This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

1246

Replies

  • danysgoal
    danysgoal Posts: 14
    This leaves no room for carbs
    Well you don't need them so that is not a problem. There is no molecule in the group "carbohydrates" that we need to eat to survive.

    100g of protein is enough for most people, that's 400 cals. 30g of fat is another 270 so 670 total. Take appropriate supplements and job done.

    As for exercise, the number of scientific papers pre 1970 that refer to exercise can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Even recent papers say that exercise makes a trivial contribution to fat loss. Frankly, WGAS.

    Sorry to contradict you but your BRAIN and your HEART' S ONLY FUEL is carbs and carbs produced by fat and protein only diets only create a lot of junk such as ketones. That's why you get headaches with those diets, feel out of breath with exercise. And your heart being a muscle and your brain having some fatty tissue also loose weight, not good for the long term. If your body didn't need carbs, it wouldn't be the end product of digestion ready to be absorbed by your cells
  • russellma
    russellma Posts: 284 Member
    I don't know about "starvation mode", but my own experience leads me to believe that there is such a thing as "preservation" mode.

    Here's my "theory":tongue: ...Our bodies adapt to what and how much we are eating. So, of course a person can lose quickly (at least for a while) with a VLCD, but eventually the body adapts the metabolic rate in an effort to preserve itself, making it necessary to continue to lower the calories in order to get the same results.

    When I first started, MFP had me set at 1200 calories and so most days, I ate under that and didn't eat back exercise calories. After 5-10 lbs, I hit a brick wall, and no matter how much exercise I did, the scales wouldn't move.

    A friend recommended (based on her own experience) that I add calories, which seemed quite counter-intuitive, but guess what...it worked!

    I've increased it several times since then, and I've found that as long as I exercise and eat back those calories to stay above my BMR, but below my TDEE, I can still lose weight. Now I've transitioned into maintenance mode and can eat quite normally and still maintain my weight within 3-4 lbs.

    So, to be quite honest, I don't know why you would want to suffer through a VLCD when it's possible to eat more and get the same job accomplished.
  • AmyP619
    AmyP619 Posts: 1,137 Member
    "starvation" is misused a lot, but to me, those women (or men) going on so few calories are not making a life style change that they can live with, not to mention the fact that most of the time (there are few exceptions) most of these same people "starving" themselves on 1200 calories or less are eating CRAP food... I have seen diaries filled with pizza, donuts, soda, and other processed junk...just so they can reach that "magical" number.

    People, it's about making a good life style change and eating QUALITY HEALTHY foods, not just empty calories. If you want to eat so few calories, at least make it good food and remember it cannot be a long term solution. JMO

    I agree 100% with this. I"m not saying that her Ideal protein diet is the healthiest way to go...in fact it just looks like a miserable time to me. I would MUCH rather make healthy changes that lead to a lifestyle change that one can stick with, than starve myself for a period of time only to gain it all back once you stop doing it. I don't like those diets...because that's all they are...are DIETS. It's important to make a change you can LIVE with. I just wanted to look into the idea of "starvation mode" and see what people say about it because it's blasted on her endlessly! I also definitely agree with you on the whole eating less Junk to fit your calorie consumption. If you want to lose weight yet you don't want to change your eating style, then you aren't really committed to it and, frankly, you don't deserve it. Eating healthy and being healthy are one in the same. Just because you eat junk but weigh less definitely does not mean you're a healthy person. Great response, thanks!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    there are recommendations for the minimum fibre intake
    Fibre isn't a carbohydrate in our labelling system, I know it is in the US hence "net carbs" are appropriate there (carbohydrates minus fiber).

    So when I say 20g of carbs I mean 20g of carbohydrates that are absorbed and give you 80 calories.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Are you seriously saying that it's healthy to eat 670 calories, zero carbs, and "appropriate supplements"??
    You would have to define "healthy" for me to answer that. I wasn't advocating it as a lifestyle, but pointing out a scenario that provides your necessary dietary nutrient intake on a low calorie level in order to maximise weight loss for the obese - as used in VLCDs.
    with that amount of calories, most people would be doing good to drag their miserable butts from the bed to the couch every day
    you make the classic error of ignoring the quarter million calories available to an obese person. You don't have to put energy into your mouth to have energy - otherwise we would die overnight or on a one day fast, as opposed to taking 70-odd days (hunger striker) or the Scotsman "AB" fasting for over a year.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Sorry to contradict you but your BRAIN and your HEART' S ONLY FUEL is carbs and carbs produced by fat and protein only diets only create a lot of junk such as ketones.
    I don't mind being contradicted by correct information, but that's a pile of BS. Go back to the drawing board and learn how the brain utilises ketones as fuel and ditto the heart (along with fatty acids). You are 100% incorrect.
  • Lotte34
    Lotte34 Posts: 429 Member
    Love it thank you! I am so fed up of being told i eat too little! Thank you hunny
  • mrob81
    mrob81 Posts: 36
    It seems like this site focuses on half of the battle: losing weight. I think we should post up some pictures of people that lost a ton of weight eating under 1k calories. They do not look healthy. They do look smaller though.
  • SweetSammie
    SweetSammie Posts: 391 Member
    Not enough calories a day sets ME up for failure...There is only so long I can "hang on" with a low, low cal diet. I feel like I'm white knuckling it and then i snap. I need calories I can live with for the long haul.

    19111718.png

    This. Right now I feel like I could do what I am doing to LOSE weight forever, so hopefully maintaining will be a breeze. For years I made this difficult by being so hard on myself, that I would inevitably "fail," then I would feel like a "failure," and then I would ACT like a failure... then I truly would BE a failure at weight loss/ a healthy lifestyle.
  • dme1977
    dme1977 Posts: 537 Member
    for the first 4 months of using MFP I ate 1000 calories a day and lost 1 pound a week ... in April i adjusted UP to 1200-1500 and have plateaued since:sad:
    ... starvation mode my *kitten*...
    "body eating fat off " mode is more like it.
    I have decided that I am OK to lose the last 5 or 10lb slower than the first 15..only because it takes A LOT of self control to eat 1000/day ( unless you can afford "fresh" foods daily it gets monotonous eating SMALL portions.... I wanted to have bigger portions ... thus = slower weight loss.
    (I lost 25 total... 10 before MFP just by cutting out regular soda and junk food)
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    there are recommendations for the minimum fibre intake
    Fibre isn't a carbohydrate in our labelling system, I know it is in the US hence "net carbs" are appropriate there (carbohydrates minus fiber).

    So when I say 20g of carbs I mean 20g of carbohydrates that are absorbed and give you 80 calories.

    Yes - but this adds to the calorie count and makes the math discussed above not work.
  • cmthorsness
    cmthorsness Posts: 83 Member
    This Starvation or peoples opinion of Starvation is retarded. I Think its hilarious to see others diaries and yes they have eaten 1200- 1800 calories but its mostly carbs and junk but when I eat 1000 or less and its healthy food I am to be gasp* judged. Ohh POO on that. I am on a plan with a health coach. Yes after I get to my goal weight I may gain a few getting back on track but I will not be obese anymore and my body will adjust and all will be fine. Because I wont be shoving crap in my mouth just to say I have eaten 1200 or more calories. So why is it ok to eat junk to get your calories? Why is it not ok to eat several times a day "healthy" and not make the magic number of cals? I am in no way starving, I feel quite full actually...
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Yes - but this adds to the calorie count and makes the math discussed above not work.
    Not here it doesn't, fibre has no calories because it isn't absorbed.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    It seems like this site focuses on half of the battle: losing weight. I think we should post up some pictures of people that lost a ton of weight eating under 1k calories. They do not look healthy. They do look smaller though.
    Thank you.

    There is only so much fat you can metabolise every day. Any additional weightloss is lean mass in one form or another.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sorry to contradict you but your BRAIN and your HEART' S ONLY FUEL is carbs and carbs produced by fat and protein only diets only create a lot of junk such as ketones.
    I don't mind being contradicted by correct information, but that's a pile of BS. Go back to the drawing board and learn how the brain utilises ketones as fuel and ditto the heart (along with fatty acids). You are 100% incorrect.

    I think this is a first - I agree with you!, however, if you have zero carbs, your body needs to use protein for these functions - which increases the protein requirements and again makes the math discussed above not work.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Yes - but this adds to the calorie count and makes the math discussed above not work.
    Not here it doesn't, fibre has no calories because it isn't absorbed.

    So fibre has zero calories?

    ETA: sorry, I should be clearer - so, to get fibre, you would be eating zero calorie food? Or are we talking more supplements?
  • NevaStar
    NevaStar Posts: 9
    wow thanks ! I really needed this ! I am always way under my calorie intake ! And it's not due to dieting, it's just the way I naturally eat! Small portions and very healthy! It's hard to get in all of those calories! MyFitnessPal has accused me of starvation mode and I hate it ! It frustrates and stresses me out !
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    if you have zero carbs, your body needs to use protein for these functions
    Ketones from fat also fuel the brain nicely, doesn't have to be protein. People live on ketogenic diets with very low protein.
  • NevaStar
    NevaStar Posts: 9
    This is me 100%
    Never junk food calories , all healthy calories.
    Yet I am always under ! :(
  • NevaStar
    NevaStar Posts: 9
    This Starvation or peoples opinion of Starvation is retarded. I Think its hilarious to see others diaries and yes they have eaten 1200- 1800 calories but its mostly carbs and junk but when I eat 1000 or less and its healthy food I am to be gasp* judged. Ohh POO on that. I am on a plan with a health coach. Yes after I get to my goal weight I may gain a few getting back on track but I will not be obese anymore and my body will adjust and all will be fine. Because I wont be shoving crap in my mouth just to say I have eaten 1200 or more calories. So why is it ok to eat junk to get your calories? Why is it not ok to eat several times a day "healthy" and not make the magic number of cals? I am in no way starving, I feel quite full actually...

    This is me 100%
    Never junk food calories , all healthy calories.
    Yet I am always under ! :(
  • Pedal_Pusher
    Pedal_Pusher Posts: 1,166 Member
    That's weird. I just eat right and exercise.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    So fibre has zero calories?
    Depends to some extent on definition and analytical method, also your regulatory regime, but in essence if fibre is defined as stuff that passes through your GI tract and out the other end completely intact then it has no calories for the human because they aren't absorbed. It may have calories if you set fire to it - cellulose springs to mind, that's probably a fibre with no calories for human nutrition but plenty as a fuel.

    You could eat flaxseed at 1g of carbs and 32g of fibre. There's your RDA for 1g of carbs.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    That's weird. I just eat right and exercise.

    This is a strange place to hang out for someone with no problems with it all.
  • MustBeTheRows
    MustBeTheRows Posts: 377 Member
    There's more than one way to approach it.

    The bottom line is yes it slows the metabolism. But the body will not hold on to what it cannot maintain and you will lose the weight. If you're not using resistance training you will lose muscle as it is costly for your body to maintain and if it doesn't think it has to it wont.

    Personally, I'd rater eat. I'm mean without food.
  • tamsinwhitfield
    tamsinwhitfield Posts: 135 Member
    Two things continue to amaze me:

    1) "Maintainable, lifestyle, 1000 calories forever or you'll gain it all back, blahblahblah!"

    No. It's not forever. It's until you lose the weight. At which point you maintain that weight. And that applies to every single diet. If you are currently losing weight, at some point you are going to increase your intake in order to avoid loss of further weight. If you go back to your original habits, obviously you will gain weight again. How do you think you got to that weight in the first place? Gradually increasing your calorie intake post-diet will redress any (slight) slowdown in your metabolism.

    2) Everyone who thinks it's possible to defy all the laws of Physics.

    I have read, on a disturbing number of occasions, a statement to this effect: "If you don't eat enough, you could even gain weight!!!". Seriously, what planet are you living on? Energy is required to move things, break things and make things - i.e. in order to be alive. If you don't put this energy in your mouth, your body doesn't go "screw it, I'll just stop performing bodily functions like moving and breathing and continuing existence". It goes looking for alternate energy sources - and if you're overweight, it finds them quite easily. As someone posted above - remember that a morbidly obese person is essentially walking around wearing a quarter-of-a-million calorie cake.

    Obviously that's not to say that VLCDs aren't without pitfalls. But, again as mentioned, the main issue is maintaining acceptable levels of nutrients. Fortunately, it just so happens that a lot of really low calorie foods are nutritionally quite awesome. If given the choice between 1,000 calories of awesome, healthy stuff (and people going "AHHH STARVATION MODE") and 1,300 calories of junk, I know which I'd choose.

    EDIT: Also quoting this, as it's possibly the best post in this thread:
    YUP, THEM STARVING AFRICAN KIDS ARE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FAT FECKERS
  • thistimeismytime
    thistimeismytime Posts: 711 Member
    .
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    YUP, THEM STARVING AFRICAN KIDS ARE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FAT FECKERS

    They never have the opportunity to develop muscle mass nor excessive fat stores, so their situation is ever so slightly different.
  • tamsinwhitfield
    tamsinwhitfield Posts: 135 Member
    YUP, THEM STARVING AFRICAN KIDS ARE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FAT FECKERS

    They never have the opportunity to develop muscle mass nor excessive fat stores, so their situation is ever so slightly different.

    Although I think that (reasonably obviously) the original poster was making a hyperbolic statement for effect, I'll amend that quote so that it's more to your first-world liking (and ignore the fact that physiologically there's barely any difference between this and the original):
    YUP, THEM ANOREXICS DYING OF PROLONGED MARASMUS ARE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FAT FECKERS
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    All these years of The Biggest Loser, they manage to rack up double-digit losses week after week after week eating well below their BMR and not adding back their exercise calories. They burned off their body fat in place of their food calories. Their metabolisms didn't grind to a halt. I'm not advocating that method but there must be a hundred or more examples there.
  • doors43
    doors43 Posts: 3
    There was an article in Newsweek a few weeks ago about how America is dieting all wrong and how obesity has skyrocketed ever since the FDA came out and said to eat fewer calories and exercise more. Basically, the article said sugar is your biggest enemy and that red meat (and other meats) are healthier for your body to digest. It also said exercising makes us hungrier (we all know that) and that it doesn't necessarily make you lose weight, while it may be doing good things for your heart, lungs, muscles, etc. So starvation mode I really don't know about that. Anorexics (while not to be admired) don't stay fat from eating less. But basically the article said not all calories are created equal and it's not just about the # of them you put in your body. Stay away from the refined grains and the starches and you'll see better success. Apparently, Atkins was actually onto something.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories