call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL
Replies
-
copied this from another post i recently made...
seems to fit here...
the myth that low cal diets will slow your metabolism are unfounded...
In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change
-Webber J, Macdonald IA, The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women. British journal of nutrition 1994; 71:437-447.
In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate
-Heilbronn LK, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 81:69-73
In addition, people who were on very low calorie diets and on a resistance exercise program (i.e. lifting weights) did not see a decrease in resting metabolic rate, and these people were only eating 800 Calories a day for 12 weeks
In another interesting study, women who ate half the amount of food that they normally eat for 3 days saw no change in their metabolism either
-Keim NL, Horn WF. Restrained eating behavior and the metabolic response to dietary energy restriction in women. Obesity research 2004; 12:141-149.
The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.
Enough with the not eating enough will slow your metabolism people...
Are you really citing these studies to argue this point? One study done for 3days, another for 22 days....Really?????.... Really :huh:
Lol and one study is 18 years old!0 -
And when I ate crap all the time and binged on alcohol in my student days I mantained the exact same damn weight, if not slimmer, so what really is my maintenance weight...........Whether I have 4000 calories a day or 1500 it makes bugger all difference!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 -
Thank you Jen this explains a lot to many people. I've seen it before but it's worth seeing again.copied this from another post i recently made...
seems to fit here...
the myth that low cal diets will slow your metabolism are unfounded...
In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change
-Webber J, Macdonald IA, The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women. British journal of nutrition 1994; 71:437-447.
In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate
-Heilbronn LK, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 81:69-73
In addition, people who were on very low calorie diets and on a resistance exercise program (i.e. lifting weights) did not see a decrease in resting metabolic rate, and these people were only eating 800 Calories a day for 12 weeks
In another interesting study, women who ate half the amount of food that they normally eat for 3 days saw no change in their metabolism either
-Keim NL, Horn WF. Restrained eating behavior and the metabolic response to dietary energy restriction in women. Obesity research 2004; 12:141-149.
The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.
Enough with the not eating enough will slow your metabolism people...
Are you really citing these studies to argue this point? One study done for 3days, another for 22 days....Really?????.... Really :huh:
Lol and one study is 18 years old!0 -
Sorry just wanted to say thankyou to the post... and to all the people who dont like or agree with what is said, simply dont read it. there are some people like me who found this interesting.
This world is messed up enough without people moaning at other people over what they post.
again i say dont like it then simply jut dont read it. the title says it all
on another note i wish you all well on your journey0 -
She's 100% right. No need for bashing. Don't read the post if you know it all.
Thanks for the insight OP
0 -
According to online calculators my maintenance calories per day are well over 3000 so you are speaking rubbish. For very active my calories are > 4000According 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.
Today I will be having 1529 in total. Why do I bother? I don't know0 -
According to online calculators my maintenance calories per day are well over 3000 so you are speaking rubbish. For very active my calories are > 4000According 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.
Today I will be having 1529 in total. Why do I bother? I don't know
They're saying your maintenance has fallen below average precisely because of undereating.0 -
so what the heck should I do.0
-
so what the heck should I do.
Reread the posts to come to an understanding.
You are failing to avail yourself of supplied information for whatever reason.
Listen to what you have said in your last few posts, and what you complain has happened.
You have eaten at a certain 1900 level and lost NO weight for 6 months.
You think your daily calorie needs are 3000-4000.
YOUR METABOLISM HAS SLOWED DOWN.
When that happens, your body expends less energy, calories, on everything you do.
How do you fix it?
As several posts advised, you have to get your metabolism going again - by eating more.
If you don't believe this, grab a piece of scratch paper and write 1900 on it, and 4000 on it, and ponder why you haven't lost weight. Could your real meals be filling up a 2100 deficit somehow, every single day.
There have been several links to other threads to help anyone figure it out - you just have to be interested to go check it out.
You are to a level interersted, because you are logging food - first great step.
Now don't be so high minded that you got it all figured out and why bother if it hasn't been working, and go read them.0 -
Yeti0
-
Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:0 -
Starvation mode is a weird weird topic for me.
I had gastric surgery. For 5 weeks I literally didn't consume more than 500 calories a day, while drinking only protein shakes. I have to keep my protein to more than 70g/day. I worked my super physical job (wearing a pedometer, I never was below 8k-10k steps), going to the gym for aqua classes and doing cardio..EVERY day! If I'd read someone saying this, I'd accuse them of lying or cheating, but I did NOT
I lost not one lb. Not one. For those who think it's amusing, yes, I did actually consider trying to sell my metabolism to a 3rd world country. HOW could I exist on that? the deficit was clearly in excess of what I was consuming, yet there was ZERO weight loss.
I went to another forum, where I was advised to stop working out so much and eat more. I stopped going to the gym, and upped my calories to around 750. The first week, I lost 6 lbs.
Now, it seems extremely counterintuitive that to LOSE weight I had to MOVE less and EAT more, yet that's exactly what happened.
don't mock it unless you've been there.0 -
Bored are you? :huh:Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:0 -
Bored are you? :huh:Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:
No, just wondered what your motivation was for such an unconstructive message, 4 days after the last post, other than causing more mischief.
Some people are really having problems with this and need help and advice, not ridicule.0 -
huh?0
-
bump to read after work0
-
If I recall, less than 500 is extremely low, even for a gastric bypass patient. It makes sense that you would lose at a higher number of calories. Most beginning GB patients do from 500-1000.Starvation mode is a weird weird topic for me.
I had gastric surgery. For 5 weeks I literally didn't consume more than 500 calories a day, while drinking only protein shakes. I have to keep my protein to more than 70g/day. I worked my super physical job (wearing a pedometer, I never was below 8k-10k steps), going to the gym for aqua classes and doing cardio..EVERY day! If I'd read someone saying this, I'd accuse them of lying or cheating, but I did NOT
I lost not one lb. Not one. For those who think it's amusing, yes, I did actually consider trying to sell my metabolism to a 3rd world country. HOW could I exist on that? the deficit was clearly in excess of what I was consuming, yet there was ZERO weight loss.
I went to another forum, where I was advised to stop working out so much and eat more. I stopped going to the gym, and upped my calories to around 750. The first week, I lost 6 lbs.
Now, it seems extremely counterintuitive that to LOSE weight I had to MOVE less and EAT more, yet that's exactly what happened.
don't mock it unless you've been there.
Even at your 750, most people on MFP would say that you are in starvation mode.0 -
LOL..it is low, I agree...I had to go with what I was physically ABLE to consume. Pushing it even to 750 is a struggle for me sometimes. Unless I scarf chocolate or simple carbs, the calorie counts stay low. I still get physically sick from meat and a lot of protein sources, so shakes are the way to go.
Thanks for your input 0 -
Yet you read it?Bored are you? :huh:Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:
No, just wondered what your motivation was for such an unconstructive message, 4 days after the last post, other than causing more mischief.
Some people are really having problems with this and need help and advice, not ridicule.0 -
Bored are you? :huh:Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:
No, just wondered what your motivation was for such an unconstructive message, 4 days after the last post, other than causing more mischief.
Some people are really having problems with this and need help and advice, not ridicule.
Unfortunately, thats the way he 'rolls'.0 -
Yet you read it?Bored are you? :huh:Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:
No, just wondered what your motivation was for such an unconstructive message, 4 days after the last post, other than causing more mischief.
Some people are really having problems with this and need help and advice, not ridicule.
Of course I read it - when it pops up in the thread list you know new posts have been made, not how many or who, other than the last poster.
I was expecting some relevant posts, not just pointless trolling.
*sigh*0 -
Bored are you? :huh:Yeti
Bored are you? :ohwell:
No, just wondered what your motivation was for such an unconstructive message, 4 days after the last post, other than causing more mischief.
Some people are really having problems with this and need help and advice, not ridicule.
Unfortunately, thats the way he 'rolls'.
So I've discovered - no more responses from me.0 -
if starvation mode is real. explain to me why a proper "PSMF" diet is extremely effective???0
-
I'll believe what I want. The Scientists, or where ever the hell you got your information, are not always right. I don't believe it's real. You're hungry, and that's it, but it's not starvation mode. No one refers to the kids in Africa, do they? We don't need another one of these threads.0
-
frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...
otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...
why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...
There are other physical ailments out there that can limit what kind of exercising you can do. And there are a lot of physical ailments that can work against you when you are trying to do some kind of weight training.
I have a ton of physical issues that make exercising - ESPECIALLY weight training VERY difficult. So, don't assume that everyone is capable of doing what you can do.0 -
if starvation mode is real. explain to me why a proper "PSMF" diet is extremely effective???
How about quoting some studies that show the effectiveness, without metabolic slowdown, of a long term PSMF diet in the non-obese?0 -
Starvation mode is a weird weird topic for me.
I had gastric surgery. For 5 weeks I literally didn't consume more than 500 calories a day, while drinking only protein shakes. I have to keep my protein to more than 70g/day. I worked my super physical job (wearing a pedometer, I never was below 8k-10k steps), going to the gym for aqua classes and doing cardio..EVERY day! If I'd read someone saying this, I'd accuse them of lying or cheating, but I did NOT
I lost not one lb. Not one. For those who think it's amusing, yes, I did actually consider trying to sell my metabolism to a 3rd world country. HOW could I exist on that? the deficit was clearly in excess of what I was consuming, yet there was ZERO weight loss.
I went to another forum, where I was advised to stop working out so much and eat more. I stopped going to the gym, and upped my calories to around 750. The first week, I lost 6 lbs.
Now, it seems extremely counterintuitive that to LOSE weight I had to MOVE less and EAT more, yet that's exactly what happened.
don't mock it unless you've been there.
Obviously you've found what works for you and that it required a change to more food and less exercise.
Is the calories consumed (under 500) just referring to solid food, and not including the protein shakes? Because from what I've seen those tend to have a lot. But at the same time, that wouldn't be to blame for no loss for that long. Just curious about that part.
I also assume you did this with close doctor supervision/advice post surgery- did they advise the change or did you deicde to try it for yourself?0 -
I'll believe what I want. The Scientists, or where ever the hell you got your information, are not always right. I don't believe it's real. You're hungry, and that's it, but it's not starvation mode. No one refers to the kids in Africa, do they? We don't need another one of these threads.
Hunger has nothing to do with starvation mode.0 -
frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...
otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...
why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...
Respectfully dude.... That doesn't always mean that. There are overweight people in wheelchairs. Ones that couldn't even walk while triing to lose weight.
My thoughts exactly. I know many who have diseases where it would be detrimental for them to try to lift weights and of course there are the ones that are in wheel chairs unable to even feed themselves much less lift weights. They would give anything to be able to exercise. I found that statement very insensitive.0 -
We all know what starving ourselves can do, we see it on the TV all the time !0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions