For those who do NOT believe in starvation mode
emmab0902
Posts: 2,338 Member
As in the way it is sometimes pushed as something that occurs at high levels of body fat, or misquotes or misinterprets the Minessota starvation study.....
What convinced you it doesn't exist the way it is spoken about on these boards??
NB - this is not a thread to debate SM, it is to hear from those who have their doubts about it.
What convinced you it doesn't exist the way it is spoken about on these boards??
NB - this is not a thread to debate SM, it is to hear from those who have their doubts about it.
0
Replies
-
bump0
-
I can understand why people would not believe in it because the way it is described on the boards sounds absolutely ridiculous. I do believe it exists but it is truly incredibly rare and takes quite a lot of 'starvation' (not a few weeks or so!).0
-
I can understand why people would not believe in it because the way it is described on the boards sounds absolutely ridiculous. I do believe it exists but it is truly incredibly rare and takes quite a lot of 'starvation' (not a few weeks or so!).
Seconded. It's called "starvation" for a reason - it implies the point where your body cannot use any more of the stored reserve it has. To imply that one can be "starved" while eating 1200 calories a day and exercising is wrong because any calorie deficit would be taken from the body's reserves ... that's how the weight is lost!0 -
Howdy,
I have my doubts about it, mostly the way it is described here many times.
Dr. Barry Sears (The Zone) had a better explanation of this, I will try to explain how I remember it. Basically if you do not eat for a long period of time and then eat your body will naturally want to store more of those calories for later use, but this doesn't really happen if you have one day that you only have 1000 calories. It is more to support the idea of having balanced meals and eating at regular intervals during the day, instead of for example eating 1000 calories in one sitting and nothing else all day.
So I think there is something to it, but I don't think that if you eat 1100 calories a day for a while you will starve, but I do think you have a bigger risk to have the weight come off your lean body mass instead of fat. If the 1100 calories are 3 square meals with two snacks, then I think you will be on the right track.
Cheers, Christy0 -
Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!
"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."
People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.0 -
I don't believe in starvation mode, but I do believe there is an optimum level of calorie intake for *sustainable* weight loss.
I also know, for me, that if I don't eat enough calories for a week, I don't lose anything, but if I add maybe an extra 100-200 calories on a couple of the days, I will lose 1 or 2 lb that week.
I'm using MFP as a guide to how much I should have, but sometimes I will have more calories and sometimes less. My weight is slowly going down and hasn't once gone up, so I must be doing something right *for me*.0 -
I believe in starvation mode - but I think it needs to be renamed! Mainly because it's got f all to do with starvation.0
-
Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!
"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."
People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.
I think you posted a quote a while back Emma that made me realise that what I was thinking sounded more reasonable. I had asked a question fairly early on in my time on here about whether I should be eating back my calories and got some ridiculously sniffy answers to it from some people who said I was asking a stupid question and others who had done 7 day experiments that made no sense but seemingly meant they were an authority on it. In short, there was a lot of shouting about - you MUST eat back your calories or something bad will happen!
I ate back my calories for several weeks and it did nothing for me other than make me full up going to bed and I lost nothing over those 3 weeks. I eat 3 healthy meals a day and snacks in between. I don't feel hungry ever, if I do I'll have something to eat. In all honesty the studies I've read on starvation mode being a myth make more sense to me than the studies for eating calories back. I don't trust the calories burned on the monitor and don't 100% trust the calories in the database all the time so whether I get berated for it or not, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.
I thought the reason for us all being on here was to change our lifestyle and for me (not saying for anyone else) I want to learn to live on less food than before, better food than before, so why spend my day stuffing my face in order to eat back my exercise calories...otherwise what is the point in me exercising if I'm going to eat back what I've just burnt? I know it's not as simple as that but I'm happy doing what I'm doing!0 -
Sassy I could not agree more!0
-
I think it exists - i suspect I've experienced it when on ww. but it's used too easily as an explanation for everything on here and i don't think that helps anyone.
Eating vlc for a long period certainly messes with metabolism. but it won't happen in a week or two. and i think true sm rarely produces gains, but does produce very slow losses and plateaus, as well as muscle wastage.0 -
Thanks for this interesting post.
I find it fascinating how to know how much to eat/exercise, and I find the idea of 1200 calories as the level below which you starve very unusual. Surely it depends more what you food is made up of to ensure you give your body usable nutrition?0 -
Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!
