Sarvation mode is just wishful eating...

same subject different day.
doesn't it ever get old...

I can only speak based on my own experience, but after a couple of months of eating at 1200 calories a day, I just stopped losing weight. After seeing suggestions here I upped my calories to 1550 (which is right around my BMR) and the weight started coming off again and at a faster rate than before. I didn't make any other changes to exercise or the type/quality of food I was eating. You can call it whatever you want, but my own experience is that there isn't a strict linear correlation between number of calories consumed and pounds lost. It may be calories in/calories out, but it seems like for a lot of people the number of calories you take in has a big impact on the number of calories your body is willing to use, so you have to find a middle ground.

All this 'i cant reach my calories etc etc... we were all fat that is how we got fat by eatng too many calories. Eat less, burn more, be thin!!!

i didnt get fat by eating to much i would only eat 1-2 times a day and i am one person that has a hard time eating all my calories because i cut out all the crappy food and now all i eat everything healthy and watch every calorie that i eat. i am not use to eating a lot to it is very hard for me to eat all the food.

Crappy food...good food...If It Fits Your Macros eat it.
McDonalds fits my macros on rest days even on a cut and with lower calories!

bump

More fruits and vegtables or meat? Which is best?

Not eating = body eats muscles = still not eating = body eats fat.

You will lose weight by restricting, but you will also die unless you eat again.

Eating after starving yourself = end up heavier than you were to begin with.

Not something to be toyed with.

This is 100% wrong. The human race would be extinct if this were true.

In a fasted state, two things are two:
1) Metabolism is substantially elevated
2) Energy is burned almost exclusively from FFA and fat stores

A species that, when food is scarce, started becoming lethargic and cannibalizing their own muscle mass would not last very long... think about it.

Also, having done exactly that with IF, I am somehow now single-digit body fat with >45% skeletal muscle... that doesn't seem to jibe with your theory, especially given that during bulks I will eat 3.5k+ calories after "starving myself" for 16-20 hours and then weight training.

Not eating = body eats muscles = still not eating = body eats fat.

You will lose weight by restricting, but you will also die unless you eat again.

Eating after starving yourself = end up heavier than you were to begin with.

Not something to be toyed with.

This is 100% wrong. The human race would be extinct if this were true.

In a fasted state, two things are two:
1) Metabolism is substantially elevated
2) Energy is burned almost exclusively from FFA and fat stores

A species that, when food is scarce, started becoming lethargic and cannibalizing their own muscle mass would not last very long... think about it.

Also, having done exactly that with IF, I am somehow now single-digit body fat with >45% skeletal muscle... that doesn't seem to jibe with your theory, especially given that during bulks I will eat 3.5k+ calories after "starving myself" for 16-20 hours and then weight training.

I agree with everything Wacky said...I live by it as a matter of fact.

But I also took a bit less direct view of the quoted post...the problem is no one put a time disclaimer on it. What Wacky is talking about is still eating every day, and still getting your healthy calories in. Additionally he's not going to be shirking on his nutritional content, no matter what caloric intake he's currently targeting.

And for the record...longer periods than 24hrs are even acceptable (but less than 72, from the studies I've read), but for proper health and nutrition...your average (usually weekly) should be at a reasonable level.

I agree with everything Wacky said...I live by it as a matter of fact.

But I also took a bit less direct view of the quoted post...the problem is no one put a time disclaimer on it. What Wacky is talking about is still eating every day, and still getting your healthy calories in. Additionally he's not going to be shirking on his nutritional content, no matter what caloric intake he's currently targeting.

And for the record...longer periods than 24hrs are even acceptable (but less than 72, from the studies I've read), but for proper health and nutrition...your average (usually weekly) should be at a reasonable level.

This is correct. I normally leave out details that don't seem relevant, as I am almost obscenely pedantic, and will write pages and pages if left to my own devices :P

From what I've read, after about 48 hours fasted your body starts to go from 'go find some food, sucka' mode to "sucks that you can't hibernate" mode.

Not eating = body eats muscles = still not eating = body eats fat.

You will lose weight by restricting, but you will also die unless you eat again.

Eating after starving yourself = end up heavier than you were to begin with.

Not something to be toyed with.

This is 100% wrong. The human race would be extinct if this were true.

In a fasted state, two things are two:
1) Metabolism is substantially elevated
2) Energy is burned almost exclusively from FFA and fat stores

A species that, when food is scarce, started becoming lethargic and cannibalizing their own muscle mass would not last very long... think about it.

Also, having done exactly that with IF, I am somehow now single-digit body fat with >45% skeletal muscle... that doesn't seem to jibe with your theory, especially given that during bulks I will eat 3.5k+ calories after "starving myself" for 16-20 hours and then weight training.

Agreed! From my biology classes I've taken, muscles are not something simple that the body will throw in the furnace whenever there's no food in the stomach. Cellular respiration requires fats, carbs, or protein to break down into ATP, and it can get those from much easier places than breaking down a complex structure like a muscle. I think what people notice during calorie deficits is more likely to do with a decrease in acetylcholine, sodium, potassium, or ATP.

If your in a calorie deficit and you feel weak or sluggish, then eat! Your muscles will be alright otherwise, although a calorie deficit won't facilitate any major performance gains; fat loss and strength training are best tackled separately, IMO.

I seriously can't eat all my cals, especially if I'm eating clean. Usually if I'm eating clean, I'm sated and I typically eat by volume, especially with veggies. When I do make/exceed my cals, it's usually because I'm eating processed foods. Do the math.

That's one of the most salient points of fat loss. Most home-cooked meals will fill you up long before you bust your calories, and I've got an appetite like a competitive eater! Another reason to avoid processed foods more has to do with the sodium!

[/quote]

I am not talking IF here - but please could you reference a study that shows an elevated metabolism for a fasted state of any meaningful length of time.

I am the same way. I forget to eat and then I it is dinner time and I am starving. One thing that Ifound helps is set an alarm. I set an alarm on my phone to go off every 4 hrs. When it goes off it is time for me to eat. People laugh when they ask what that is for and I tell them "time to eat" but it really does work. Now it is an on going thing. Everytime my phone goes off my friends say "time to eat"

fat loss and strength training are best tackled separately, IMO.

I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree with this 150%.


That's 3 months, calorie deficit, zero effective cardio...and 40lbs of body fat.

Sorry, I'll take those results over not strength training while losing weight (because without strength training, you aren't just losing fat, period) any day.

I won't dispute you on that, as I've done both before at the same time. But it's my opinion to separate them, as people who are doing both can sometimes have issues. Either they stall in strength training due to inadequate nutrients for effective muscle repair, or faceplant at the gym from a dizzy spell.

I prefer to do them separately so I can focus on each part with undivided attention.

fat loss and strength training are best tackled separately, IMO.

I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree with this 150%.


That's 3 months, calorie deficit, zero effective cardio...and 40lbs of body fat.

Sorry, I'll take those results over not strength training while losing weight (because without strength training, you aren't just losing fat, period) any day.

I won't dispute you on that, as I've done both before at the same time. But it's my opinion to separate them, as people who are doing both can sometimes have issues. Either they stall in strength training due to inadequate nutrients for effective muscle repair, or faceplant at the gym from a dizzy spell.

I prefer to do them separately so I can focus on each part with undivided attention.

Here's the thing...if my goal is fat loss, and I stall at the gym, I don't much care. The strength training at that point is a means to an end, which is of course, fat loss. I deload 20-30%, and start my cycle over again.

I understand what you mean...but I'll be honest, I've never seen anyone faceplant at the gym from an average calorie deficit, unless they're eating too little to sustain normal daily activities. Sometimes they will feel light headed if they've had no food at all in the proceeding 5hrs or so...but even that is a trained response. I train HARD with between 16-20hrs of zero caloric intake under my belt every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

Why is it that when these type of posts come up there is never a discussion of adaptive thermogenesis? If you want to consider "starvation mode" surely that should be the starting point. In any event, I posted the following well over a year ago on here and it is as relevant today as it was then....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I think in the interests of balance it should be pointed out that, as I said above, the concept of starvation mode is usually poorly applied. It's not like a light switch where if you eat under 1,200 calories your body suddenly decides to go into starvation mode, or if you miss a meal that happens or even if you have plateaued it is caused by this.

It is much more likely whne it comes to plateaus that people have forgotten that as you lose weight the number of calories you need to maintain weight is reduced accordingly, under reporting of true calorie intake and / or over estimating of calories burned through exercise, water / glycogen issues masking fat loss on the scale. There is a misconception that fat loss stalls altogether in "starvation mode" when in reality it doesn't. It simply becomes a lot harder and requires proportionally much more effort to do so in comparison to a "lifestyle diet."

That is not to say that people who chronically underfeed their bodies or restrict energy intake for many months don't suffer the effects of starvation mode. I think that it certainly does happen but just not as commonly as people may think.

A starvation type diet will work to reduce weight in the short term. It is undeniable that people will and do experience this. However that isn't saying much. ALL diets which somehow make you operate at a calorie deficit will cause weight loss.

In my view the success of a diet isn't actually about what happens whilst you are undertaking it or even about the amount of weight you lose (I know I'm sounding a bit crazy here but bear with me....) The success of a diet is about what happens when you come OFF it. The real prize is maintenance. A good diet provides the building blocks for a long term ability to maintain weight at a stable level for years to come, not just a few weeks (unless you are puposefully dieting down for a specific event and do not care about putting on weight after that eg an athlete making a weight class, looking good on your wedding day etc)

The problem with the excessively low calorie approach (especially if it is coupled with a high exercise volume) is the remarkably poor finishing position it leaves you in. Your metabolic rate has a much sharper adaptive reduction to BMR in comparison in comparison to a slow and steady diet. In addition your body becomes much more efficient at fat storage due to changes in hormone levels. The end result is that the vast majority of crash dieters will end up regaining all the fat they lost prior to their diet and then some. You can circumvent this by being sticking to very low calories for the rest of your life and maintaining high levels of exercise if you wish. That doesn't sound like much fun to me or even realistic in the long term.

If you love and respect your body it will love and respect you back. If you treat it poorly and try to beat it into submission then expect a fight. You will probably lose...

fat loss and strength training are best tackled separately, IMO.

I agree with some of what you said, but I disagree with this 150%.


That's 3 months, calorie deficit, zero effective cardio...and 40lbs of body fat.

Sorry, I'll take those results over not strength training while losing weight (because without strength training, you aren't just losing fat, period) any day.

I won't dispute you on that, as I've done both before at the same time. But it's my opinion to separate them, as people who are doing both can sometimes have issues. Either they stall in strength training due to inadequate nutrients for effective muscle repair, or faceplant at the gym from a dizzy spell.

I prefer to do them separately so I can focus on each part with undivided attention.

Never heard of that happening to anyone on a reasonable deficit (medical conditions aside).

If you love and respect your body it will love and respect you back. If you treat it poorly and try to beat it into submission then expect a fight. You will probably lose...

I love this quote and am warning you now, I am stealing it :happy: