Starvation mode hysteria
Options
Replies
-
Yes, that is what happens when the poor little mites have nothing to eat at all - that picture is true starvation. That sure as hell is not what is happening on MFP for 99.9% of the members
Those kids are NOT fat their stomachs are distended due to starvation , true starvation.0 -
It is ALL really so confusing!! Where did the magic number of 1200 calories come from? So if I eat under 1200 calories, let's say I eat 1000 calories a day I WON'T lose weight? In the past (how I gained this weight) I ate MUCH more than 2000 calories probably a day so If I reduce my intake down to 1000 per day I really find it so hard to believe I won't quickly drop some pounds?!
The desire to "quickly drop some pounds" is the real issue. We all have a optimal zone for weight loss. Someone with more than 75 pounds to lose can handle eating 1000 calories less than their maintenance, but someone with considerably less will run the risk of muscle loss and a compromised metabolism if they eat too little.
With your 50-ish pounds to lose, if 2000 calories is what it would take to maintain your current weight, 1000 calories is too little. 1250-1500 would do just fine. You might even lose more than the expected 1-1.5# a week.
We all want to lose weight fast. But eating the least amount your body can tolerate will only train your body to survive on minimal calories. If you want to eat as if you're dieting even when you reach maintenance... go right ahead.
I prefer to be able to enjoy eating pretty much whatever I want without worrying about gaining.0 -
It is ALL really so confusing!! Where did the magic number of 1200 calories come from? So if I eat under 1200 calories, let's say I eat 1000 calories a day I WON'T lose weight? In the past (how I gained this weight) I ate MUCH more than 2000 calories probably a day so If I reduce my intake down to 1000 per day I really find it so hard to believe I won't quickly drop some pounds?!
The desire to "quickly drop some pounds" is the real issue. We all have a optimal zone for weight loss. Someone with more than 75 pounds to lose can handle eating 1000 calories less than their maintenance, but someone with considerably less will run the risk of muscle loss and a compromised metabolism if they eat too little.
Honestly I have about 60 to lose..i guess I need to update my info? My goal really is to drop 2 or more lb a week...I just read soooo many conflicting comments on so many different boards..it's really quite frustrating really...
With your 50-ish pounds to lose, if 2000 calories is what it would take to maintain your current weight, 1000 calories is too little. 1250-1500 would do just fine. You might even lose more than the expected 1-1.5# a week.
We all want to lose weight fast. But eating the least amount your body can tolerate will only train your body to survive on minimal calories. If you want to eat as if you're dieting even when you reach maintenance... go right ahead.
I prefer to be able to enjoy eating pretty much whatever I want without worrying about gaining.0 -
Sorry I thought I typed a reply? I actually need to lose 60 + lbs and my goal is 2 lb or more per week...i just read soooo many conflicting takes on this...so frustrating...0
-
info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541
"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."
Starvation, yes.
Starvation mode, no.
Let's clarify.
Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.
Also, if someone was in the above scenario and the actually ate less, even much less, or even fasted, we all know they would start to lose weight. Yet, according to their reasoning behind the starvation mode, they should actually go further into this mode and not lose anymore weight at all.
Now, if someone consistently consumes a low calorie intake, or is in a negative calorie balance, and gets to a point where they have used up all their reserves of essential fats, they will enter what is known as "starvation" and not "starvation mode". And, they must eat at this time or they will soon die. This is not a weight issue but a life and death issue. And, we know that if they do eat, they will gain weight, not lose weight, as hypothesized in the starvation mode theory.
So, starvation mode does not exist. Starvation does and anyone can reach that point.
In starvation mode, they say you must eat more than you are, so you will lose more weight, which is absolutely incorrect.
In starvation, you must eat or you will die and you will gain weight as a result of eating.
You can see how they have completely misrepresented the actual issue of starvation into their crazy theory of the starvation mode."
Posted Earlier. Makes sense. I like the explanation this guy gives.0 -
info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541
"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."
Starvation, yes.
Starvation mode, no.
Let's clarify.
Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.
Also, if someone was in the above scenario and the actually ate less, even much less, or even fasted, we all know they would start to lose weight. Yet, according to their reasoning behind the starvation mode, they should actually go further into this mode and not lose anymore weight at all.
Now, if someone consistently consumes a low calorie intake, or is in a negative calorie balance, and gets to a point where they have used up all their reserves of essential fats, they will enter what is known as "starvation" and not "starvation mode". And, they must eat at this time or they will soon die. This is not a weight issue but a life and death issue. And, we know that if they do eat, they will gain weight, not lose weight, as hypothesized in the starvation mode theory.
So, starvation mode does not exist. Starvation does and anyone can reach that point.
In starvation mode, they say you must eat more than you are, so you will lose more weight, which is absolutely incorrect.
In starvation, you must eat or you will die and you will gain weight as a result of eating.
You can see how they have completely misrepresented the actual issue of starvation into their crazy theory of the starvation mode."
Oh, thank you. Thank you for posting this. I have been struggling with this concept intellectually since I signed on here... it seems so counter-intuitive. Which, of course, it is. The amount of pseudoscientific BS spouted on here is staggering.
To sum up what REAL weight loss is, without the Dr. Oz voodoo that people seem to love so much:
- Don't eat so much
- Eat better stuff
- Get off your *kitten* once in a while
That's it. "Starvation mode" is a bunch of crap and people should be ashamed for peddling it on here. You're not going to wake up a quivering mass of muscle-less flesh tomorrow if you're 300 calories under your 'goal' today.0 -
If you aren't losing weight the only solution is to eat less.
You absolutely need to eat more to lose.
Never eat your exercise calories.
Always eat your exercise calories.
No wonder newbies here are overwhelmed.
Wow thanks for saying this, I was just coming over to the boards to ask why MFP is always yelling at me to eat back my exercise calories and it just seems odd from anything I've ever read about weight loss. *scratching head* I'm so confused.0 -
info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541
"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."
Starvation, yes.
Starvation mode, no.
Let's clarify.
Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.
Also, if someone was in the above scenario and the actually ate less, even much less, or even fasted, we all know they would start to lose weight. Yet, according to their reasoning behind the starvation mode, they should actually go further into this mode and not lose anymore weight at all.
Now, if someone consistently consumes a low calorie intake, or is in a negative calorie balance, and gets to a point where they have used up all their reserves of essential fats, they will enter what is known as "starvation" and not "starvation mode". And, they must eat at this time or they will soon die. This is not a weight issue but a life and death issue. And, we know that if they do eat, they will gain weight, not lose weight, as hypothesized in the starvation mode theory.
So, starvation mode does not exist. Starvation does and anyone can reach that point.
In starvation mode, they say you must eat more than you are, so you will lose more weight, which is absolutely incorrect.
In starvation, you must eat or you will die and you will gain weight as a result of eating.
You can see how they have completely misrepresented the actual issue of starvation into their crazy theory of the starvation mode."
Oh, thank you. Thank you for posting this. I have been struggling with this concept intellectually since I signed on here... it seems so counter-intuitive. Which, of course, it is. The amount of pseudoscientific BS spouted on here is staggering.
To sum up what REAL weight loss is, without the Dr. Oz voodoo that people seem to love so much:
- Don't eat so much
- Eat better stuff
- Get off your *kitten* once in a while
That's it. "Starvation mode" is a bunch of crap and people should be ashamed for peddling it on here. You're not going to wake up a quivering mass of muscle-less flesh tomorrow if you're 300 calories under your 'goal' today.
YES!!! This is exactly my thoughts and exactly where I swear I keep going back to! YES i have put on weight over time (past 4 years all from eating too much on purpose) but in the past I lost LOTS of weight eating less than this magic 1200 number and lifting weights...every week I would usually have a cheat or 2 on the weekend but right back and the weight literally melted off..thats why the "starvation mode" thing I have just recently heard of (on boards like these) have thrown me off...I never once experienced a stall or gained my weight right back (like I said I gained it all back from purposely feeding myself full of stuff I knew I shouldn't be but did so for emotional reasons we won't go into on here)0 -
info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541
"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."
Starvation, yes.
Starvation mode, no.
Let's clarify.
Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.
Also, if someone was in the above scenario and the actually ate less, even much less, or even fasted, we all know they would start to lose weight. Yet, according to their reasoning behind the starvation mode, they should actually go further into this mode and not lose anymore weight at all.
Now, if someone consistently consumes a low calorie intake, or is in a negative calorie balance, and gets to a point where they have used up all their reserves of essential fats, they will enter what is known as "starvation" and not "starvation mode". And, they must eat at this time or they will soon die. This is not a weight issue but a life and death issue. And, we know that if they do eat, they will gain weight, not lose weight, as hypothesized in the starvation mode theory.
So, starvation mode does not exist. Starvation does and anyone can reach that point.
In starvation mode, they say you must eat more than you are, so you will lose more weight, which is absolutely incorrect.
In starvation, you must eat or you will die and you will gain weight as a result of eating.
You can see how they have completely misrepresented the actual issue of starvation into their crazy theory of the starvation mode."
Oh, thank you. Thank you for posting this. I have been struggling with this concept intellectually since I signed on here... it seems so counter-intuitive. Which, of course, it is. The amount of pseudoscientific BS spouted on here is staggering.
To sum up what REAL weight loss is, without the Dr. Oz voodoo that people seem to love so much:
- Don't eat so much
- Eat better stuff
- Get off your *kitten* once in a while
That's it. "Starvation mode" is a bunch of crap and people should be ashamed for peddling it on here. You're not going to wake up a quivering mass of muscle-less flesh tomorrow if you're 300 calories under your 'goal' today.
I
this!
I eat a good balanced diet, I exercise daily (cardio & weight training), I have a calorie deficit daily and I am not starving, or a quivering mass of muscle-less flesh. The weeks when the scale doesn't move down, don't bother me because I'm always losing fat & building muscle thus my body is getting smaller and smaller.0 -
If you aren't losing weight the only solution is to eat less.
You absolutely need to eat more to lose.
Never eat your exercise calories.
Always eat your exercise calories.
No wonder newbies here are overwhelmed.
Wow thanks for saying this, I was just coming over to the boards to ask why MFP is always yelling at me to eat back my exercise calories and it just seems odd from anything I've ever read about weight loss. *scratching head* I'm so confused.
THIS TOOOOO!!!! I never ever heard of eating back your calories until I got on this board? Less calories move more= weight loss in my past experience!0 -
Wow thanks for saying this, I was just coming over to the boards to ask why MFP is always yelling at me to eat back my exercise calories and it just seems odd from anything I've ever read about weight loss. *scratching head* I'm so confused.
THIS TOOOOO!!!! I never ever heard of eating back your calories until I got on this board? Less calories move more= weight loss in my past experience!
That's because MFP is different from other plans. For example, my trainer says "never go below 1800 calories/day". MFP says "start at 1400 and eat your exercise calories." They end up at the same place. *shrug* I don't get hung up on it.0 -
Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim?
Terrible logic. Obviously starvation is an effective way to burn fat, but it's also an effective way to simultaneously destroy muscle tissue, damage your organs, deplete vitamins/electrolytes, etc. Moderate net calorie reduction is the only way to emphasize fat stores as the energy reserve. Severe calorie reduction will result in your body de-prioritizing fat stores for as long as possible (thus wasting muscle etc), followed by a global deterioration of health.
Your logic is like saying "Hey, when you're late for work, just drive 150 miles per hour. You'll get there faster."0 -
Well, I'm one that has recently upped my calorie target because I exercise a lot and, lately, I haven't had any oomph to exercise. I'm not sick. I just have no energy. My workouts have suffered. And, while I'm still losing inches, my weight loss has stalled to nothing (1# since Christmas). Yes, I know that my body composition must be improving so I'm not completely. I'll take the inches lost over scale loss any day. However, I can't keep up my workouts on the calories I've been eating so I'm afraid I'll gain back inches because I've had to cut back so much on my exercising lately. And I'd rather exercise more because I have fitness goals I want to reach and, thus, need the energy.
For a long time, I exercised hard and didn't need those extra calories but now, I appear to need them. And I'm already seeing a difference in energy boost by eating them. Some of you who say you are energetic now without eating more, may find that this changes for you at some point in time, too.
There is a lot of good evidence out there that too big of a deficit slows your metabolism. I think starvation mode is a confusing term and think is should just be called "metabolism slump" or something like that.0 -
Agreed I've been saying that for a long time about the famine thing. If anything my binges should be addressed and scolded before a low day.0
-
Food = Fuel!!!! If you want to keep your lean muscle and be able to sustain workouts, you need to feed your body! I love exercise and burn an average of 700 calories per workout. I would not be able to sustain that effort with a diet of only 1000 calories per day. Your body DOES believe that it is starving when you are underfeeding it for a prolonged period of time, especially when you do not have a lot of weight to lose. Its not a myth. You will lower your metabolism, lose muscle mass (because it takes more energy to sustain than fat), and end up eating less and less to just sustain your weight. That doesn't sound fun/enjoyable to me! Fuel your bodies to live a HEALTHIER life. Also- I ate over 2000 calories today and I'm still in a deficit and I won't gain weight from it!0
-
From the 'OP'
First, thank you all so much for the interesting and informative replies. What led me to post this subject is the fact that I burn 1000+ a day through exercise, every day. I take a day off when I feel tired, about once a month. People on here had me worrying about 'starvation mode' as I eat about 1500 cals a day, but burn 1000 - 1200 a day walking/running etc (measured via Polar FT4). I simply cannot eat-back my exercise calories (I know - another contentious subject). I have porridge and fruit for brekkie, home made veggie soup for lunch, and a reasonable evening meal. I snack on stuff like quark, yoghurt and grapes, but can't shove in 1000-1200 calories extra every day into my diet. So far I lost 27lbs over 12 months. Am I ill? I hope not...
Best wishes to all in your journey to better health and fitness!
regards,
David0 -
Agreed I've been saying that for a long time about the famine thing. If anything my binges should be addressed and scolded before a low day.
To be fair, the "low days" are probably what cause you to binge. Restrict your calories too far and your body will rebel and beg for food, causing a binge.0 -
From the 'OP'
First, thank you all so much for the interesting and informative replies. What led me to post this subject is the fact that I burn 1000+ a day through exercise, every day. I take a day off when I feel tired, about once a month. People on here had me worrying about 'starvation mode' as I eat about 1500 cals a day, but burn 1000 - 1200 a day walking/running etc (measured via Polar FT4). I simply cannot eat-back my exercise calories (I know - another contentious subject). I have porridge and fruit for brekkie, home made veggie soup for lunch, and a reasonable evening meal. I snack on stuff like quark, yoghurt and grapes, but can't shove in 1000-1200 calories extra every day into my diet. So far I lost 27lbs over 12 months. Am I ill? I hope not...
Best wishes to all in your journey to better health and fitness!
regards,
David
Are you ill? Can't say, as I'm not a doctor, but I ate roughly 2500 calories a day, and lost 50 pounds in 6 months. So I ate almost double, and lost twice as much weight in half the time. Like I said earlier, calling it "starvation mode," is the problem. The condition is real, it's called "Famine Response," "Storage Mode," or "Conservation Mode," more accurately.0 -
From the 'OP'
First, thank you all so much for the interesting and informative replies. What led me to post this subject is the fact that I burn 1000+ a day through exercise, every day. I take a day off when I feel tired, about once a month. People on here had me worrying about 'starvation mode' as I eat about 1500 cals a day, but burn 1000 - 1200 a day walking/running etc (measured via Polar FT4). I simply cannot eat-back my exercise calories (I know - another contentious subject). I have porridge and fruit for brekkie, home made veggie soup for lunch, and a reasonable evening meal. I snack on stuff like quark, yoghurt and grapes, but can't shove in 1000-1200 calories extra every day into my diet. So far I lost 27lbs over 12 months. Am I ill? I hope not...
Best wishes to all in your journey to better health and fitness!
regards,
David
So you're netting 300-500 calories each day for your body to run all it's functions? And you have lost 27# in 12 months a year of doing this? I would say you're a living example of starvation mode, i.e. your metabolism slowing way down. Either that or you are chronically under-reporting calories eaten and over-reporting calories burned.0 -
THIS! here, is exactly why i ended up at MFP in the first place. 6 yrs. i've been the same size, same weight for 6 yrs. i have been to WW and Jenny craig. i have been with a personal trainer and seen doctors. for the past 6 yrs i was told i wasn't eating enough to lose weight, mainly because of the exercise i was doing. gym nightly for 1.5 hrs doing cardio and weights.
i never believed any of them. after all, calories in vs. calories out, right?? so, if i consume 800 calories in a day, but i burn that many in a work out, surely i should lose weight!! i did this for 6 yrs.
i am STRONG! and i am very very healthy!!! but, i cannot lose weight! so, i come to MFP and i log all my info in and it give me my 1200 cal for the day and i start logging. my days look like 800-900 cal. my work outs, are burning 300-700 calories, a day. slowly, i start to increase my calories because everyone here says " eat your calories, even your work out ones!!" so, i start to do that and guess what???
BAM! i start losing weight!! suddenly my pants are loose and my bras are getting too big. low and behold. i actually have to eat in order to lose weight.
however, my BRAIN still thinks like you think. i'm finally starting to see results after 6 yrs and today all i could think was " if i'm seeing results now, i should eat less and i'd see even better results, faster." and eating less for me would mean i would stall. i would not lose more weight. i would stay the exact same. it was be VERY easy for me to eat less. i would have NO PROBLEM with it. but, i know, for me, it would be counterproductive.
so, it's not always as easy as * eat less, move more*. i move a lot. i just found a million other things to do, besides eat, for the past 6 yrs!!!!Agreed! The most over used term in the diet communities. If you're not losing weight, eat less or move more.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions