Starvation mode hysteria

astrampe · February 2012

Amen, OP, amen. Starvation mode is such bull.

WOW....what an intelligent remark....Please tell me you are being sarcastic? Or at least did not read any of the responses by people who actually lived through this.....:sad:

Di3012 · February 2012

Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim? Those people twittering on about starvation mode need to get a life, start losing weight, and stop scaremongering. I don't advocate starving as a weight-loss method, but fasting for a day or two never did anyone harm. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the SM term used on here, and feel it is a popular phrase used by people who eat too much...

Sorry for the short rant, but this has bugged me for a while. Feel free to crucify me...

Regards, David

I am with you on this David, truly.

Someone asked if they would go into starvation mode during the night if they are 50 calories under for the day, it's ridiculous. I have seen such a post too, had to read it twice to check I hadn't misread LOL!

Somebody who weighs over 250lbs, asking if they will go into starvation mode because they think their calorie allowance for each day was on the low side - It wasn't even that low, just lower (a lot lower) than what they had been eating I guess.

People need to concentrate more on what they eat rather than harp on about how low some daily allowances are.

LorinaLynn · February 2012

I won't use the term starvation mode, but I seriously effed up my metabolism and body composition by eating too little for a prolonged period of time.

I lost more, and a larger percentage of body fat, by eating 1800-2000 calories a day THIS time around than I did eating 700-900 calories a day years ago. If someone had told me when I wasn't eating enough that I had to eat less and move more to lose more weight, and I believed them, I would have ended up in a hospital.

Luckily, my love of food won over my desire to be thinner and I stopped that ridiculous diet. I just wish I'd known then that aiming to lose a half pound a week, just 250 calories less than it takes me to maintain my weight, would yield me better results than trying to lose 2 pounds a week. And I wish I realized then that increased activity demands increased fuel. The concept of exercise calories was the holy grail for me!

LuciaLongIsland · February 2012

Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim? Those people twittering on about starvation mode need to get a life, start losing weight, and stop scaremongering. I don't advocate starving as a weight-loss method, but fasting for a day or two never did anyone harm. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the SM term used on here, and feel it is a popular phrase used by people who eat too much...

Sorry for the short rant, but this has bugged me for a while. Feel free to crucify me...

Regards, David

I TOTALLY AGREE. I have done research, posted it spoken to doctors. It is a Starvation Myth. If people were starving, they wouldn't be overweight. I would like to see a picture of a overweight Holocaust survivor. People need excuses to eat.

taso42 · February 2012

TDGee · February 2012

Call it what you will. I hate the term starvation mode and I avoid using it. But if you undereat, you will very likely stall

Here are examples from recent months

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/419136-what-am-i-doing-wrong
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/419393-need-serious-help-please
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/420759-gaining-weight-on-a-low-carb-diet-please-help
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/421412-so-fed-up-there-has-to-be-an-easier-way
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/446248-why-am-i-gaining-weight
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447513-disillusioned
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/448803-not-loosing-weight-or-inches
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/454374-gaining-with-scrict-diet-and-workouts
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/455392-no-results-at-all-despair
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/457566-why-cant-i-loose-weight-or-inches
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/457037-feeling-disheartened
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/467001-why-1200-c-a-day-and-still-no-weight-loss
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/480698-assistance-please-this-is-getting-ridiculous
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/480186-tiredness
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/487729-the-scale-wont-move

Reported for AWESOMENESS!!

Aggieman09 · February 2012

The arrogance of the "Crossfit/Paleo" crowd cracks me up.

Does that particular diet plan have some good qualities? Sure.

Am I happy that it is working for you? Sure.

Is it the right plan for everyone? No.

Personally, I view it as just another "fad diet." I think that it is only a matter of time until something else comes around and replaces it.

FWIW...

I plateaued for about 3 weeks and I decided to eat MORE and exercise LESS to see what would happen. I ended up having a big loss for the week and I am now back to consistent weight loss each week. Go figure.

fakeplastictree · February 2012

Call it what you will. I hate the term starvation mode and I avoid using it. But if you undereat, you will very likely stall

Here are examples from recent months

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/419136-what-am-i-doing-wrong
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/419393-need-serious-help-please
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/420759-gaining-weight-on-a-low-carb-diet-please-help
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/421412-so-fed-up-there-has-to-be-an-easier-way
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/446248-why-am-i-gaining-weight
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447513-disillusioned
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/448803-not-loosing-weight-or-inches
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/454374-gaining-with-scrict-diet-and-workouts
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/455392-no-results-at-all-despair
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/457566-why-cant-i-loose-weight-or-inches
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/457037-feeling-disheartened
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/467001-why-1200-c-a-day-and-still-no-weight-loss
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/480698-assistance-please-this-is-getting-ridiculous
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/480186-tiredness
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/487729-the-scale-wont-move

Yep.

eksims1 · February 2012

Everyone is different and different things work for others. For my dad, fasting for a day once a week really worked for him. For me and my mom, that does not work at all. To each their own.

summergirl73 · February 2012

SM = STORAGE not Starvation

kathyc609 · February 2012

Bump - I am not starving

sophjakesmom · February 2012

No wonder newbies here are overwhelmed. I prefer to take a "hey, this works for some, but it may not work for you" approach. There is no one size fits all when it comes to weight loss. These boards would be a little more friendly if people were a little less opinionated and a little more open. People lose a couple of pounds and suddenly we are all weight loss and nutrition experts.

^^^^^ this!!! Everyone is different. Everyone tracks/estimates differently. You have to find out what works for you, and it is important to acknowledge that not everyone will have the exact same experience as you do.

lizard053 · February 2012

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.

I'll bet you my 302 lbs. lost this statement is DEAD WRONG...........

As someone else also posted, it's a misnomer!
And a lot of people break those dreaded plateaus with an increase in calories. So how do they explain that? Truly.
The "starvation mode" phenomena is a real occurrence. It doesn't happen to everyone, but it could. It is something our bodies do to preserve itself at any cost. Some people's systems have it happen quickly, others not at all. Why? Who knows. But it is real, and I've seen it happen over and over to people.
I do agree it is thrown around a lot more than it should be. Most people who are sensible about eating and exercise will never have to face it. But what about those who do? Don't they deserve to know what's going on?

grinch031 · February 2012

As someone else also posted, it's a misnomer!
And a lot of people break those dreaded plateaus with an increase in calories. So how do they explain that? Truly.

They could be retaining water because of cortisol, and the increases in calories lowers cortisol and causes a whoosh.

lizziebeth1028 · February 2012

Although I agree that there is such a thing as starvation mode I have to say that it is WAYYY overused in the dieting community. I'm sure there is a fair percentage of people out there that need to get real, they're under estimating calories consumed and over estimating calories burned through exercise. Before you jump on the starvation mode bandwagon I think you really need to scrutinize your diet, invest in a food scale and HRM and be honest with your logging. Now before everybody gets there panties in a bunch...I do agree starvation mode exists...just not as frequently as presumed.

mom2jjl · February 2012

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."

THIS makes perfect sense to me!

littlebeans · February 2012

The truth of the term or not, the reason I eat my exercise calories back and eat a lot more compared to most of the 1200 and below daily diets is simple: I do not want to live on little to no food, period. There is no way I could sustain a lifestyle or a weightloss on that kind of diet.

As someone who loves food, beer, celebrating, I'd rather lose slow and steady and live regularly than have to live in diet land.

mom2jjl · February 2012

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?!

piccolarj · February 2012

Agreed! The most over used term in the diet communities. If you're not losing weight, eat less or move more.

Sweetheart if this was true then I would have lost all my weight my eating 700-900 per day and burning 800-2000 calories(I'm a cyclist so that is how I burn that many calories doing 50-60 mile bike rides) 6 days a week. And yes I weighed and measured everything and yes I have a HRM so I know my calories burned were correct. I lost some but it soon came to an end and I still had 50 pounds of fat I wanted to lose. I kept that up for 8-9 months before I realized what I was doing to myself. I started eating more and yes I gained for 4 months before my body was comfortable letting go of any weight. Now I'm losing again and being able to do more in my worouts. So it's not as black and white as your statement. Yes I agree starvation mode is a pretty harsh statement but undereating over an extended period of time does reek havic on your metabolism.

taso42 · February 2012

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?!

You will quickly drop some pounds. But it won't be sustainable. If you're lucky, everything will still be completely fine in the long run. If you're unlucky, you'll post yet another one of those "Help I've stopped losing" threads and/or go on a wild binge and derail yourself.

Di3012 · February 2012

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.

LorinaLynn · February 2012

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.

mom2jjl · February 2012

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.

mom2jjl · February 2012

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...

Chsayer · February 2012

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.

naastrodamus · February 2012

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.

StarvingDiva · February 2012

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.

mom2jjl · February 2012

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)

MrsLVF · February 2012

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.

mom2jjl · February 2012

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!

Starvation mode hysteria

Replies

Categories