Starvation mode is a myth, so why do we keep saying it exist

Options
1…810121314

Replies

  • littlepinkhearts
    littlepinkhearts Posts: 1,055 Member
    Options
    BuMp
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    Not sure why you think your BMR is under 1200 - both these sites have it at over 1300, and maintenance calories for a 4ft11 22yr old, weighing 112lbs are more like 1500.

    http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html
    http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

    What does MFP say your maintenence calories are?

    Hi, MFP's tool states that my BMR is 1176. They put my maintenance calories at 1470.
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Options
    You know, Wikipedia requires citations and is reviewed by moderators... it's not perfect, but it's much better than people are portraying in this thread.

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Excerpt:

    "Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature."
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Options
    http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/02/study-wikipedia-accurate-but-written-poorly/

    Cancer researchers from Thomas Jefferson University compared the accuracy of oncology information on the popular open-source encyclopedia with that on the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query (or PDQ), a professional database that is peer-reviewed and edited. Both were fact-checked against textbooks to see whether cancer patients can trust the information they’re getting online.

    The results? Wikipedia fared no worse than the professional website; only 2% of the information on either was out of line with the textbooks.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    You know, Wikipedia requires citations and is reviewed by moderators... it's not perfect, but it's much better than people are portraying in this thread.

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

    Excerpt:

    "Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature."

    I am not saying that Wikipedia is always wrong or is not useful - but the issue is that it was being quoted as a source to try to disprove a biological event.

    Also, your except is quoting a study published in the journal 'Nature' - I am not sure that this is the best evidence to indicate the accuracy of Wikipedia for everything.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/02/study-wikipedia-accurate-but-written-poorly/

    Cancer researchers from Thomas Jefferson University compared the accuracy of oncology information on the popular open-source encyclopedia with that on the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query (or PDQ), a professional database that is peer-reviewed and edited. Both were fact-checked against textbooks to see whether cancer patients can trust the information they’re getting online.

    The results? Wikipedia fared no worse than the professional website; only 2% of the information on either was out of line with the textbooks.

    Have not looked into it - but you actually addressed my comment above while I was typing it :happy:
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options

    Having had an eating disorder as a child, your body does begin to feed on organs when you no longer feed it the food it needs.

    That you had an ED is a red herring. You had an illness. The people challenging the starvation mode theory know how to eat healthily and monitor their health.
  • fiveohmike
    fiveohmike Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    Ok go it, thanks OP. If eating under your BMR is good, and eating lower then that is even better, I think just not eating, ever will be the best way to lose weight for me since my body wont go into this mythical starvation mode nor will I develop an eating disorder.

    I think I am just gonna go to eating 400 calories a day when my BMR is 2500


    Thanks for clarifying!
  • wbgolden
    wbgolden Posts: 2,071 Member
    Options
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.
  • Masterdo
    Masterdo Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

    Pitfall drawing avatar for the win. This should end all debates right here.
  • TessaL221
    TessaL221 Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    More than how low or high your intake is, the most important thing to keep in mind is not to let your body get used to what it's being fed. If you go 3 weeks on a restrictive diet and notice you've stopped losing, up it for a couple of days and then go back to it. Your metabolism will meet whatever you do to your body typically. By changing it up, you are tricking your metabolism into changing rhythm.
  • dancin2011
    dancin2011 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    Here we go again...
  • wbgolden
    wbgolden Posts: 2,071 Member
    Options
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

    Pitfall drawing avatar for the win. This should end all debates right here.
    It's my Sistine Chapel
  • Need2bfit918
    Need2bfit918 Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    About once a week I do a 24 hour fast then eat 2000 calories a day the rest of the week. Guess what day I lose the most weight
  • r1ghtpath
    r1ghtpath Posts: 701 Member
    Options
    I've responded on threads like this several times, this is just my own personal experience with this.

    years of under eating. not weeks or months, years! came here 85 days ago and started eating 1200 calories, up from about 800-900/ day. kept my work outs the same. the first 3 weeks, i lost between 4 inches overall and 8 inches overall. then nothing..... then like 1.0 overall or 0.5 inch over all.....

    i was aiming for 1200 cal. not NETING just consuming 1200 calories. while doing p90x/ turbo fire hybrid.

    couple weeks ago, i upped it to 1300, then 3 weeks ago to 1400...... last week, i saw a 7.5 inch overall loss!!! it had been over a MONTH with no loss. then 14 days of 1400 calories or more ( exact same work outs) and i've lost again.

    i wear a fitbit. i always burn well over 2000 per day according to that. my current goal is to NET 1200 calories. but, it's hard and a lot of the time i can't do it. my BMR apparently is about 1400 calories. i haven't been able to NET that yet.

    i have 5 kids, i'm on my feet ALL DAY LONG! i don't care what you call it, under eating for a prolonged period of time is bad. it makes your body HIGH inefficient!!!! and it messes with your head. i've been here almost 3 months. i've been told by professionals it could take up to a year to correct all of the damage i've done to my body ( and my relationship with food).

    trust me, it's not fun.
  • theoriginaljayne
    theoriginaljayne Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    !cid_003401c594ae$bfb0e9f0$06c85a42@admin.gif
  • cannonsky
    cannonsky Posts: 850 Member
    Options
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

    lame joke
  • Fit4Evolution
    Fit4Evolution Posts: 375 Member
    Options
    I've responded on threads like this several times, this is just my own personal experience with this.

    years of under eating. not weeks or months, years! came here 85 days ago and started eating 1200 calories, up from about 800-900/ day. kept my work outs the same. the first 3 weeks, i lost between 4 inches overall and 8 inches overall. then nothing..... then like 1.0 overall or 0.5 inch over all.....

    i was aiming for 1200 cal. not NETING just consuming 1200 calories. while doing p90x/ turbo fire hybrid.

    couple weeks ago, i upped it to 1300, then 3 weeks ago to 1400...... last week, i saw a 7.5 inch overall loss!!! it had been over a MONTH with no loss. then 14 days of 1400 calories or more ( exact same work outs) and i've lost again.

    i wear a fitbit. i always burn well over 2000 per day according to that. my current goal is to NET 1200 calories. but, it's hard and a lot of the time i can't do it. my BMR apparently is about 1400 calories. i haven't been able to NET that yet.

    i have 5 kids, i'm on my feet ALL DAY LONG! i don't care what you call it, under eating for a prolonged period of time is bad. it makes your body HIGH inefficient!!!! and it messes with your head. i've been here almost 3 months. i've been told by professionals it could take up to a year to correct all of the damage i've done to my body ( and my relationship with food).

    trust me, it's not fun.

    You are correct , your body is a food furnace , take away the fuel and your body will become super efficient and not burn calories and try to preserve itself. You will teach your body how to survive on a small amount of calories per day. then when you eat the calories your body will store the calories you ate above what you normally do.
    You need to listen to your body , feed it when its hungry.. your body will use approx 300 calories every 3 hrs.. its not a formula either its an appoximation , so listen to your body.. eat when you are hungry , stop when you can be satisfied , eat small meals but lots of them. but make sure your hungry , just dont say its been 3 hrs so i am gonna eat. this will work.
  • wbgolden
    wbgolden Posts: 2,071 Member
    Options
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

    lame joke
    umm....exactly what this topic deserved.
  • cannonsky
    cannonsky Posts: 850 Member
    Options
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

    lame joke
    umm....exactly what this topic deserved.

    just saying.

Categories