The Starvation Myth
Replies
-
Two different populations need to be distinguished here....
Person A: Ate at maintenance for over 6 months prior to dropping down to 1200 calories or below to diet for only 12-16 weeks before returning to or near adjusted maintenance.
Person B: Ate well below maintenance for over 6 months prior to actually dieting at an even greater deficit and chronically doing so long-term (several years).0 -
Well OP taking a look at your diary your eating is pretty horrible (no offense I only looked at a few days and my past few days are horrifying so perhaps it's just a recent thing) but what I saw is loaded with fat and you go over on saturated fat quite often, which is the worst kind of fat for you... So I suppose if you're eating less then 1200 calories of that kind of food you'll be malnourished but you won't be starving...
Saturated fats are worse than synthetic trans fats?0 -
It's not a myth. Well, starvation mode is like the foul pole in baseball. You can starve, but, in that case your body shuts down and you can't function. In fact, you can't get out of bed, or, you just sleep all the time.
"starvation mode" is just when you body figures out what's going on, adjusts, reallocates calories and to funtions, and you stall out and plateau. Variety in your workouts and caloric intakes are vital to this whole deal. I change my meal plan based on what type of workouts I'm doing and generally how busy I am. I listen to my body too. Everyone is different, but, even if I'm eating 2500-3000 calories a day and I start getting persistent headaches... Somethings not right. I'll throw in a cheat day and blow it up and see how I feel. Usually, I feel terrible that day from all the yummy crap food I eat (but so worth it), but the next day I'll feel better. Kinda like a reset button.
For most of us, well, at least for me. I can't do the same thing 365 days and get consisten results. I have to keep changing things up in order for it to work for me.
I am a believer in getting at least 1200 calories a day though. Not for me, but, maybe for someone half my size. We just have to be careful and not get carried away in any facet of this.0 -
Well OP taking a look at your diary your eating is pretty horrible (no offense I only looked at a few days and my past few days are horrifying so perhaps it's just a recent thing) but what I saw is loaded with fat and you go over on saturated fat quite often, which is the worst kind of fat for you... So I suppose if you're eating less then 1200 calories of that kind of food you'll be malnourished but you won't be starving...
Saturated fats are worse than synthetic trans fats?
Do foods even have trans fats anymore...I thought they're illegal now...?
I've never seen anything including things like Big Macs and KFC Fried Chicken that have trans fats in them...so all I meant is SF is the worst kind of fat we still consume...I could be wrong about trans fats being banned but I can't remember that last time I saw something that contained that.
But perhaps I've just never eaten anything.0 -
We all have different types of bodies obviously and no result is always the same but there are basic fundamentals that are established at least. Forget about whether or not starvation is real or not. 7- 14 days is a pretty good range to measure short term results. If you have gone 4 weeks without losing a pound then there is something wrong with your diet. Drink heavy loads of water during the week and control your sodium intake to better allow you to measure your success as fat loss instead of weight loss. My body personally does not like being under maintenance calories for no more than 12 weeks. Once I hit that 12 week plateau I immediately go back to maintenance for a whole month completely then go back and lower my calories.0
-
So.....show of hands......
Who here wants to lose weight eating next to nothing?
Or
Who here wants to lose weight eating just about whatever they want?
Its not always about a steady number dropping on a scale but about body composition.
People who diet down at lower cals tend to get skinny-fat fast.
They plateau and often fall off the wagon.
People who tend to eat at a smaller deficit tend to see better composition and thus continue the diet even though the numbers arent dropping as fast.
Just my .02c before bed.0 -
Again, WW 'eating back' is optional and maxes at half your exercise calories.
And there is no 'you HAVE TO fuel your workouts' advice. Stored calories fuel workouts just fine. The Activity Points thing is just an optional means to eat more for those who wish to. I recall most WWers either didn't or ate half or some portion of them.
What type of workouts, how long, determines what fuel source.
You could have 40 lbs of fat, and if every workout is at Lactate threshold, then it's burning good 95% of the calories from carbs - not fat.
Can't get around that fact.
And your next meal or two will replenish those stores. And if eating too much of a deficit, you may not actually replenish before your next workout.
Because sadly 1200 just doesn't provide enough carbs usually to be used with intense exercise sessions. Even at 50% carbs, 600 calories, minus what the brain needs the blood sugar to be for it, just isn't much left over for the exercise to use.
If you somehow could maintain that intensity for over 400 calories of carbs burned, and doing the math it wouldn't be impossible for someone 40 lbs overweight to accomplish - you'll be using some muscle broken down to maintain blood sugar levels until next meal, keep it up for another 200-500 cal of carb's burned (depending on training and body increasing glucose stores in muscles used), and you'll have muscle breakdown for general glucose needs for the muscle engaged to use.
Oh sure, small part of energy needs will be the lactic acid burned as energy, but it's inefficient, hence the existence of an LT anyway. And some fat can be converted too, but that is even worse than lactate acid. Protein gluconeogenesis is the fastest way to get it.
That is why the feeding of the workout is needed, unless your workout is really just increased daily activity. Then you luck out.
Now, walking only may have you luck out from that effect. Though it's hardly the resistance training the studies have shown is the only way to retain muscle mass during deep deficits.
And resistance training doesn't use that many carbs, and great fat burn as that is main energy source as muscles are being repaired.
There is plenty of need to fuel your workouts advice - if you want to actually see improvements from your workouts. But indeed, some people love to feel like they are pushing hard (and with their body not improving, they are) and not get great changes besides some basic improvement from previous inactive state.0 -
So.....show of hands......
Who here wants to lose weight eating next to nothing?
Or
Who here wants to lose weight eating just about whatever they want?
Its not always about a steady number dropping on a scale but about body composition.
People who diet down at lower cals tend to get skinny-fat fast.
They plateau and often fall off the wagon.
People who tend to eat at a smaller deficit tend to see better composition and thus continue the diet even though the numbers arent dropping as fast.
Just my .02c before bed.
agree with this. I'm clearly option B
(however was option A a while ago before I did my research) 0 -
bump for later0
-
Option B please!0
-
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I had never heard of it either, unless you were involved in serious endurance sports or very heavy lifting.
It's only MFP where I've ever seen such a big deal made of it.
Once you start paying attention to what you're eating and move away from processed junk towards more quality food, you often find that you can't eat that much anyway.0 -
Eat until you're full and then STOP. Don't eat just to fulfill some caloric goal of 1500 or whatnot. My opinion.
yes! i hate people that are like, "oh i'm not hungry but i have 200 cals left for today..what should i eat?!"
don't eat if you're not hungry!
Agreed.0 -
Again, WW 'eating back' is optional and maxes at half your exercise calories.
And there is no 'you HAVE TO fuel your workouts' advice. Stored calories fuel workouts just fine. The Activity Points thing is just an optional means to eat more for those who wish to. I recall most WWers either didn't or ate half or some portion of them.
What type of workouts, how long, determines what fuel source.
You could have 40 lbs of fat, and if every workout is at Lactate threshold, then it's burning good 95% of the calories from carbs - not fat.
Can't get around that fact.
And your next meal or two will replenish those stores. And if eating too much of a deficit, you may not actually replenish before your next workout.
Because sadly 1200 just doesn't provide enough carbs usually to be used with intense exercise sessions. Even at 50% carbs, 600 calories, minus what the brain needs the blood sugar to be for it, just isn't much left over for the exercise to use.
If you somehow could maintain that intensity for over 400 calories of carbs burned, and doing the math it wouldn't be impossible for someone 40 lbs overweight to accomplish - you'll be using some muscle broken down to maintain blood sugar levels until next meal, keep it up for another 200-500 cal of carb's burned (depending on training and body increasing glucose stores in muscles used), and you'll have muscle breakdown for general glucose needs for the muscle engaged to use.
Oh sure, small part of energy needs will be the lactic acid burned as energy, but it's inefficient, hence the existence of an LT anyway. And some fat can be converted too, but that is even worse than lactate acid. Protein gluconeogenesis is the fastest way to get it.
That is why the feeding of the workout is needed, unless your workout is really just increased daily activity. Then you luck out.
Now, walking only may have you luck out from that effect. Though it's hardly the resistance training the studies have shown is the only way to retain muscle mass during deep deficits.
And resistance training doesn't use that many carbs, and great fat burn as that is main energy source as muscles are being repaired.
There is plenty of need to fuel your workouts advice - if you want to actually see improvements from your workouts. But indeed, some people love to feel like they are pushing hard (and with their body not improving, they are) and not get great changes besides some basic improvement from previous inactive state.
Excellent post Heybales! I would be just as concerned about loss o lean muscle mass than adaptive thermogenesis on a VLCD. To me the scale looks like: loose weight on a VLCD but risk adaptive thermogenesis and lean muscle mass loss or eat more to retaining lean mass fuel workout and lower body fat. It's going to be the later ove the former all day long. What others want to do is up to them.0 -
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I had never heard of it either, unless you were involved in serious endurance sports or very heavy lifting.
It's only MFP where I've ever seen such a big deal made of it.
Once you start paying attention to what you're eating and move away from processed junk towards more quality food, you often find that you can't eat that much anyway.
Hahaha! Speak for yourself! LOL I can knock out 3500 calories of high quality unprocessed, home prepared, organically grown food easily!! :laugh:0 -
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I had never heard of it either, unless you were involved in serious endurance sports or very heavy lifting.
It's only MFP where I've ever seen such a big deal made of it.
Once you start paying attention to what you're eating and move away from processed junk towards more quality food, you often find that you can't eat that much anyway.
Hahaha! Speak for yourself! LOL I can knock out 3500 calories of high quality unprocessed, home prepared, organically grown food easily!! :laugh:
You're also a man and rather larger than me, so what's your point?0 -
I don't know about starvation mode but I do know that I have lost SOOO much more weight eating a healthy amount rather than back when I used to try to starve myself. I think it has more to do with the fact that I have more energy and can go harder during workouts. On top of that, I LIKE eating so screw eating very little haha.
THIS!!!!
I feel the same way!
Eating back your workout calories only means you're feeding the muscle! You're building muscle when you workout right? So you need to feed it! You don't want to loose weight, you want to loose FAT!!!!
I was at 1200 cals for a month, working out 6 days a week. At the end of the month I had to force myself to do the workout, cramping all the time, starving myself.
Then I started thinking, if I'm loosing so few lbs eating this little and working this hard, how am I going to keep this up?
I want a lifestyle change, not a Quick fix!!!!
So, no 1200cals for me, I'm at 1500 going up when I workout and guess what? When I go check my net calories intake, I'm usually at 500c, some days a little bit more...
Keep reading, instructing yourselves. If less caloric intake was the answer, would we be really here????0 -
I usually train in the evening. Depending on the type of training I do I'll burn between 300-800 cals.
I eat between 1400-1800 cals, high protein (1g of protein for each pound of lean mass), low-ish carbs (between 70-150g), home cooked mainly unprocessed foods with plenty of lean meat, heaps of fresh veg and some fruit.
When I come home home after a double spin session, I'm not going to have a whopping 1200 cals dinner only because MFP tells me to. I have a normal dinner of a meat and three veg and finish when I'm full.0 -
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I had never heard of it either, unless you were involved in serious endurance sports or very heavy lifting.
It's only MFP where I've ever seen such a big deal made of it.
Once you start paying attention to what you're eating and move away from processed junk towards more quality food, you often find that you can't eat that much anyway.
Hahaha! Speak for yourself! LOL I can knock out 3500 calories of high quality unprocessed, home prepared, organically grown food easily!! :laugh:
You're also a man and rather larger than me, so what's your point?
I thought the point was pretty obvious but if your a little slow on the uptake I'd be happy to explain it. You used the collective " you" to state that eating less processed and higher quality food, "you" (collective) can't eat that much anyway. That statement would contain the logic fault of generalizing from the specific instance. You didn't say "I", you said "you". What applies to you doesn't apply to all.
There! Clearer?? Glad I could help.
edited for spelling0 -
Sounds like people cry starvation mode in order to justify eating a little more food. In that case, throw out those funny egg whites in a carton and eat an omelette with real eggs. Put some sugar on your porridge or have a handful of nuts instead of going into drama queen mode.0
-
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I'm with you guys, eating back your exercise calories makes no sense at all to me.0 -
Bump0
-
What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).
This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:
I had never heard of it either, unless you were involved in serious endurance sports or very heavy lifting.
It's only MFP where I've ever seen such a big deal made of it.
Once you start paying attention to what you're eating and move away from processed junk towards more quality food, you often find that you can't eat that much anyway.
Hahaha! Speak for yourself! LOL I can knock out 3500 calories of high quality unprocessed, home prepared, organically grown food easily!! :laugh:
You're also a man and rather larger than me, so what's your point?
I thought the point was pretty obvious but if your a little slow on the uptake I'd be happy to explain it. You used the collective " you" to state that eating less processed and higher quality food, "you" (collective) can't eat that much anyway. That statement would contain the logic fault of generalizing from the specific instance. You didn't say "I", you said "you". What applies to you doesn't apply to all.
There! Clearer?? Glad I could help.
edited for spelling
Thank you for clarifying this to someone who is so obviously lacking in intelligence as according to your humble opinion. I hope you feel better now after that little episode of patronising and belittling which you obviously thought necessary to make your point.
Could you also clarify where all these unprocessed 3500+ cals are you say you're consuming so regularly?
According to your last 6 days entries you consumed 2294 (no exercise), 2275 (no exercise), 2335 (no exercise), 2225 (no exercise) 2324 - 401 exercise = 1923 net, and 2074 (no exercise).
And I'm also not entirely sure whether protein powder classifies as unprocessed, homecooked and organic?0 -
*0
-
[ img ] url of pic [ /img ] without spaces in [ ]0 -
This made me LOL/grabs popcorn
this should be interesting0 -
That's the pic I was trying to post!! Too sleepy to figure it out...thanks for sharing this!!0
-
Bump for updates to the bun fight.0
-
I'm new to this site and the whole 'Stravation Mode' thing did get me a little worried, so I did some research (wiki is not good for this as anyone with access to the internet can post there), spoke to some friends of mine whom have just finished a degree on Nutrition and sport and all in all I came to a conclusion.
Starvation mode isnt a myth, but you're highly unlikely to be at risk of falling into it if you do not eat more than a 500 cal deficit. Your body falls into the starvation mode as protection against actual starvation.
You can calculate how many cals your boy needs with a simple calculation of lbs x 11.
So for me thats 121x11=1331 cals needed to maintain my weight as it is if I am mostly sedentary.
MFP has me on 1200 cals (Which for someone small can be difficult to consume) daily to get down to 115. Thats only a deficit of 131 cals, no risk of stravation mode.
However if your body NEEDS more than 1700 cals to maintain your current weight, suddenly dropping to 1200 cals daily is putting yourself at risk, not only of putting your body into starvation mode, but also doing some serious damage long term. Sure you'll see results in the very short term, but is your overall health worth it?
And the whole eating back cals, well even an idiot knows that if you work out hard and burn off loads of cals you can indulge a little extra.0 -
Another one at 1200 calories that doesn't eat their exercise calories back here
Worked for me to lose 70lbs and that was 5+ years ago.
I want to get a little lighter, but I usually maintain at 1450 though with a BMI of 19.
I don't eat breakfast, do daily intermittent fasting and I'm full of energy!
Meh - each to their own I say.
Live and let live, you can't educate people who don't want to listen.
0 -
I want to write this in caps!! People over estimate how many calories they burn during the work out. Simple 40 mins cardio is not burning 700 calories i take credit for 200 in 9 for example a zumba class) there is a warm up cool down so right there you are at 45 mins not an hour. There are alot of hard core people who burn alot of calories and may need to eat them back in order to have the energy to train hard. But thise of us who go do a circut and and hour class are not burning in excess of 300 calories.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