Sarvation mode is just wishful eating...
Replies
-
msf...that just answered my questions perfectly. Thank you. I'm going to word my responses to VLCD's a bit differently now.
No probs.
I think VLCDs do have a useful application in a specific context: for the treatment of obese or worse patients where dropping weight quickly is necessary for health reasons usually life threatening. Obese people have a much better ability to handle steep calorie deficits. However, even then it is a short term strategy before transitioning into something less drastic.
Outside of that they are not necessary and usually counter productive.0 -
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:
Lol - feel free!0 -
sarvation?
Haha, win.0 -
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!!!0
-
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.
Good point, and from the look of those cannons of yours, you've got a system that works!
For me, I have a decent amount of fat to lose before I concern myself with strength training. So I'm working under a calorie deficit (1000 cal/day or less) and straight cardio (exercycle 5x60min/wk.)
As I get closer to my goal for Phase I of my plan, I'll start adding strength training. I plan to do serious lifting, and want to make sure I have plenty to fuel the muscle repair. Also, by focusing on cardio only for now, I'll have improved circulation and endurance for when I get to that point.
Are you eating less than 1000 or is your deficit at least 1000? if you are eating less than 1000 calorie a day, no wonder you are worried about faceplanting.
I didn't want to say that because I didn't want him to feel I was bashing him...but I definitely agree.0 -
I was thinking the same thing! I wouldn't have a hard time eating all these calories if I was eating crap...but if I eat crap I feel like it:) I don't eat back all my calories, if I'm starving I'll have a snack. But, I don't worry about eating the 700 calories I just busted my butt to work off. Thanks for saying it!!0
-
I think it's funny. All of the people saying 'Eat less, lose more!' all say 'I feel', 'I think', 'my body tells me' (by the way, what language is it speaking in...cause, I'd love to chat with my body about a few things). All of the people saying 'eat above your bmr, below your TDEE' (thus, eat more)...have facts, studies, multiple success threads...
And yet every time, one more person will swipe in on the end and say: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!!!0 -
Constipation mode is just wishful farting.0
-
Constipation mode is just wishful farting.
u never fail to entertain me0 -
I was thinking the same thing! I wouldn't have a hard time eating all these calories if I was eating crap...but if I eat crap I feel like it:) I don't eat back all my calories, if I'm starving I'll have a snack. But, I don't worry about eating the 700 calories I just busted my butt to work off. Thanks for saying it!!
The reason people eat back their excercise calories is because MFP has a calorie deficit built into it telling you how many calories to eat for the amount of weight you want to lose. When you work out and burn more you're supposed to eat it back so you stay at that deficit level. You can work out and be under that deficit, in theory losing more, but the goal of this site is to help with maintainable lifestyle changes. It's not particularly practical to live the rest of my life on a 1200 a day diet and eventually my body would plateau and I'd have serious issues with health and energy levels. I try to lose the amount I want to lose at a maintainable level so I can live healthy for the rest of my life. It didn't take me a day to gain it and I certainly don't expect it to come off much faster.0 -
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...
This is a fantastic explanation. Thank you!0 -
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...
[/quote]
I agree with this whole-heartedly. What an important and meaningful statement to both acknowledge and embrace. Where I am today didn't happen overnight. I am often tempted to blame the sins of my late teens and early 20s as a sabateur of my metabolism. Perhaps this is true in part. But the reality is there is no linear cause and effect. I need to acknowledge that when "lazy days" began occurring once a week instead of once a month, when "One McDonalds breakfast burrito/order of fries/cheese filled breadstick etc won't kill me" became a common rationale this is when, this is how, the weight crept up. I am using this site as a means of being more conscientious, more honest and recognizing patterns or bad behaviors. I am not eating 1200 calories a day. While low calorie intake will provide gratification in terms of pounds initially; for me,it's not sustainable. I don't want to revisit my 20s, when I ate 1200-1500 kcal/day and worked out 6 days a week. I want to learn to honor my body. Energy in, energy out... So simplistic, yet folks seem to focus on numbers instead of how they want to live and feel. Thanks for this topic and best of luck to all.0 -
Wow, a lot of experts here.........maybe try bodybuilding.com if you want some answers backed up by proven results.....then again that board is full of "experts" too.0
-
I was thinking the same thing! I wouldn't have a hard time eating all these calories if I was eating crap...but if I eat crap I feel like it:) I don't eat back all my calories, if I'm starving I'll have a snack. But, I don't worry about eating the 700 calories I just busted my butt to work off. Thanks for saying it!!
And what exactly is wrong with that? MFP includes a deficit already.
Plus, there are a bunch of additional benefits from exercising so creating a larger deficit or not, is not the only reason to exercise.0 -
Constipation mode is just wishful farting.
Lol0 -
I think it's funny that the people that start these threads have almost always joined MFP in the last 90 days...they preach about how eating less = losing more weight and not eating back calories because it's easy to have success like that in the beginning. When they plateau, feel like crap, and lose their muscle tone they pretty much always either go away and get fat again or change their tune.
You can't eat such a small level of calories forever...start adjusting your lifestyle from the beginning and losing weight and living healthy will actually become easy.0 -
I hope there are not people still out there using my mum's (and anyone on a diet) 1000 calorie a day diet. It seemed that anyone who wanted to diet back then were told "just reduce your calories to 1000 a day and you will lose weight" I think my mum still belives that!
She also believes though that if you come out of a sauna weighing half a stone less than when you went in, you've just managed to lose half a stone of fat! If only it were that simple!0 -
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...
^^^^
THIS0 -
She also believes though that if you come out of a sauna weighing half a stone less than when you went in, you've just managed to lose half a stone of fat! If only it were that simple!
Damn it! /cancels sauna appointment.0 -
Is it starvation mode, I dunno, whatever you want to call it.
I kept ridiculously detailed records as I lost (and still do) including a constant real time metabolism calculation from results.
My weight loss was freakishly linear, losing exactly what I expected to lose. I also maintained an aggressive but safe deficit, from 1000 cal/day to 1250 cal/day to 1000 cal/day to 750 cal/day to 500 cal/day to 250 cal/day as I've down into the single digits of BF%
I plateaued 3x. By plateau I don't mean that I was an idiot that banged my head into the wall for 3 months doing nothing. As soon as the freaksihly straight line that was my weight moving average started sliding sideways (and yes, it was like a light switch) I did the opposite of "logical" and increased my intake to keep moving. And each time it worked. Why is this? It is illogical to think that overnight my body adapted to a huge deficit and that I needed to double down on it. This is idiotic. Something else was at play. Starvation mode? Who knows, but I upped my intake and kept moving.
I fully expected to bump into the maximum loss rate my body could maintain as I moved into the teens, low teens, and single digits of BF%. What did I expect when I bumped into that maximum rate? A plateau. The common explanation to double down on your deficit is franckly stupid advice, adaptation of your metabolism is a slow process, it doesn't happen overnight. If you were sustaining a loss rate of 2 lb/wk for a while and your body just stopped losing, your deficit is too big and you have stalled. Your body adapting its metabolism happens slowly. Eat more and keep going. Drop to a 1.5 lb/wk deficit and eek out about 4-5% more BF at a high rate before you need to drop it again.
Here's a good article abotu this phenomenon that science has virtually no explanation for and that is barely studied (which ends up leading to people places like this who think this phenomenon is a myth, it surely is not).
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
Losing weight is just like flying an airplane to high altitudes. Your food intake rate is your airspeed, your deficit is your climb angle. Climb too steep and you'll stall and plateau. The stall angle decreases at higher elevations as the air thins, and increases as the airspeed increases.0 -
I was eating below my BMR to start out with. I lost weight. And then stopped. And I felt like CRAP. I upped my calories and started eating a more realistic amount of food/calories an started losing again. And I'm much happier. I could drop my calories ridiculously low and drop weight really fast, but just because you can drop weight doesn't mean you are benefiting your overall health in the long run. And most people who drop their calories too low are extremely sensitive to weight gain if they go over. I'd rather eat more, lose weight at a steady rate, and not be a miserable hag in the process. Call it starvation mode or whatever you want but I know what I felt like when I was going low cal and it wasn't fun!0
-
Inb4 OMG STARVATION MODE EXISTS!!!!
Yes. Until your metabolism slows down in an attempt to keep energy reserves since your body isn't getting enough. There's eating less, and then there's not eating enough. Where that boundary lies varies from person to person based on activity levels, genetics, and other factors. MFP uses 1200 as a cutoff because it seems to work.0 -
Starvation mode is the excuse we food addicts use to not stop eating so much. We want to have our cake AND eat it too. We need to learn to eat only when we are hungry.0
-
Inb4 OMG STARVATION MODE EXISTS!!!!
OMG....NO IT DOESN'T0 -
Starvation mode is the excuse we food addicts use to not stop eating so much. We want to have our cake AND eat it too. We need to learn to eat only when we are hungry.
*sigh*0 -
Starvation mode is the excuse we food addicts use to not stop eating so much. We want to have our cake AND eat it too. We need to learn to eat only when we are hungry.
*sigh*
I'll add a *sigh* to yours...0 -
Starvation mode is the excuse we food addicts use to not stop eating so much. We want to have our cake AND eat it too. We need to learn to eat only when we are hungry.
*sigh*
Agreed. *Sigh* is right. Some people will just never get it.
These people can go ahead and eat way less than their BMR - sure, you'll lose weight, but you'll feel like crap, won't be able to push through workouts efficiently and will have to fight to hang on to any lean muscle that you may have. Personally, I prefer to eat between my BMR and TDEE everyday, switching up the calories so my body doesn't get used to a set amount every day, but I feel GOOD. I have the energy to push HARD through my workouts. And I'm still losing - albeit at a slower rate than if I were to only eat 800 calories a day, but that's okay because I know I'm building muscle, which guess what? If you build muscle you'll lose more fat.
Eating more (meaning eating between your BMI and your TDEE as opposed to eating below your BMI) does equal weight loss. Maybe not at first because your body's adjusting to the PROPER amount of fuel it needs to get through a day, but after a few weeks, the weight will come off again. True story.
And please, people...be conscious of what you're chosing to eat. Eating Mcdonald's multiple times a day is not good for your body, even if you're still within your calorie allotment.0 -
Starting with the OP, this post is so wrong (technically speaking) I can't even read what people have to say. shesh.0
-
I don't care if starvation mode exists or not! I'm eating more than I ever have before, and losing weight. And I'm okay with that! Really, I am!
This sandwich is delicious!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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