The Starvation Myth

That study is an example of one the WW article mentions, where people were on an 800 calorie diet. I don't think anyone here is advocating 800 calorie diets, and I don't think 1200 is comparable.

WW: "Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day)."

According to the math Mcarter....

shouldnt you be near goal by now?

There's the other study.

Your body to maintain what it needs just seems to slow other functions down.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816

Net effect is slower-than-weight-loss-would-indicate daily energy expenditure levels.

Does this one say anything in the article itself about calorie reduction levels? The abstract doesn't seem to.

We found that the maintenance of a 10% reduced body weight was associated with significant declines in glycolytic (phosphofructokinase, PFK) enzyme activity and, in particular, in the ratio of glycolytic to oxidative (cytochrome c oxidase, COX) enzyme activity without significant changes in the activities of enzymes relevant to mitochondrial density, respiratory chain activity, or fuel transport; or in skeletal muscle fiber type or glycogen stores. The fractional change in the ratio of PFKICOX activity in subjects following weight loss was significantly correlated with changes in the systemic respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and measures of mechanical efficiency of skeletal muscle at low workloads (pedaling a bicycle to generate 10 or 25 W of power). Thus, predictable changes in systemic skeletal muscle biochemistry accompany the maintenance of an altered body weight and account for a significant portion of the variance in skeletal muscle work efficiency and fuel utilization at reduced body weight.

I can't speak for the starvation mode thing but in my opinion the reason there is so much talk (or questions) about eating back exercise calories back is because I feel like MPF makes it a big deal. It says "oh hey you earned these calories back!!" Personally, I think people use it as an excuse to eat way more than they need to.

Agree with this. Its not the eating back the calories that poses the problem, Its the fact that people (and MFP for me at least) incorrectly calculate the calories they actually burn during exercise and therefore over eat. This coupled with the fact doing a lot of cardio does make you hungry (again it does for me at least) and I find I grossly overeat any calories burned after doing such activities

I said the same thing on another thread and got CRUCIFIED FOR IT. I said most people on MFP greatly overestimate calorie burn.

And I was crucified. THat's why i don't even put down my actual workout because if I see MFP telling me I "earned" more cals to eat..I WILL! So I just don't give myself that option.

Crucifixion sounds painful! Glad you survived it though.

I agree with you. MFP misleads by saying ' you earned 200 calories' then you go and eat 200 when in fact you only burned 50 walking to shop that took 10 mins.

There obviously needs to be common sense but the HR monitors are pretty good, There is also a calculation on the livestrong website that gives much more accuracy and takes into account age, weight and hr etc. Both of which always give me lower values for calories burned than MFP.

I wrote myself an excel spreadsheet based on the livestrong calculation which I now use a lot!

There obviously needs to be common sense but the HR monitors are pretty good,

haybales posted a study the other day that showed that a certain Polar HRM was found to overestimate calorie burn for women by over 30%.

Between that and the temptation to log 'lifestyle' activities (cleaning house, etc.) and the issue of double-counting BMR, there's a lot of potential for overeating there.

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair... :laugh:

Yeah again- it varies from hr monitor to the next. Wouldn't be surprised to see that people Log things like 'taking a shower' or 'taking a turd' in the hope that they can eat a further 4000 calories that MFP would give them for these activities :laugh:

I went into starvation mode and ate a few human beings cold blooded.

I'm interested in losing FAT, not just weight. It's important to me that my loss not come from lean mass but instead from fat stores. So I choose to strength train and eat more. And for those that said "starvation mode is an excuse for people to eat more", that's offensive and ridiculous but since you started it.... eating at 1200 and not eating back exercise calories is stupid and unhealthy. That sounding a bit judgmental? How does it feel?

:drinker:

This is why when anorexics are in rehab to gain weight back, they need to do it slower because when they up the calories many will sometimes LOSE MORE WEIGHT.

Did anyone look at who the writers of the article were? Weight Watchers Research. I would like to see this not in a Weight Watchers magazine but in a peer reviewed research journal because those are the only "researchers" that should be heard and it isn't even the laypeople who get to read them.

If you can find something about how it is okay to eat below 1200 calories for an extended period of time in a scholarly research journal and prove me wrong than I will admit defeat. But I am pretty sure I will not. I am in the exercise science industry and I do not believe that it is healthy in any way shape or form to be eating that little for an extended period of time.

Phew. Breath. Sorry I got heated.

^^^Nurse Dayna agrees :-)

Thank you for posting this. I absolutely agree. When I was losing I consistently ate 800 to 1100 calories a day. It worked great and I lost all my weight and have maintained the weight loss now for 6 months. So so much for the old myth and that you need the 1200 calories a day. I did not need to eat that much, and I did not eat the calories I got from exercise.

Why bother eating at all then? Just stop eating for the next few weeks, then gradually start eating again. Should work out just fine given this article! This "written by a nobody next to a shake weight ad" article trumped every article written in scientific journals in the last 40 years, I'm shocked!

Something many people don't realize is that this has NOTHING to do with how the diet makes you feel. At all. Human mind is incredibly strong, and if you so desire, there's pretty much nothing you can't endure willingly. Monks fast for weeks at a time and feel zero pain or anything negative from it.

It has everything to do with efficiency. All your motivation and dedication would be much more useful if applied to something that actually works. Good thing you managed to lose weight eating 800 cals, probably 200-500 net. Now what can you do at your new goal weight? When's the last time you ran 8 min/mile on that diet? Or last time you squatted 1.5-2 times your weight? Nothing incredible in those numbers, that's rather average for someone fit.

If your goal was to be a sexy looking coach potato, I guess mission accomplished, but people that give advise on this site assume that the person asking for it wants to be fit! Running greatly reduces bad cholesterol and increases good cholesterol for example; lifting weight increases bone density, which is something every woman alive at the moment should really worry about, given the frequency of osteoporosis after menopause. And there's no way you'll sustain that type of healthy lifestyle at that level of intake.

But yeah, all of this is shallow. 800 calories and fitting in size 4 pants next week is MUCH more important.