This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

Options
1234689

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    This is me 100%
    Never junk food calories , all healthy calories.
    Yet I am always under ! :(
  • NevaStar
    NevaStar Posts: 9
    Options
    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
    Options
    That's weird. I just eat right and exercise.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    .
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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.

Categories