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

1…457910

Replies

  • littlepinkhearts
    littlepinkhearts Posts: 1,055 Member
    BuMp
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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

    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
    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: 2,066 Member
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.
  • Masterdo
    Masterdo Posts: 331 Member
    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
    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
    Here we go again...
  • wbgolden
    wbgolden Posts: 2,066 Member
    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
    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
    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: 559 Member
    !cid_003401c594ae$bfb0e9f0$06c85a42@admin.gif
  • cannonsky
    cannonsky Posts: 850 Member
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

    lame joke
  • Fit4Evolution
    Fit4Evolution Posts: 375 Member
    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: 2,066 Member
    The dead horse called.

    It wants its beating back.

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

    It wants its beating back.

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

    just saying.
  • Lolli1986
    Lolli1986 Posts: 500 Member
    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.

    Nature and Science are the most prestigious scientific journals, period. If it's in Nature, it's the beans.

    If it's in Nature, it's the best of our current understanding.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    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.

    Nature and Science are the most prestigious scientific journals, period. If it's in Nature, it's the beans.

    If it's in Nature, it's the best of our current understanding.

    I was making the point about it being about 'everything' - but thanks for the clarification about the source in relation to science.
  • curds
    curds Posts: 201 Member
    whether starvation mode is a myth or not won't be decided on MFP. I'm finding it a lil hard to believe that the site doesn't have moderators?

    If I type starvation mode/1200 calories into the search bar countless posts will come up and it's essentially all the same information.

    If MFP does have moderators my suggestion is this can we have one topic locked onto the Post menu where people can post relevant sources for and against this "myth" so that the message board doesn't get clogged up with topics like this because its quite clear to me that this argument has and will be a recurring theme on here.

    There are more credible sources then wiki that states there is no such mode and I'm sure vice versa. If the moderators are open to the suggestion of creating a locked topic all people who feel strongly for and against can compile a short summary as to their beliefs and links with multiple sources that led them to that belief.

    On a personal note people are not created the same! Yes we all belong to the same species, but that doesn't mean our bodies will react the same way to everything. There are too many factors involved to determine the magical "1200", now I'm not saying we can't share our experiences with each other this is a message board after all, but just because you went into what you consider "starvation mode" is not to say the next person will experience the same thing with "-1200".

    Of course your body will shut down when it doesn't get enough nutrients and you can die from not eating. Consult a doctor or a professional if you really worried that you eating too lil or not enough of one particular thing. At the very least do your own research on "1200" and get sources that's not just MFP.
  • Aineko
    Aineko Posts: 163
    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.

    Nature and Science are the most prestigious scientific journals, period. If it's in Nature, it's the beans.

    If it's in Nature, it's the best of our current understanding.

    I was making the point about it being about 'everything' - but thanks for the clarification about the source in relation to science.
    'Nature' is about 'everything', that is, it publishes studies from all fields of research, not just natural sciences. (what I mean is, if the mentioned study was published in Nature that doesn't mean that only science articles on wiki were assessed).
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    take away the fuel and your body will become super efficient and not burn calories

    So if I don't eat I'm going to drop dead ? That's the only way my body isn't going to burn calories. How long does this take - minutes, hours, days, months - just so I know and can adjust my eating frequency to match.
  • Christina1007
    Christina1007 Posts: 179 Member
    I was eating 1200 and lost nothing for 3 months!!!! Needless to say how frustrated I was. Then I read here that I have to up my calories and calculated an amount that gave me a higher calorie goal. I started on that and guess what?!!! I started putting on a lot!!!! of weight.

    Now I eat 1000 calories a day and started losing weight like crazy. So, no I don't believe in that either!

    Maybe that's because you are already skin and bones!! In order for you to lose more weight your gonna have to cut off a limb!!

    That picture is taken a few years back, put on 15 kilograms since then.

    I am not here for getting insect thin, even though I might not weigh as much as others in here. That doesn't mean I can't be here on this site and get fit, log in my exercise and food intake. People are here for different reasons. Your point is irrelevant!
  • Faye_Anderson
    Faye_Anderson Posts: 1,495 Member
    Guidelines say the average woman should consume 2000 calories a day to stay healthy, the lowest recommended calorie intake is 1200 a day. Over a week that's 14000 - 8400 = 5600 deficit. Why would you want to go any lower than that? My diet has took me from 900 cals per day to 1600 calories per day and guess what? I'm losing MORE eating the 1600. Anyone who eats less than 1200 calories is kidding themselves that they are being healthy, even medically supervised. But it's amazing how often someone will post this topic to try to justify their bad eating habits
  • hezzyhlo
    hezzyhlo Posts: 55 Member
    Wiki? Are you serious?


    This!!!! :)
  • huntindawg1962
    huntindawg1962 Posts: 277 Member

    If MFP does have moderators my suggestion is this can we have one topic locked onto the Post menu where people can post relevant sources for and against this "myth" so that the message board doesn't get clogged up with topics like this because its quite clear to me that this argument has and will be a recurring theme on here.


    This topic ("eat more not less" or "Starvation mode" - same topic) and "do I eat back my exercise calories back?" - Both are the daily debate topics.
  • grinch031
    grinch031 Posts: 1,679
    Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").

    Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.

    In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.

    And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.

    Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
    This about covers it.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories