaining weight RAPIDLY in my belly after I jumped the curve. (50lbs in 20 days,May to June)
36" waist to 49" waist.
My hair was falling out in handfuls.
My left eyebrow retreated.
My whole body aches(your body starts sucking your muscles & bones dry).
Brain fog. Dizziness. --this was most scary personally, as I've NEVER been one to lose my keys or forget where my car was in a parking lot etc.
Skin super itchy & feels like sandpaper.
Headaches.
Always freezing. Daily temp was 95-96
Thyriod & blood sugar imbalances but not contributed to any other diagnosis.
Etc etc.
**I am currently on IV INFUSIONS & fluids every week from STARVATION MODE! **
I was put on this app so they can track my intake & make sure I eat.
It's getting a little easier,as now I can SEE it, but still makes me nauseous to eat & I'm only up to drinking around 22oz of water per week without getting sick.
I HATE that theres NOTHING about this disorder except a bunch of dieting crap! I cant find REAL answers because so many posts have false info.
I have always been very active, inside & outside of work(Id blow through 22,000 steps at work, avid hiker, etc). & eat super healthy. But when I actually had to log my calories,my issue became clear. I also wasnt eating CARBS unintentionally. I'd eat a handful of frozen veggies & a little diced chicken breast each evening after work, salads.... & a Gatorade- which apparently at least kept my electrolytes survivable & I've been told to continue.
I learned I can add some black beans to my veggies for more iron, which isnt a huge daily change since I like them.
My calories have been raised from 1200-1400 per day to more than 1700. I'm still at a deficit 8 days in, but getting better.
(Stupid step counter keeps ADDING more daily calorie need lol!)
Supposedly if I eat more, I will lose weight but I'm not seeing that yet. And my brain just CAN'T believe it!
But I'm also on week #5 of 7 of the IVs & they say i probably wont see/feel a change until weeks AFTER the 1st 7 weeks are complete! :-(
But my hair IS starting to grow back! My eyebrows too. I feel a little better.
Temp is back up to 97-98 & they didnt need to wrap me in heated blankets during my infusions today.
But I'm bruising easier. But maybe that's a sign I have red blood cells again?? I have no clue.
I was hoping to find an answer about how long til I'd see weight loss... but I guess I'm stuck with the "you probably wont feel much different for weeks later, if your body holds onto these nutrients "...
But starvation mode is REAL!! It doesnt happen in a day or a week...
I'm 40 & hope I'm able to refuel my body & get my metabolism working again soon and heal my organs.
Theres still a chance I wiped out my gut & my galbladder from not eating enough. My red blood cells were super shriveled up. Idk how much longer I wouldve had & didnt realize it...
EAT EVERY DAY FROM ALL FOOD GROUPS! & eating enough is important.
@BeeUtifullyUnique8459 - You mentioned black beans for iron. If you have iron deficiency anemia, "some black beans" is completely insufficient.
What is your actual diagnosis?
What's in your IVs?5 -
I think at this point some people might just disagree with you because of your childish reaction to it. 🤷🏻♀️15
-
brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.
I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.
I didn't defend anything. I noted that the whole point of the disagree button is that it allows people to express disagreement without having to derail the thread with discussions of why they disagree. Do you think this thread would be BETTER if there were several responses explaining why starvation mode is a totally real thing and we need to watch out for it?3 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
P 1 of this thread is all from 2014. Look at the dates on the posts. Look at the date on the OP.3 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
Simmer down.
I didn’t say a word about starvation mode. Only that the posts you were referencing were from 2014 so it’s unlikely that you’re going to have any reasonable discourse in this particular thread with someone who may have disagreed with those posts anytime in the last 6 years (and might not even be a member any longer).
That seemed logical rather than waiting for a response from someone who may not even have logged in since 2017, but we all have our white whale I guess.
9 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.
I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.
Speaking as someone whose time here also predates the "disagree" button, I'm a big, big fan of the "disagree" button. It saves a lot of useless argument. People who don't want to, or don't know how to, use their words to disagree . . . um . . . don't become . . . um . . . valued contributors to threads. The thread just devolves to "is too" "is not" "you're icky" "so's your momma", more extreme abuse and absurd hyperbole, then cat gifs**, more or less. Then the threads get deleted. Please, let's not go back there. It was tiresome.
Once several people have explained why starvation mode (as typically defined) isn't real, and multiple people have "liked" or "insightfuled" them, and some (but typically fewer) have "disagreed"; and a few people have defended starvation mode (drawing multiple "disagrees" and many fewer "likes" or "insightfuls", usually), everything that needs to be said in words has been said.
In this thread, I suspect some of the "disagrees" are new, on old posts, because the thread looks new to people who don't look at dates. So what? It still keeps the actual conversation going with mostly people who know how to use their words, which is a very, very Good Thing. (I'm not sure the "woos" were converted to "disagrees"; they may've been thrown away - I've forgotten what was said at the time.)
** Well, actually, I kinda miss the cat gifs. But not the poorly-reasoned 5th-grade-style firestorms and insults.
Personally, I don't care whether some random anonymous person disagrees with a critique of starvation mode. They're wrong. 😉13 -
The ‘woos’ were simply deleted when the button disappeared.
Any disagrees on the early posts in this 6 year old thread have come from it’s recent resurrection (or at some point between the instigation of ‘disagree’ and now, anyway).4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.
I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.
I didn't defend anything. I noted that the whole point of the disagree button is that it allows people to express disagreement without having to derail the thread with discussions of why they disagree. Do you think this thread would be BETTER if there were several responses explaining why starvation mode is a totally real thing and we need to watch out for it?
I'm a big fan of people having to intellectually support whatever position they take, not just anonymously click a button. The anonymous click of a button permits one to be a critic without ever having do to the thought to offer a critique.
As pointed out in another reply here, the disagree clicks are not from the original era of this thread. They are much more recent events.3 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »The anonymous click of a button permits one to be a critic without ever having do to the thought to offer a critique.
I know it's not the popular belief on here but I agree 100%...
1 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.
I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.
I didn't defend anything. I noted that the whole point of the disagree button is that it allows people to express disagreement without having to derail the thread with discussions of why they disagree. Do you think this thread would be BETTER if there were several responses explaining why starvation mode is a totally real thing and we need to watch out for it?
I'm a big fan of people having to intellectually support whatever position they take, not just anonymously click a button. The anonymous click of a button permits one to be a critic without ever having do to the thought to offer a critique.
As pointed out in another reply here, the disagree clicks are not from the original era of this thread. They are much more recent events.
FTR, I was one of your disagrees on this post. I already "intellectually supported my position", so this post right here adds thread length with zero added value, kinda like you repeating yourself does. 🤷♀️
We could keep this up all day. Before "disagree", people did.
Then they'd start calling each other names. I won't. 😉😊11 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »True starvation response is pretty much only seen before death at very low levels of body fat. Adaptive thermogenesis is something else that many call starvation mode but it seems to be somewhat lasting although how much it really affects weight regain and BMR is a matter of some debate.
Off the top of my head adaptive thermogenesis can count up to 20%. (Similar to someone with PCOS)0 -
As touched upon above starvation mode in what the majority believe it to be doesn't exist (the Minnesota starvation experiment is an interest read). Having said that, as mentioned by wheelhouse adaptive thermogenesis does exist and that's through damage to the metabolism so to speak.2
-
Just seen that this is an old thread, hadn't looked properly. oops.2
-
brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Would the person who keeps disagreeing step up and identify themselves then highlight what they disagree with?
For full disclosure, I have zero expectation they will. That would be a mature and logical approach that would also require them to rationalize and justify their repeated clicking of a button.
The whole point of the disagree button was so that people could indicate they disagreed with a post without having to have multiple posts explaining why they disagree. Do you really need justification of why people disagree that eating too little will cause the body to store the energy that it doesn't have?
Looking at how many disagreements are to posts saying that starvation mode doesn't exist ... yeah. Notice how the only people that step up are the logical ones that grasp that "starvation mode" is a fallacy?
The ones disagreeing to posts saying "Eating too little is not going to keep you from losing weight" (yep, someone disagreed to that) ... "there is no starvation mode" (also disagreed with) ... "The mode where you undereat for so long that it "crashes" your metabolism and transforms everything you eat into fat (not just weight)? If you ever reach that point you should volunteer your body to science." (again, someone found issue with that) ... and all without a shred of reasoning as to why.
Most of those posts are from 2014. The disagree button didn’t even exist then. And then it was a nebulous “woo” button for a few years.
It’s unlikely that the person who disagreed with something at some point in the last 6 years will be here to answer your questions.
The person with the current issue could maybe have started their own topic rather than resurrecting this particular 6 year old thread instead. But that’s not against the rules so no harm. Just muddies the waters a lot.
Every quote I provided was in THIS THREAD (read page 1 if you think they are from the day's of 2014 and "woo" to realize how wrong you are). Try again with fact and logic ... or claim starvation mode made you do it.
This thread began in 2014. Many of the posts you quoted were made years ago.
I did not look at the date. Yet people still disagree with logic ... anonymously which you then implicitly defended.
I didn't defend anything. I noted that the whole point of the disagree button is that it allows people to express disagreement without having to derail the thread with discussions of why they disagree. Do you think this thread would be BETTER if there were several responses explaining why starvation mode is a totally real thing and we need to watch out for it?
I'm a big fan of people having to intellectually support whatever position they take, not just anonymously click a button. The anonymous click of a button permits one to be a critic without ever having do to the thought to offer a critique.
As pointed out in another reply here, the disagree clicks are not from the original era of this thread. They are much more recent events.
*Deleted response*2
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