"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."
People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.
^ Good quote. Lyle does know his stuff!!!0 -
People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.
That's interesting.......do you have a link?0 -
Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!
"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."
People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.
Excellent Emma. Lyle is amazing.
He also goes a little further into starvation mode in his Ultimate Diet 2.0 book which is a fantastic read. He explains that your body likes fat alot more than it likes muscle. So when your body doesn't get enough calories it thinks it's a time of famine and hold onto the most tissue it can to survive. Now of course you have to eat a pretty hefty deficit for a extended period of time for your body to start asking "What the hell are you doing?" questions, and kick in this mode. However, this starvation mode does in fact exist.0 -
I believe starvation mode does exists. I don't think it happens as easily and as quickly as it is described most of the time on the boards here. It is a very complicated issue to discuss in detail. ...maybe in prisoners of war or people with certain eating disorders, but not in someone who eats regular meals and snacks every day. Caloric restriction has been found to be the major factor in inreasing longevity. Those are complicated issues and I haven't read enough about them to understand what and how it works.
For me presonally tracking caloriers leads to trouble. I've done it on ocassion here and there and always end up obssessing about what else can I squeese to eat with in the allotted amount. I would eat those 2 slices of pizza whether I was hungry or not, just because I still had calories left over. Instead I have been really listening to my body and trying to eat slowly and mindfully. I eat fresh, whole foods and don't stuff myself. I go to bed slightly hungry. So I have no idea how many calories I am consuming on most days. My weight loss has been slow and steady, my energy level high. I am going to continue to do this until I see a reason for change.0 -
do you know what size deficit we're talking? 1000+? Being in negative net calories? Have you seen any info on how large a deficit triggers this?Now of course you have to eat a pretty hefty deficit0 -
do you know what size deficit we're talking? 1000+? Being in negative net calories? Have you seen any info on how large a deficit triggers this?
Hard to say Emma. I know a few people on this site (friends) that have a TDEE of roughly 2000 cals and are eating 600-700 cals a day and are still losing, although they dont eat that EVERY day. They might do 3 days of 600 cals and then eat 900 the 4th day, then 1500 the 5th, then go back to 600. Seems to be working for them and havent plateaud too much. While starvation mode does exist you pretty much have to force it for it to happen.0 -
I personally don't think starvation mode exists... There was a while when I would be eating around 1000 calories and I still lost weight. I also don't always eat all my exercise calories... I can eat some, none or all depending on the day and how hungry I am, and I still lose weight.
I think that people are so engrained in the fact that if it works for them, then it must work for everyone. They don't understand that each person is an individual and just because MFP says no lower then 1200, does not mean it's true for everyone.0 -
So I think there is something to it, but I don't think that if you eat 1100 calories a day for a while you will starve, but I do think you have a bigger risk to have the weight come off your lean body mass instead of fat. If the 1100 calories are 3 square meals with two snacks, then I think you will be on the right track.
Cheers, Christy
I agree with this 100% I eat 1100 calories a day 5 times a day and it is good nutritious food, vs before when I ate 1600-1700 calories of CRAP!! I am losing weight and getting in great shape and still have the energy to run and I feel great! The best I ever have! I dont think starvation mode would take place unless someone is eating non-nutritious foods and like 500 calories a day and not getting exercise!
There is a HUGE difference!0 -
Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!
"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."
People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.
I think you posted a quote a while back Emma that made me realise that what I was thinking sounded more reasonable. I had asked a question fairly early on in my time on here about whether I should be eating back my calories and got some ridiculously sniffy answers to it from some people who said I was asking a stupid question and others who had done 7 day experiments that made no sense but seemingly meant they were an authority on it. In short, there was a lot of shouting about - you MUST eat back your calories or something bad will happen!
I ate back my calories for several weeks and it did nothing for me other than make me full up going to bed and I lost nothing over those 3 weeks. I eat 3 healthy meals a day and snacks in between. I don't feel hungry ever, if I do I'll have something to eat. In all honesty the studies I've read on starvation mode being a myth make more sense to me than the studies for eating calories back. I don't trust the calories burned on the monitor and don't 100% trust the calories in the database all the time so whether I get berated for it or not, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.
I thought the reason for us all being on here was to change our lifestyle and for me (not saying for anyone else) I want to learn to live on less food than before, better food than before, so why spend my day stuffing my face in order to eat back my exercise calories...otherwise what is the point in me exercising if I'm going to eat back what I've just burnt? I know it's not as simple as that but I'm happy doing what I'm doing!
WELL SAID!! I totally agree with you!0 -
There is no question that a starvation state does exist. This occurs when glycogogen stores are depleted, and there are not enough carbohydrates in the diet to provide for the maintenance of blood glucose. Insulin levels drop, glucagon levels rise, and the body generated blood glucose from protein that is either coming in through the diet (i.e. atkins) or that is being liberated from muscle stores. The energy to drive this creating of blood glucose from protein (gluconeogenesis) is derived from free fatty acids that are either coming in through the diet or being liberated from fat stores. This is a "starvation state," and ketones are produced from free fatty acids. After about 48-72 hours, organs that can metabolize ketones for energy begin to do this in order to save glucose for organs that can only metabolize glucose (like the brain; ketones do not cross the blood brain barrier). At this point, someone who is starving would presumably be burning a bare number of calories in order to keep the person alive, as to maximize the longevity of stored fat and muscle. I do not think this starvation state is what people are talking about when they talk about starvation mode. But I would also argue that a person who is starving, or has a gross caloric deficit will indeed lose weight - fat and muscle. And I do not mean to say that people on atkins are starving themselves.
I think the point that most people are making when they talk about "starvation mode," is that our goal ought to be a small daily caloric deficit. We want enough calories coming in so that we can get those physiologic boosts of insulin, carbohydrates, and protein that allow for maintenance of lean muscle mass while running a small caloric deficit that allows us to liberate and burn free fatty acids during periods of fasting (i.e. during sleep), or during periods of exercise when we deplete our glycogen stores. If we eat almost enough food each day, but not quite enough we can walk this tightrope of maintaining and/or building muscle while still burning fat. As we all know, the more muscle we have, the higher our basal metabolic rate, the more calories we burn at rest, and the easier it ought to be to get in shape.
It is also important thing to remember that exercise stokes the metabolism even if we are running a caloric deficit. There are two mechanisms that drive glucose into muscle - the first is insulin - which you'll get when you eat a carbohydrate load. The other is exercise - when muscle is active, it soaks up blood sugar. So even if you are running a big time caloric deficit, muscles are going to soak up glucose when you exercise - which depletes glycogen stores --> glucagon release --> free fatty acids liberated --> etc, etc.
So I am not so sure about "starvation mode," in the sense that people use it on these boards. I think that someone who is starving will certainly lose weight; but I bet it will come right back after the fast. Sustainable weight loss (changing body composition), I believe, will more likely come from running small caloric deficits over a long period of time accompanied with exercise.
If you read this, you have the patience of a saint.0 -
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
EXACTLY. Love this:flowerforyou:0 -
There is no question that a starvation state does exist. This occurs when glycogogen stores are depleted, and there are not enough carbohydrates in the diet to provide for the maintenance of blood glucose. Insulin levels drop, glucagon levels rise, and the body generated blood glucose from protein that is either coming in through the diet (i.e. atkins) or that is being liberated from muscle stores. The energy to drive this creating of blood glucose from protein (gluconeogenesis) is derived from free fatty acids that are either coming in through the diet or being liberated from fat stores. This is a "starvation state," and ketones are produced from free fatty acids. After about 48-72 hours, organs that can metabolize ketones for energy begin to do this in order to save glucose for organs that can only metabolize glucose (like the brain; ketones do not cross the blood brain barrier). At this point, someone who is starving would presumably be burning a bare number of calories in order to keep the person alive, as to maximize the longevity of stored fat and muscle. I do not think this starvation state is what people are talking about when they talk about starvation mode. But I would also argue that a person who is starving, or has a gross caloric deficit will indeed lose weight - fat and muscle. And I do not mean to say that people on atkins are starving themselves.
I think the point that most people are making when they talk about "starvation mode," is that our goal ought to be a small daily caloric deficit. We want enough calories coming in so that we can get those physiologic boosts of insulin, carbohydrates, and protein that allow for maintenance of lean muscle mass while running a small caloric deficit that allows us to liberate and burn free fatty acids during periods of fasting (i.e. during sleep), or during periods of exercise when we deplete our glycogen stores. If we eat almost enough food each day, but not quite enough we can walk this tightrope of maintaining and/or building muscle while still burning fat. As we all know, the more muscle we have, the higher our basal metabolic rate, the more calories we burn at rest, and the easier it ought to be to get in shape.
It is also important thing to remember that exercise stokes the metabolism even if we are running a caloric deficit. There are two mechanisms that drive glucose into muscle - the first is insulin - which you'll get when you eat a carbohydrate load. The other is exercise - when muscle is active, it soaks up blood sugar. So even if you are running a big time caloric deficit, muscles are going to soak up glucose when you exercise - which depletes glycogen stores --> glucagon release --> free fatty acids liberated --> etc, etc.
So I am not so sure about "starvation mode," in the sense that people use it on these boards. I think that someone who is starving will certainly lose weight; but I bet it will come right back after the fast. Sustainable weight loss (changing body composition), I believe, will more likely come from running small caloric deficits over a long period of time accompanied with exercise.
If you read this, you have the patience of a saint.
Thanks for that. So essentially, "starvation mode" in the sense that it's used on the boards the vast majority of the time, only really kicks in after about 48-72 hours of fasting correct? Or did I totally just misrepresent what you said?0 -
If you are eating one meal everyday, you aren't starving yourself therefore NOT in starvation mode. Common sense
0 -
This is perfect! I love the other excuse "muscle weighs more than fat".. seriously.. yeah, but not the way you want to interpret it! But if it makes you feel better, than that is perfectly ok too!
But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
EXACTLY. Love this:flowerforyou:0 -
What about all the people who increase their calories and then suddenly lose? I've seen it many times...
Also, if you read this, pay attention to the part that says eating too little means you just don't move as much, this is what I think can explain all the people I mentioned above
http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#starvationmode0 -
I believe it does exist but it doesn't happen has rapid as people think on here. I believe everyone is different and no 1 body is the same. Some days I can eat all 1200 calories or more. Some days I am only at 1000 or 1100 and my body is fine with that. I exercise, I am building mucsle and my weightloss is pretty steadying at 1lb a week. I asked my doctor about this and he told me that starvation mode does exist but...... you have to pretty much "starve" yourself to get there. People who only eat once a day or dont eat for days at a time or very low calories daily will overtime cause their body to go into this mode.
I believe if you find what is right for your body and it is healthy go for it. I tried eating my exercise calories back and I started to gain weight. What works for some do not work for others.0 -
I think you'll find that gluconeogenesis happens as a normal function on a daily basis and doesn't just happen after all glycogen is depeted..........We don't just burn one fuel at a time, the body will use all sources throughout the day, which includes amino acid convertion.
Starvation mode is confusing, and in the real definition, it happens when body fat is extremely low, in the 5% range, then to keep us alive it metabolically protects those essential low fat stores in a last ditch effort for survival. Starvation mode as it's thought by most dieters is when someone is eating what appears to be a deficit, yet don't lose weight and the culprit for these plateau's is the body slowing it's metabolic rate to equal or meet that caloric level...........basically if someones maitenance is say 2000 calories and they consume 1200 calories and after a fairly short time, they stop losing weight, they blame it on starvation mode, this is where Lyle's explaination hold true simply because for the body to reduce it's metabolic rate to equal 1200 calories that would mean we're now experienceing a new maintenance level of 1200 calories which is called our TDEE. Basically for a maintenance level to be 1200 calories our BMR would need to be a lot lower, which isn't reality.
a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention
This is more likely the cause of a plateau and the science backs this up as opposed to someone having a TDEE of 1200. If someones maintenance was actually 1200 calories, you would be in the science literature with your picture. I don't think you could find long term coma victims with those levels.0 -
I believe it does exist, but it's different to what a lot of people on hear think. The way I understand it is that starvation mode will try to hoard calories, but never more than you would have lost anyway. For example, If you have a deficit of 3500 calories a week, you'll lose about 1lb. If you have a calorie deficit of 7000 calories, it'll be about 2lb. Therefore, if you have a calorie deficit of 10500 you should lose 3lb a week, right? No, starvation mode starts to kick in and it'll hold onto some of those extra pounds and you might lose somewhere around 2.5lb a week. And then if you have a 14000 calorie deficit you might lose somewhere around 2.75lb. The trend continues, the greater the calorie deficit, the fewer extra calories you'll burn, but it'll never go backwards. You'll never get to a point where having a larger calorie deficit will mean you're losing less weight than if you had a smaller calorie deficit.
Of course, that doesn't mean that monstrous calorie deficits are healthy - it's hard to get proper nutrition with such low food intake, and that can lead to all sorts of health problems, but with the same activity level and fewer calories, you should always lose more weight, even if it's only a tiny amount.0 -
This is more likely the cause of a plateau and the science backs this up as opposed to someone having a TDEE of 1200. If someones maintenance was actually 1200 calories, you would be in the science literature with your picture. I don't think you could find long term coma victims with those levels.
I think you need to investigate the life of Jack Lallane
Or the effects of long term caloric restriction being used as a method to age slower, and it is considered one of the most important things you can do by the live longer obsessed crowd. Or the aesthetic budhists in India which practice denial of food as a way of life yet are still able to do daily yoga sessions (Hardly coma patients).
Here is a quoteHe ate two meals a day and avoided snacks. His breakfast, after working out for two hours, consisted of hard-boiled egg whites, a cup of broth, oatmeal with soy milk and seasonal fruit. For dinner he and his wife typically ate raw vegetables and egg whites along with fish. He did not drink coffee.
Here is what he accomplished on that sparse diet1954 (age 40): swam the entire length (8,981 ft/1.7 mi) of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, under water, with 140 pounds (64 kg; 10 st) of air tanks and other equipment strapped to his body; a world record.
1955 (age 41): swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco while handcuffed. When interviewed afterwards he was quoted as saying that the worst thing about the ordeal was being handcuffed, which significantly reduced his chance to do a jumping jack.
1956 (age 42): set what was claimed as a world record of 1,033 push-ups in 23 minutes on You Asked For It,[31] a television program hosted by Art Baker.
1957 (age 43): swam the Golden Gate channel while towing a 2,500-pound (1,100 kg; 180 st) cabin cruiser. The swift ocean currents turned this one-mile (1.6 km) swim into a swimming distance of 6.5 miles (10.5 km).
1958 (age 44): maneuvered a paddleboard nonstop from Farallon Islands to the San Francisco shore. The 30-mile (48 km) trip took 9.5 hours.
1959 (age 45): did 1,000 jumping jacks and 1,000 chin-ups in 1 hour, 22 minutes, to promote The Jack LaLanne Show going nationwide. LaLanne said this was the most difficult of his stunts, but only because the skin on his hands started ripping off during the chin-ups. He felt he couldn't stop because it would be seen as a public failure.
1974 (age 60): For the second time, he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf. Again, he was handcuffed, but this time he was also shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat. At least that's according to his website. However, according to an account of this event published the day after it occurred in the Los Angeles Times, written by Philip Hager, a Times staff writer, LaLanne was neither handcuffed nor shackled if each of those terms has the unconventional meaning of "tightly binding the wrists or ankles together with a pair of metal fasteners" although that's not how handcuffs or shackles work. Hager says that LaLanne "had his hands and feet bound with cords that allowed minimal freedom". But "minimal" clearly did not mean "no" freedom, since elsewhere in the article Hager describes LaLanne's method of propulsion through the water as "half-breast-stroke, half-dog paddle" which is how you swim with your hands tied.
1975 (age 61): Repeating his performance of 21 years earlier, he again swam the entire length of the Golden Gate Bridge, underwater and handcuffed, but this time he was shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat.
1976 (age 62): To commemorate the "Spirit of '76", United States Bicentennial, he swam one mile (1.6 km) in Long Beach Harbor. He was handcuffed and shackled, and he towed 13 boats (representing the 13 original colonies) containing 76 people.[32]
1979 (age 65): towed 65 boats in Lake Ashinoko, near Tokyo, Japan. He was handcuffed and shackled, and the boats were filled with 6,500 pounds (2,900 kg; 460 st) of Louisiana Pacific wood pulp.[33]
1980 (age 66): towed 10 boats in North Miami, Florida. The boats carried 77 people, and he towed them for over one mile (1.6 km) in less than one hour.
1984 (age 70): handcuffed, shackled, and fighting strong winds and currents, towed 70 rowboats, one with several guests, from the Queen’s Way Bridge in the Long Beach Harbor to the Queen Mary, 1 mile.
This guy's net calories were WAY under 1200 a day. Jack was a beast in his day.
Here he is in his prime, preaching about the evils of sugar.
http://youtu.be/LJVEPB_l8FU
God love Jack Lalanne, RIP0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions