call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL
Replies
-
I see ribs, but okay then...
I see you lack of adequate caloric intake has effected your eyes sight and reading comprehension skills. Or could it be your heavy consumption of sippin' on that hatorade?
^^ Brilliant!! Love it! She is perfect. I would hate on her too, BUT she provides me with ab workouts so I only have love
love this! thanks sweetness!
0 -
Your body perceives itself to be "starving",
You think someone on a -500 calorie deficit is starving? This person's body thinks it's starving by eating a bowl of cereal and a banana less a day?It is OK to have a different opinion!
This shouldn't be the grounds for misinformation. I recall the infamous Hodge Twins saying at the end of all their videos that they are simply giving "advice." Bad advice is bad. And wrong advice can be wrong. Just because it's an opinion or advice does not stop it from being wrong or bad.0 -
This shouldn't be the grounds for misinformation. I recall the infamous Hodge Twins saying at the end of all their videos that they are simply giving "advice." Bad advice is bad. And wrong advice can be wrong. Just because it's an opinion or advice does not stop it from being wrong or bad.
^ This. Great post.
Not to pimp my own articles since that's kind of douchey, but... well, I'm doing it anyways:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/496770-misinformation0 -
there are people that cant exersize not because they are too fat, but they might have physical dissability. I for instance have two spinal cord injuries, I still exersize,but there are I,m sure some that cant!0
-
I'm happy there is evidence that it isn't permanent and I'd say my own experience shows this. The fact that I'm still capable of losing weight after years of periodic crash dieting is wonderful.
I think starvation mode is much more common than many believe. Many teens and young adults have no real knowledge of how their body works. Couple that with a desperate desire to look like fashion models and a sedentary lifestyle, and you end up with a lot of people on 500 calorie a day diets. The weight loss industry encourages this, with their claims that you will lose 20 pounds a week, or be bikini ready in 30 days. Just take six pills with a large glass of water or drink a couple of shakes every day and your problems are over!0 -
When was this paper published? It says 'for the first time...'....we (in the industry I guess) have known about this for long time. There are hundreds of studies on calorie restriction extending lifespan by slowing metabolic processes like cell turnover. It's not a thing you 'believe' like Santa Claus. Whether it happens to you or not is one thing, but it is a physiological phenomenon and denying that it exists at ALL is just ignorant.0
-
No scientific sources sited. This is based on rough knowledge of biology and history, and trying to explain it in an easy to digest manner.
Many people don't seem to understand that what we call "starvation mode" is a survival mechanism. It's not some made-up hooey by the diet industry to make people feel better or worse about their eating habits.
Throughout history, people had times of feast and times of famine. Our bodies slowing our metabolic rate was how we survived famine... droughts, crop failures, long winters, etc. When there wasn't enough food for us to maintain our weight, our bodies would adapt to conserve energy... to prevent us from losing massive amounts of weight while waiting for the next big hunt or crop of potatoes. We'd still lose weight, but not as much as you'd expect given the living conditions.
As a result, we often lose muscle. While as vain humans who love the look of muscle, we think it's a hot commodity and don't want to lose it, to our bodies during real or perceived famine, it's a huge waist of energy since it burns more calories than fat. Think of it like an airplane carrying gold that's losing altitude and needs to jettison cargo. The gold might be valuable... but the pilot will dump the gold if that's what it takes to avoid crashing into the frickin' ocean!
I can't speak for everyone, but I know when I wanted to lose weight, it was to look and feel better. To be healthier, fitter, stronger. To THRIVE, not just survive. Just because someone can survive on minimal calories doesn't mean they're THRIVING.
Give your body what it needs to thrive. It will thank you for it. And you won't crash into the frickin' ocean.0 -
No scientific sources sited. This is based on rough knowledge of biology and history, and trying to explain it in an easy to digest manner.
Many people don't seem to understand that what we call "starvation mode" is a survival mechanism. It's not some made-up hooey by the diet industry to make people feel better or worse about their eating habits.
Throughout history, people had times of feast and times of famine. Our bodies slowing our metabolic rate was how we survived famine... droughts, crop failures, long winters, etc. When there wasn't enough food for us to maintain our weight, our bodies would adapt to conserve energy... to prevent us from losing massive amounts of weight while waiting for the next big hunt or crop of potatoes. We'd still lose weight, but not as much as you'd expect given the living conditions.
As a result, we often lose muscle. While as vain humans who love the look of muscle, we think it's a hot commodity and don't want to lose it, to our bodies during real or perceived famine, it's a huge waist of energy since it burns more calories than fat. Think of it like an airplane carrying gold that's losing altitude and needs to jettison cargo. The gold might be valuable... but the pilot will dump the gold if that's what it takes to avoid crashing into the frickin' ocean!
I can't speak for everyone, but I know when I wanted to lose weight, it was to look and feel better. To be healthier, fitter, stronger. To THRIVE, not just survive. Just because someone can survive on minimal calories doesn't mean they're THRIVING.
Give your body what it needs to thrive. It will thank you for it. And you won't crash into the frickin' ocean.
I love that ocean analogy. Here, have another Easter Egg. 0 -
You're saying no-ones opinion is so-called "ridiculous" Ok then. What if I posted, "In my opinion, the best and quickest way to lose weight is to use Meth. Look at me, I'm shredded, I used meth and I lost 20 pounds in a month without exercise". Wouldn't you agree that's a ridiculous opinion?
Lol! Oh man, if meth werent so bad for you, I could thinner and more productive! Lol!0 -
No scientific sources sited. This is based on rough knowledge of biology and history, and trying to explain it in an easy to digest manner.
Many people don't seem to understand that what we call "starvation mode" is a survival mechanism. It's not some made-up hooey by the diet industry to make people feel better or worse about their eating habits.
Throughout history, people had times of feast and times of famine. Our bodies slowing our metabolic rate was how we survived famine... droughts, crop failures, long winters, etc. When there wasn't enough food for us to maintain our weight, our bodies would adapt to conserve energy... to prevent us from losing massive amounts of weight while waiting for the next big hunt or crop of potatoes. We'd still lose weight, but not as much as you'd expect given the living conditions.
As a result, we often lose muscle. While as vain humans who love the look of muscle, we think it's a hot commodity and don't want to lose it, to our bodies during real or perceived famine, it's a huge waist of energy since it burns more calories than fat. Think of it like an airplane carrying gold that's losing altitude and needs to jettison cargo. The gold might be valuable... but the pilot will dump the gold if that's what it takes to avoid crashing into the frickin' ocean!
I can't speak for everyone, but I know when I wanted to lose weight, it was to look and feel better. To be healthier, fitter, stronger. To THRIVE, not just survive. Just because someone can survive on minimal calories doesn't mean they're THRIVING.
Give your body what it needs to thrive. It will thank you for it. And you won't crash into the frickin' ocean.
LOVE THIS!! Great explanation!0 -
Bump0
-
"Starvation Mode" is an attention-*kitten*. Its wants all the threads to eventually come back down to being all about it.
Too many people dont realise the truth behind this.
And too many people dont care that it takes a while to build up your calories to an acceptable amount, sometimes. They see someone eat 1100 calories and they go all self-righteous - youre stupid on the person... without even considering that that person is already trying to up their calories. Or that they may already have been excited about adding 200 calories to their daily and have been able to sustain it for two weeks before deciding to add another 1-200.
People see low caloric instake, call the person an indiot that's self sabotaging, throw facts in their face and walk away.
I see low caloric intake and say- oh look- they ate two tbsp of peanut butter at the end of the day- she really tried today- I commend her for working in the right direction.
I appreciate the posts about starvation mode and crippling your metabolism, but it would also be nice if those struggling to up their calories got feedback other than 'Stop being stupid about food'.0 -
No scientific sources sited. This is based on rough knowledge of biology and history, and trying to explain it in an easy to digest manner.
Many people don't seem to understand that what we call "starvation mode" is a survival mechanism. It's not some made-up hooey by the diet industry to make people feel better or worse about their eating habits.
Throughout history, people had times of feast and times of famine. Our bodies slowing our metabolic rate was how we survived famine... droughts, crop failures, long winters, etc. When there wasn't enough food for us to maintain our weight, our bodies would adapt to conserve energy... to prevent us from losing massive amounts of weight while waiting for the next big hunt or crop of potatoes. We'd still lose weight, but not as much as you'd expect given the living conditions.
As a result, we often lose muscle. While as vain humans who love the look of muscle, we think it's a hot commodity and don't want to lose it, to our bodies during real or perceived famine, it's a huge waist of energy since it burns more calories than fat. Think of it like an airplane carrying gold that's losing altitude and needs to jettison cargo. The gold might be valuable... but the pilot will dump the gold if that's what it takes to avoid crashing into the frickin' ocean!
I can't speak for everyone, but I know when I wanted to lose weight, it was to look and feel better. To be healthier, fitter, stronger. To THRIVE, not just survive. Just because someone can survive on minimal calories doesn't mean they're THRIVING.
Give your body what it needs to thrive. It will thank you for it. And you won't crash into the frickin' ocean.
Easy to understand common sense... :flowerforyou:0 -
I see ribs, but okay then...
I see you lack of adequate caloric intake has effected your eyes sight and reading comprehension skills. Or could it be your heavy consumption of sippin' on that hatorade?
I was going to say something similar - but you said it better than I could!!0 -
I think confusion on this comes that real starvation mode, where the body not only does a metabolic slowdown, but also changes the basic energy usage equation to NOT burn as much fat and use more muscle, is hard to get to.
But plain old metabolic slowdown, which many say should be realized and should be no surprise - actually is a surprise to many on MFP that had no idea eating very little and exercise a lot can cause the metabolism to slow down so much - your 1200 becomes maintenance level eating.
Energy usage is the same, still burn fat primarily at rest, still burn glucose more as exercise intensity goes up, still break down muscle if glucose isn't available, ect.
It all just happens at MUCH slower rate.
And for every thought that you'll keep metabolism high by doing this or that - you can't. That just means other things the metabolism would normally like to do at say 1600 calories, is no longer accomplished with net 800 calories.
And ask everyone that has stalled or plateau'd for months on end if possible to be eating very little but still at maintenance level, of course.
Only 2 directions to go then, less calories and more exercise, or eat more and allow metabolism to fly.
1 direction will work, 1 will cause another slowdown.0 -
I tend to think of starvation mode as a Yeti or an UFO. Everyone claims to have seen it and some may even have photographs but when you take a closer look it's really some guy in a suit or an airplane.I think confusion on this comes that real starvation mode, where the body not only does a metabolic slowdown, but also changes the basic energy usage equation to NOT burn as much fat and use more muscle, is hard to get to.
But plain old metabolic slowdown, which many say should be realized and should be no surprise - actually is a surprise to many on MFP that had no idea eating very little and exercise a lot can cause the metabolism to slow down so much - your 1200 becomes maintenance level eating.
Energy usage is the same, still burn fat primarily at rest, still burn glucose more as exercise intensity goes up, still break down muscle if glucose isn't available, ect.
It all just happens at MUCH slower rate.
And for every thought that you'll keep metabolism high by doing this or that - you can't. That just means other things the metabolism would normally like to do at say 1600 calories, is no longer accomplished with net 800 calories.
And ask everyone that has stalled or plateau'd for months on end if possible to be eating very little but still at maintenance level, of course.
Only 2 directions to go then, less calories and more exercise, or eat more and allow metabolism to fly.
1 direction will work, 1 will cause another slowdown.0 -
I see abs.
x3
I see ribs, but okay then...
Are you kidding me? This girl busts her butt working out and eats a crap ton of food for her beautiful ABS. I weigh more than Love does and I'm pretty sure she could bench press me any day of the week.
x20 -
I tend to think of starvation mode as a Yeti or an UFO. Everyone claims to have seen it and some may even have photographs but when you take a closer look it's really some guy in a suit or an airplane
Well I must have been a medical marvel then, because I was in starvation mode. In my case it was brought on my 17 days in ICU with very very low calories (the low calories were nothing to do with my treatment - they were just as a result of being there). That, together with very low calories after (my energy and appetite were shot) totally blew my metabolism for a very long time. I actually find it offensive that it is made a joke out of.0 -
According to MFP, I eat on average about 1900 calories or so per day (including any drinks - I make sure to include EVERYTHING). I also exercise most days (weights and cardio), so often my net calories can be like 1400 or less/more.
Yet despite doing this for months, I don't appear to have lost a single pound. I weigh about 276lb and for the best part of 6 months have given up alcohol and eaten very modestly yet the weight does not shift an inch.
So if starvation mode (or at least severe metabolic issues) doesn't exist then what the hell is happening to me? My maintenance calories are probably more like 3000+ yet often I can eat near HALF THAT.
Nobody seems to understand. I;'m pretty sure I don't have hyperthyroidism. I presume my metabolism is very low but after dieting for so long surely SOME weight should have shifted!!!!!????????0 -
According to MFP, I eat on average about 1900 calories or so per day (including any drinks - I make sure to include EVERYTHING). I also exercise most days (weights and cardio), so often my net calories can be like 1400 or less/more.
Yet despite doing this for months, I don't appear to have lost a single pound. I weigh about 276lb and for the best part of 6 months have given up alcohol and eaten very modestly yet the weight does not shift an inch.
So if starvation mode (or at least severe metabolic issues) doesn't exist then what the hell is happening to me? My maintenance calories are probably more like 3000+ yet often I can eat near HALF THAT.
Nobody seems to understand. I;'m pretty sure I don't have hyperthyroidism. I presume my metabolism is very low but after dieting for so long surely SOME weight should have shifted!!!!!????????
I would definitely say that at your current weight you should most certainly be losing weight eating 1900 calories. How long have you been in a deficit? I'd switch to maintenance for a while and then resume losing.0 -
According to MFP, I eat on average about 1900 calories or so per day (including any drinks - I make sure to include EVERYTHING). I also exercise most days (weights and cardio), so often my net calories can be like 1400 or less/more.
Yet despite doing this for months, I don't appear to have lost a single pound. I weigh about 276lb and for the best part of 6 months have given up alcohol and eaten very modestly yet the weight does not shift an inch.
So if starvation mode (or at least severe metabolic issues) doesn't exist then what the hell is happening to me? My maintenance calories are probably more like 3000+ yet often I can eat near HALF THAT.
Nobody seems to understand. I;'m pretty sure I don't have hyperthyroidism. I presume my metabolism is very low but after dieting for so long surely SOME weight should have shifted!!!!!????????
Uh, your maintenance calories are 1900, that's why you don't lose anything, because your metabolism is so slow. Not starvation mode, slow-down mode.
if your maintenance was 3000, you would be losing 1 lb a week.
Have you been slapped in the face with a dose of reality over these 6 months to realize yet that this is the wrong way to do it? What's that definition of insanity, do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I only say this because nothing in your post stands out as a help me, but rather I don't understand and blaming it on starvation mode.
Ready to do it right, or you wanna try eating less and exercising more and seeing how slow you can go, until you hit bottom?
Oh, netting 1400 times activity factor of 1.35 for Lightly Active (Spend a good part of the day on your feet (e.g. nurse, salesman) equals 1900 calories.
That's what I mean by maintenance level.0 -
According to MFP, I eat on average about 1900 calories or so per day (including any drinks - I make sure to include EVERYTHING). I also exercise most days (weights and cardio), so often my net calories can be like 1400 or less/more.
Yet despite doing this for months, I don't appear to have lost a single pound. I weigh about 276lb and for the best part of 6 months have given up alcohol and eaten very modestly yet the weight does not shift an inch.
So if starvation mode (or at least severe metabolic issues) doesn't exist then what the hell is happening to me? My maintenance calories are probably more like 3000+ yet often I can eat near HALF THAT.
Nobody seems to understand. I;'m pretty sure I don't have hyperthyroidism. I presume my metabolism is very low but after dieting for so long surely SOME weight should have shifted!!!!!????????
Uh, your maintenance calories are 1900, that's why you don't lose anything, because your metabolism is so slow. Not starvation mode, slow-down mode.
I highly doubt a 26 year old guy weighing 276 pounds has lower maintenance calories than I do as a 130 pound 40 year old woman.0 -
Huge difference between starving and "starvation mode" I'm sorry you went through a hard time in the ICU. Glad you made it through and that you are able to voice your opinion. I think one way you another. So many people agree with me and some with you. I'm glad we all have a forum to express it..I tend to think of starvation mode as a Yeti or an UFO. Everyone claims to have seen it and some may even have photographs but when you take a closer look it's really some guy in a suit or an airplane
Well I must have been a medical marvel then, because I was in starvation mode. In my case it was brought on my 17 days in ICU with very very low calories (the low calories were nothing to do with my treatment - they were just as a result of being there). That, together with very low calories after (my energy and appetite were shot) totally blew my metabolism for a very long time. I actually find it offensive that it is made a joke out of.0 -
According to MFP, I eat on average about 1900 calories or so per day (including any drinks - I make sure to include EVERYTHING). I also exercise most days (weights and cardio), so often my net calories can be like 1400 or less/more.
Yet despite doing this for months, I don't appear to have lost a single pound. I weigh about 276lb and for the best part of 6 months have given up alcohol and eaten very modestly yet the weight does not shift an inch.
So if starvation mode (or at least severe metabolic issues) doesn't exist then what the hell is happening to me? My maintenance calories are probably more like 3000+ yet often I can eat near HALF THAT.
Nobody seems to understand. I;'m pretty sure I don't have hyperthyroidism. I presume my metabolism is very low but after dieting for so long surely SOME weight should have shifted!!!!!????????
Uh, your maintenance calories are 1900, that's why you don't lose anything, because your metabolism is so slow. Not starvation mode, slow-down mode.
I highly doubt a 26 year old guy weighing 276 pounds has lower maintenance calories than I do as a 130 pound 40 year old woman.
If you net low enough for your level of activity, it can be accomplished by anyone at any weight.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/546227-for-the-500-000-time-eating-more-works?page=20#posts-77983520 -
Huge difference between starving and "starvation mode" I'm sorry you went through a hard time in the ICU. Glad you made it through and that you are able to voice your opinion. I think one way you another. So many people agree with me and some with you. I'm glad we all have a forum to express it..I tend to think of starvation mode as a Yeti or an UFO. Everyone claims to have seen it and some may even have photographs but when you take a closer look it's really some guy in a suit or an airplane
Well I must have been a medical marvel then, because I was in starvation mode. In my case it was brought on my 17 days in ICU with very very low calories (the low calories were nothing to do with my treatment - they were just as a result of being there). That, together with very low calories after (my energy and appetite were shot) totally blew my metabolism for a very long time. I actually find it offensive that it is made a joke out of.
I was not 'starving' - I was in ICU, do you really think they would have let me starve? My metabolism was totally shot due to the time in ICU and the subsequent undereating. We may be in semantics here, but I use (and I think many others here do) the term starvation mode to mean having your metabolism screwed up so it slows down significantly.
Anyway, on a lighter note, thank you for the kind words.0 -
Being in the ICU is scary. Seriously glad you're around even if you disagree with me 100%. Continue to thrive.Huge difference between starving and "starvation mode" I'm sorry you went through a hard time in the ICU. Glad you made it through and that you are able to voice your opinion. I think one way you another. So many people agree with me and some with you. I'm glad we all have a forum to express it..I tend to think of starvation mode as a Yeti or an UFO. Everyone claims to have seen it and some may even have photographs but when you take a closer look it's really some guy in a suit or an airplane
Well I must have been a medical marvel then, because I was in starvation mode. In my case it was brought on my 17 days in ICU with very very low calories (the low calories were nothing to do with my treatment - they were just as a result of being there). That, together with very low calories after (my energy and appetite were shot) totally blew my metabolism for a very long time. I actually find it offensive that it is made a joke out of.
I was not 'starving' - I was in ICU, do you really think they would have let me starve? My metabolism was totally shot due to the time in ICU and the subsequent undereating. We may be in semantics here, but I use (and I think many others here do) the term starvation mode to mean having your metabolism screwed up so it slows down significantly.
Anyway, on a lighter note, thank you for the kind words.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
What? My maintenance calories are a hell of a lot higher than 1900. Are you being serious? I'm 276lb and you expect me to eat less than 1900 calories a day? Oh dear...I would probably collapse if I ate less.According to MFP, I eat on average about 1900 calories or so per day (including any drinks - I make sure to include EVERYTHING). I also exercise most days (weights and cardio), so often my net calories can be like 1400 or less/more.
Yet despite doing this for months, I don't appear to have lost a single pound. I weigh about 276lb and for the best part of 6 months have given up alcohol and eaten very modestly yet the weight does not shift an inch.
So if starvation mode (or at least severe metabolic issues) doesn't exist then what the hell is happening to me? My maintenance calories are probably more like 3000+ yet often I can eat near HALF THAT.
Nobody seems to understand. I;'m pretty sure I don't have hyperthyroidism. I presume my metabolism is very low but after dieting for so long surely SOME weight should have shifted!!!!!????????
Uh, your maintenance calories are 1900, that's why you don't lose anything, because your metabolism is so slow. Not starvation mode, slow-down mode.
if your maintenance was 3000, you would be losing 1 lb a week.
Have you been slapped in the face with a dose of reality over these 6 months to realize yet that this is the wrong way to do it? What's that definition of insanity, do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I only say this because nothing in your post stands out as a help me, but rather I don't understand and blaming it on starvation mode.
Ready to do it right, or you wanna try eating less and exercising more and seeing how slow you can go, until you hit bottom?
Oh, netting 1400 times activity factor of 1.35 for Lightly Active (Spend a good part of the day on your feet (e.g. nurse, salesman) equals 1900 calories.
That's what I mean by maintenance level.0 -
What? My maintenance calories are a hell of a lot higher than 1900. Are you being serious? I'm 276lb and you expect me to eat less than 1900 calories a day? Oh dear...I would probably collapse if I ate less.
Maintenance calories are by definition the calories required to maintain your current weight. So if you net 1900 calories a day on average for 6 months and still weigh the same, your maintenance is 1900 calories.
Calories in are easy to measure and record. Calories out are where the whole "starvation mode" comes into play. That one is much more difficult to record. We can calculate our BMR and all that, but even then that's just a close approximation that works for most people.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions