call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL
Replies
-
out of curiosity I used a TDEE calculator it came out to 3160 lol wow. Never looked up any of this stuff has I have already lost most of my weight
And that's pretty much what we're getting at. You're eating about half of what someone of your age, height and weight "should" eat... You have about a 1500 daily calorie deficit, and more after exercise. By the math, you "should" be losing 3-4 pounds a week. If you're not, that means that your body has adapted - slowed down - to compensate for the lack of food. Maybe your weight loss hasn't slowed, and you haven't gained, but you're kind of a walking, talking example of starvation mode in action.
Look, I did it that way, too. I ate very little (and by very little, I mean half of what my body typically burns in a day) and lost the weight I wanted to lose. Slowly. And gained it right back again because my body had slowed down so much that I would have had to keep dieting to keep it off.
This time, eating the right amount, losing it and keeping it off has been easy.0 -
I dont feel deprived and I eat enough where I feel full.I wanted out of curiosity to see what it was and because helloitsdan seemed interested.Well ive been eating like this for years now. Being keeping it off maybe by luck. I dont do the whole counting or bmr /tdee Honestly had never heard of it until recently.out of curiosity I used a TDEE calculator it came out to 3160 lol wow. Never looked up any of this stuff has I have already lost most of my weight
And that's pretty much what we're getting at. You're eating about half of what someone of your age, height and weight "should" eat... You have about a 1500 daily calorie deficit, and more after exercise. By the math, you "should" be losing 3-4 pounds a week. If you're not, that means that your body has adapted - slowed down - to compensate for the lack of food. Maybe your weight loss hasn't slowed, and you haven't gained, but you're kind of a walking, talking example of starvation mode in action.
Look, I did it that way, too. I ate very little (and by very little, I mean half of what my body typically burns in a day) and lost the weight I wanted to lose. Slowly. And gained it right back again because my body had slowed down so much that I would have had to keep dieting to keep it off.
This time, eating the right amount, losing it and keeping it off has been easy.0 -
Dan thats a good question . Hmmm one wish I'd like some abs 12% bodyfat maybe 10 lbs lean muscle mass. But my goal is to be 199 lbs. If I had two wishes for physical apperance it be your hair lol.Consider this.
If you were to start a 3 day a week program like Stronglifts 5x5 and followed it to the letter eating what you eat now, you'll probably make it to week 3 before stalling.
On the other hand if you were to follow it to the letter and eat -20% TDEE at 2500 cals per day and in 12 weeks you could. E squatting 250+x5x5.
While nutrient timing is no longer relevant in the weight loss world or body building world, having the proper amount of nutrients is key.
What is your ultimate goal?
If you had the lamp in your hand and the genie asks "you've got 1wish left but it can only be used to get you to your ultimate physical self."
What would you say?
For me?
I want 8% BF year round and to gain 10lbs of lean mass.
This is currently in progress.
But I have to embrace the physiological side of things and not use hope and prayer.
Hope and prayer will get me nowhere.0 -
I feel like I can help you achieve your goals and even give a timeline.
PM me:
Age
Height
Body Fat%
Weight
How often you work out.
Maybe all you are missing is a tweak here or a tweak there.0 -
Wow that's nice.I feel like I can help you achieve your goals and even give a timeline.
PM me:
Age
Height
Body Fat%
Weight
How often you work out.
Maybe all you are missing is a tweak here or a tweak there.0 -
I feel like I can help you achieve your goals and even give a timeline.
PM me:
Age
Height
Body Fat%
Weight
How often you work out.
Maybe all you are missing is a tweak here or a tweak there.
where do you derive your calculations?0 -
Well the truth of the matter is most people on here are looking to lose weight and are starting off on the wrong foot.
They dont understand how weight loss works and in turn, extend their diets by months if not years.
When you come in and say...
Helloitsdan what do you mean by "extend their diets by months if not years" - are you saying this because they are yo-yo dieting or losing weight too slowly???0 -
Well the truth of the matter is most people on here are looking to lose weight and are starting off on the wrong foot.
They dont understand how weight loss works and in turn, extend their diets by months if not years.
When you come in and say...
Helloitsdan what do you mean by "extend their diets by months if not years" - are you saying this because they are yo-yo dieting or losing weight too slowly???
You can lose weight on a slower metabolism. It just takes longer. And some are so close to maintenance level because of slow metabolism, they exercise more without eating more, and actually create a situation where they are at maintenance level.
So they do that for 4 months wondering why no weight loss.
That's how you extend it for months and years. Slow going, and stalling from time to time.0 -
I feel like I can help you achieve your goals and even give a timeline.
PM me:
Age
Height
Body Fat%
Weight
How often you work out.
Maybe all you are missing is a tweak here or a tweak there.
where do you derive your calculations?
A dietary calculator.0 -
Well the truth of the matter is most people on here are looking to lose weight and are starting off on the wrong foot.
They dont understand how weight loss works and in turn, extend their diets by months if not years.
When you come in and say...
Helloitsdan what do you mean by "extend their diets by months if not years" - are you saying this because they are yo-yo dieting or losing weight too slowly???
You can lose weight on a slower metabolism. It just takes longer. And some are so close to maintenance level because of slow metabolism, they exercise more without eating more, and actually create a situation where they are at maintenance level.
So they do that for 4 months wondering why no weight loss.
That's how you extend it for months and years. Slow going, and stalling from time to time.
Thanks.0 -
an interesting paper, enjoyed that.
The "unexplained" metabolic reduction looks to be about 130 calories a day from Fig 4. Some of the reductions in activity energy were larger.
At least i don't have to worry that my metabolic rate will collapse while dieting, all of the TDEE values were over 2000 calories a day :-)0 -
Starvation mode doesn't exist... starvation does though.
Of course your BMR will decrease, but it will be relative to the weight you loose. Most people are also inaccurate at counting calories and do tend to under estimate, thinking they're taking in less.
I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.0 -
Starvation mode doesn't exist... starvation does though.
Of course your BMR will decrease, but it will be relative to the weight you loose. Most people are also inaccurate at counting calories and do tend to under estimate, thinking they're taking in less.
I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.
uuuuh..if you haven't read the thread please refrain from commenting. as has already been explained--when we say "starvation mode" we are talking about a decline in BMR. Also, it is NOT PROPORTIONAL to the loss in weight/body mass--it's greater and that is the "Starvation response" that people are referring to.
Sounds like you should see a doctor. No offense.0 -
Starvation mode doesn't exist... starvation does though.
Of course your BMR will decrease, but it will be relative to the weight you loose. Most people are also inaccurate at counting calories and do tend to under estimate, thinking they're taking in less.
I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.
Time to eat and lift weights?
I say YES!0 -
Starvation mode doesn't exist... starvation does though.
Of course your BMR will decrease, but it will be relative to the weight you loose. Most people are also inaccurate at counting calories and do tend to under estimate, thinking they're taking in less.
I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.
Time to eat and lift weights?
I say YES!
doesn't sound to me like she's interested in being healthy.0 -
That's a dude according to the profile. Do trolls have a gender?Starvation mode doesn't exist... starvation does though.
Of course your BMR will decrease, but it will be relative to the weight you loose. Most people are also inaccurate at counting calories and do tend to under estimate, thinking they're taking in less.
I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.
Time to eat and lift weights?
I say YES!
doesn't sound to me like she's interested in being healthy.0 -
Armaretta,
I'm not a 'troll' I am here to help people in the best way I can.
I want to dispel the myths... it seems many people are still cornered into believing them... they quicker they know the real solution, the quicker they can be happier!0 -
Armaretta,
I'm not a 'troll' I am here to help people in the best way I can.
I want to dispel the myths... it seems many people are still cornered into believing them... they quicker they know the real solution, the quicker they can be happier!
so please clarify your point--it didn't seem to make much sense to me.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.
There are also other people with health problems that struggle to get out of bed. Weight training isn't for everyone and blanket statements like that are silly.0 -
an interesting paper, enjoyed that.
The "unexplained" metabolic reduction looks to be about 130 calories a day from Fig 4. Some of the reductions in activity energy were larger.
At least i don't have to worry that my metabolic rate will collapse while dieting, all of the TDEE values were over 2000 calories a day :-)
Your BMR dropping lower has nothing to do with where your estimated TDEE.
You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.
That your estimated TDEE is over 2000 is immaterial.0 -
I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.
Armaretta,
I'm not a 'troll' I am here to help people in the best way I can.
I want to dispel the myths... it seems many people are still cornered into believing them... they quicker they know the real solution, the quicker they can be happier!
You are on a site mainly used for weight loss, encouraging slowing the metabolism down for those wanting to lose weight fast.
Not the best context for your statement, even though true.
While true, you can live with a slower metabolism, for weight loss, not the smartest idea.
At goal weight such as yourself, no problem. In fact some studies have shown it to increase longetivity, and take care of a few other problems. But for probably the majority, the negatives outweigh the positives - namely that weigh part of it.0 -
an interesting paper, enjoyed that.
The "unexplained" metabolic reduction looks to be about 130 calories a day from Fig 4. Some of the reductions in activity energy were larger.
At least i don't have to worry that my metabolic rate will collapse while dieting, all of the TDEE values were over 2000 calories a day :-)
Your BMR dropping lower has nothing to do with where your estimated TDEE.
You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.
That your estimated TDEE is over 2000 is immaterial.
i guess this person assumes that 2000 is plenty to live on FOREVER irrespective of what SHOULD be maintenance. short-sighted...fallacious...and i think it's downright silly. but hey, people have some interesting ways of justifying unhealthy behaviors.0 -
Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..
All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.
I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.
However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.0 -
You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.
Is there a paper that I can read that shows me this ?
I understand what you're saying, it's just when you listen to some people on here you would think that eating (say) 1100 calories will result in your TDEE becoming 1100 calories and your weight loss stopping. In the OP's linked paper show's how the Caloric Restriction (CR) group dropped to a sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) of about 1474 calories per day which still leaves an ample scope for a deficit to provide weight loss.
The CR group were being fed 25% less calories than their 24h sedentary energy expenditure which was about equal to their SMR, not sure if this was accident or design. The SMR then reduced with weight loss.
The LCD group were being fed 890 kcal/day and they achieved the biggest weight loss at 3 months and were still ahead at 6 months after 3 months of weight maintenance. Yes there was a metabolic rate reduction or "starvation effect" but, crucially, it did not impair their weight loss.0 -
i guess this person assumes that 2000 is plenty to live on FOREVER irrespective of what SHOULD be maintenance. short-sighted...fallacious...and i think it's downright silly.
Well you imagined it so if it's silly you can only blame yourself.
2000 calories probably is enough to live on forever for a fair proportion of the population. Currently I'm interested in losing weight so I'm eating a lot less than that and consuming the rest of my needs from fat reserves.
As I approach target weight I expect to eat more, and may end up at 1500, 2000 or 2500 for all I know. We'll see when we get there.0 -
Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..
All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.
I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.
However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.
please do your research and stop spewing half truths. 35% of the reduction in BMR was due to metabolic adaptation...that's about 1/3 of the decline not accounted for by a loss in body weight. other studies show even more dramatic results.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tdO73FzMpr4C&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=minnesota+starvation+reduction+in+bmr&source=bl&ots=ZufTplugpI&sig=ctcvkuYViaaYedMTsl0pJk4CTiU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=67CNT_r6HKPf0QGYy5mpDw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=minnesota starvation reduction in bmr&f=false
Here you are...some research you may not be aware of...
"In the first part of the study, subjects' resting metabolic rate decreased to a greater extent than their weight or fat-free mass. This excessive reduction is most likely attributable to the degree of calorie restriction, and therefore cannot be completely explained by the reduction in fat-free mass. Wadden and colleagues have concluded that short-term changes in resting metabolic rate are best predicted by baseline resting metabolic rate and degree of calorie restriction, whereas long-term changes in resting metabolic rate are best predicted by baseline resting metabolic rate and fat-free mass.4 Therefore, during and immediately after a hypocaloric period, resting metabolic rate is likely to be suppressed."
Ballor DL, Harvey-Berino JR, Ades PA et al. Decrease in fat oxidation following a meal in weight-reduced individuals: a possible mechanism for weight recidivism. Metabolism 1996; 45(2): 174–178.
Ballor DL, Harvey-Berino JR, Ades PA et al. Contrasting effects of resistance and aerobic training on body composition and metabolism after diet-induced weight loss. Metabolism 1996; 45(2): 179–183.0 -
My self-worth and no one else's should be defined by how many pounds of mass you weigh, gain or lose.Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..
All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.
I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.
However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.
Why are you even posting on this subject. You are underweight from what you said and always have been, or at least have been for several years. Are you trying to lose weight while already being underweight?
Weight loss in the course of the diet is not always fat. There is also muscle loss. Diets such as what you described cause muscle loss. Too much muscle loss is bad. That's not rocket science.
You CAN eat more than starvation levels to lose more weight. You MUST eat LESS than TDEE to lose weight, but that is not groundbreaking news.
No one is claiming you will lose weight eating more than TDEE. That's ludicrous and makes me question how much of the thread you actually bothered to read.
Your suggestion of "The Minnesota Starvation Experiment" makes me question your mental health. That experiment starved healthy men who then went through psychological and physical ailments as a results of the ridiculous diet. They developed obsessive tendencies, eat disorders, and behavioral problems.
For one thing, that was done in to test the effects of starvation and famine, not to promote the use of it to lose weight. Loss of body mass at all costs is a horrible example to set forth. I hope that no one impressionable stumbles upon what you wrote and is unfortunate enough to try it.
It is completely irresponsible. You should be ashamed.0 -
You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.
Is there a paper that I can read that shows me this ?
I understand what you're saying, it's just when you listen to some people on here you would think that eating (say) 1100 calories will result in your TDEE becoming 1100 calories and your weight loss stopping. In the OP's linked paper show's how the Caloric Restriction (CR) group dropped to a sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) of about 1474 calories per day which still leaves an ample scope for a deficit to provide weight loss.
The CR group were being fed 25% less calories than their 24h sedentary energy expenditure which was about equal to their SMR, not sure if this was accident or design. The SMR then reduced with weight loss.
The LCD group were being fed 890 kcal/day and they achieved the biggest weight loss at 3 months and were still ahead at 6 months after 3 months of weight maintenance. Yes there was a metabolic rate reduction or "starvation effect" but, crucially, it did not impair their weight loss.
If you eat at 1100, and rest of your activities can be fed mainly by fat (no exercise usually), your BMR (not TDEE), will find it's way down to 1100 or less. The TDEE that may have been at 1800 then of course lowers, because your body is slower.
And the body composition of that weight loss in that study?
Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#T20 -
Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..
You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.
Both statements false.
You look at the end of the study, where indeed their BMR matched (actually a tad lower) expected BMR for their new weight.
No one is denying you can lose weight with slower metabolism - slower.
But why. True, it's going to slow down as weight comes off, but why suppress it before that happens, making it take longer.
That's just stupid, if the desire is weight loss.
So how does eating more help you lose more? The difference between weight loss speed at suppressed BMR, compared to expected BMR at current weight loss.
Since your metabolism is faster and burning more, all your daily activity also burns more. There can be a 200 cal difference easy between those extreme's easily. And who would NOT want an extra 200 cal burn each day, AND get to eat 300 cal more to get it!
Educate yourself on basic physiology and studies on what happens on severly restricted diets.
Perhaps you missed the thrust of the OP, and what was being claimed, jumping on the terms used in the Topic.
Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#T20 -
I had to
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions