You May Not Be Doing Anything Wrong

So this article says that after you lose the weight your body reacts by making you much hungrier than a normal person would be, among other things. I could've told them that. :huh:

good read but I still think people fall off the wagon more often or throw excuses around

Starvation mode is also confirmed in the article (first paragraph, page 6) but what's even more depressing for me is the following:

Scientists are still learning why a weight-reduced body behaves so differently from a similar-size body that has not dieted. Muscle biopsies taken before, during and after weight loss show that once a person drops weight, their muscle fibers undergo a transformation, making them more like highly efficient “slow twitch” muscle fibers. A result is that after losing weight, your muscles burn 20 to 25 percent fewer calories during everyday activity and moderate aerobic exercise than those of a person who is naturally at the same weight. That means a dieter who thinks she is burning 200 calories during a brisk half-hour walk is probably using closer to 150 to 160 calories.


I knew it all along, though. My body hates me and once I'm skinny again it will fight me with everything it has in an effort to be fat again. Does anyone who has ever yo-yo dieted NOT know these things?

Here is the paragraph about starvation mode (though they don't call it that). This article, despite telling me what I knew from frustrating experience, is excellent. Is there a vote sticky option around here somewhere?


The research shows that the changes that occur after weight loss translate to a huge caloric disadvantage of about 250 to 400 calories. For instance, one woman who entered the Columbia studies at 230 pounds was eating about 3,000 calories to maintain that weight. Once she dropped to 190 pounds, losing 17 percent of her body weight, metabolic studies determined that she needed about 2,300 daily calories to maintain the new lower weight. That may sound like plenty, but the typical 30-year-old 190-pound woman can consume about 2,600 calories to maintain her weight — 300 more calories than the woman who dieted to get there.

I can't seem to get past the part that says:

"totaling just 500 to 550 calories a day for eight weeks."

Um........what?!?! Seriously?

1) of course they lost weight eating that little amount of food

2) that low amount of calorie intake isn't good for you! of course people are going to drop out.

Heck, an underweight person would drop out after being able to only eat 500-550 calories per day. That's just ridiculous and I find it very hard to take anything this article says after reading that one sentence.

I get that he wanted people to drop a significant amount of weight in as little time as possible, but still.....500-550 cals is just ridiculous!

OK, now that that rant is over, I'll go finish the article.

Sorry, I just got stuck & stupified.

Wait, how is someone eating 2300 calories a day in starvation mode?

It seems a form of starvation mode kicks in even for those running a moderate deficit over time, sad to say. Is there another term for that besides starvation mode? Clearly, the dieter's body needs fewer calories than a non-dieter of the same weight, so it seemed to fit.

That is not starvation mode. That's just your body needing fewer calories to haul around your smaller mass.

I also couldn't get past the 3rd paragraph. Multiple studies have shown that the faster you lose weight, the less likely you are to keep it off in the long run because your body can't adapt its hormonal balance fast enough. These people lost an average of 3lbs a week.

Wait, how is someone eating 2300 calories a day in starvation mode?

It seems a form of starvation mode kicks in even for those running a moderate deficit over time, sad to say. Is there another term for that besides starvation mode? Clearly, the dieter's body needs fewer calories than a non-dieter of the same weight, so it seemed to fit.

That is not starvation mode. That's just your body needing fewer calories to haul around your smaller mass.

A woman of her same age and mass who did not diet needed more calories to maintain than the dieter did at that weight. So something has altered the dieter's body to need fewer calories.

I'd guess that had more to do with the fact that the person who didn't diet has more lean body mass. Because when you lose 3 pounds a week it's going to be a combination of fat AND muscle. It's still not starvation mode.

I question how valuable this study is. 34 obese people ate a rather specific diet of 500 calories a day (including special diet shakes) and their bodies reacted this way. How widely applicable is that? And what were they eating after the study? How many calories and what kinds of food?

They could have just said "We make money by starving people and then letting them fatten back up, and the best part is they come back fatter every time."

This is why sane people reduce bodyfat with a 25% or lower calorie deficit while consuming mostly whole foods.

Wait, how is someone eating 2300 calories a day in starvation mode?

It seems a form of starvation mode kicks in even for those running a moderate deficit over time, sad to say. Is there another term for that besides starvation mode? Clearly, the dieter's body needs fewer calories than a non-dieter of the same weight, so it seemed to fit.

That is not starvation mode. That's just your body needing fewer calories to haul around your smaller mass.

A woman of her same age and mass who did not diet needed more calories to maintain than the dieter did at that weight. So something has altered the dieter's body to need fewer calories.

I just have a problem with the term "starvation" being used here. Yes there is a difference in metabolism, but starving? No.

If you take the conclusions in the article as a whole, your body reacts pretty strongly to weight loss. Maybe you don't call it starvation, but your body just might. I know mine sure thinks I'm living in famine times whenever I lose a lot of weight. All I want to do is eat when I'm skinny. Eat, sit around, and get fat. Mentally, of course, it's the last thing I want, but it's definitely what my body is telling me to do.

Wait, how is someone eating 2300 calories a day in starvation mode?

It seems a form of starvation mode kicks in even for those running a moderate deficit over time, sad to say. Is there another term for that besides starvation mode? Clearly, the dieter's body needs fewer calories than a non-dieter of the same weight, so it seemed to fit.

That is not starvation mode. That's just your body needing fewer calories to haul around your smaller mass.

A woman of her same age and mass who did not diet needed more calories to maintain than the dieter did at that weight. So something has altered the dieter's body to need fewer calories.

I just have a problem with the term "starvation" being used here. Yes there is a difference in metabolism, but starving? No.

If you take the conclusions in the article as a whole, your body reacts pretty strongly to weight loss. Maybe you don't call it starvation, but your body just might. I know mine sure thinks I'm living in famine times whenever I lose a lot of weight. All I want to do is eat when I'm skinny. Eat, sit around, and get fat. Mentally, of course, it's the last thing I want, but it's definitely what my body is telling me to do.

I understand what you're saying but starvation is a really strong word to use for that concept. It's a little offensive in my opinion to say that someone eating over 2000 calories a day is starving. People die from starvation.

Wait, how is someone eating 2300 calories a day in starvation mode?

It seems a form of starvation mode kicks in even for those running a moderate deficit over time, sad to say. Is there another term for that besides starvation mode? Clearly, the dieter's body needs fewer calories than a non-dieter of the same weight, so it seemed to fit.

That is not starvation mode. That's just your body needing fewer calories to haul around your smaller mass.

A woman of her same age and mass who did not diet needed more calories to maintain than the dieter did at that weight. So something has altered the dieter's body to need fewer calories.

I just have a problem with the term "starvation" being used here. Yes there is a difference in metabolism, but starving? No.

If you take the conclusions in the article as a whole, your body reacts pretty strongly to weight loss. Maybe you don't call it starvation, but your body just might. I know mine sure thinks I'm living in famine times whenever I lose a lot of weight. All I want to do is eat when I'm skinny. Eat, sit around, and get fat. Mentally, of course, it's the last thing I want, but it's definitely what my body is telling me to do.

I understand what you're saying but starvation is a really strong word to use for that concept. It's a little offensive in my opinion to say that someone eating over 2000 calories a day is starving. People die from starvation.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. I was linking it in my mind to the 'starvation mode' people speak of in this forum, however, not to someone dying for lack of enough food.

She has also come to accept that she can never stop being “hypervigilant” about what she eats. “Everything has to change,” she says. “I’ve been up and down the scale so many times, always thinking I can go back to ‘normal,’ but I had to establish a new normal. People don’t like hearing that it’s not easy.”

I know I'm guilty of this. I'd get down to a certain weight, then people around me would say "You're too skinny! Eat something!" so I would be comfortable and not so vigilant about my diet then BAM! I've gained 15-20lbs. This has happened all my life. Never had an issue with weight until I was given prescription drugs.

And keep in mind, she's maintaining at just under 200 pounds. She is not maintaining a thin body, she can't. She found she could maintain a body in the 190s, so that's what she does. Very depressing article, actually. A warning for those who don't know what they're really in for when they decide they must have a smaller body.

Lifestyle change, yes. Also, life sentence. I guess I'll lose the weight, then decide for myself once again whether the health and social benefits make that life sentence worthwhile. So far, the answer has always been no. I had hoped doing this with more exercise and a more reasonable dietary deficit would help change the answer, but this article tells me otherwise. No matter what, it's probably going to remain a lifetime struggle to stay thin, provided it's still even possible for me to get thin again.

I agree. I think you have to find a new normal that is healthy which is the only way to keep it off but also I think what most diets and studies don't take into account is muscle mass. A person who is lean at 165 doesn't look like a person with high body fat % at 165. That also accounts for how you burn calories and your caloric intake. I think a lot of advice is too cookie cutter. Better to know your body, know your lean muscle mass, know what works for you. Losing weight is just how we measure our success towards healthier living but if we just lose weight that doesn't make us healthy.

I agree. I think you have to find a new normal that is healthy which is the only way to keep it off but also I think what most diets and studies don't take into account is muscle mass. A person who is lean at 165 doesn't look like a person with high body fat % at 165. That also accounts for how you burn calories and your caloric intake.

Yeah, this was kind of my point earlier. Whenever I see these studies, it's always people on severely restricted calories (I usually see 500-800 calories per day cited) and if they do any exercise at all, it's cardio. So of course they're going to lose a lot of muscle mass along with the excess fat. They'd probably see a lot more long term success with a less severe calorie restriction plus weight lifting to maintain lean muscle.

Yeah, this was kind of my point earlier. Whenever I see these studies, it's always people on severely restricted calories (I usually see 500-800 calories per day cited) and if they do any exercise at all, it's cardio. So of course they're going to lose a lot of muscle mass along with the excess fat. They'd probably see a lot more long term success with a less severe calorie restriction plus weight lifting to maintain lean muscle.

I agree with you, agthorn.