Reply to Is starvation mode real or a myth?

Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss

Reply to "Is starvation mode real or a myth?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]While a drastic cut in calories below what you are burning per day is going to make you lose weight (calories in less than calories out), and no one eating 1200 calories month after month is going to not eventually lose weight (and many people misreport how many calories they are consuming per day), starvation mode is a thing in that it effects a) your basal metabolic rate slightly b) your hormonal profile and tendency to release cortisol and retain fat, especially around your midsection and c) minor changes to thermoregulation, spontaneous movement (fidgeting, etc.), menstruation, muscle hypertrophy, and other physiological functions. Your body is intelligent and it will conserve calories if the deficit is too steep and shut down functions it considers unessential.

You can make your body more apt to store fat rather than lean tissue and cause your body to burn calories at a slightly lower rate meaning you need to eat less and less to continue to lose weight (beyond that once you lose weight, your BMR is lower).  Although basal metabolic rate is mostly determined by body size, there can be minor variations of 100-300 calories per day and your body can normalize to the lower end of this range.  Your body is going to shut down functions it considers unessential, and it's going to become more lethargic so you move and fidget less over the day.  The amount of calories/body weight will slow down if you restrict too much.  It can also cause your immune system to shut down, mess up your hormones, and it hinder how much fitness you are able to gain (e.g. gains in strength from strength training, or gains in cardiovascular conditioning from aerobic exercise) from working out.  It can also mess up your thyroid.

For this reason, typically when losing weight, deficits of ~300-500 calories/day (~1 lb/week) is considered more sustainable than going on a rapid 1200/day diet.  Certainly less potential for affecting your health in a negative way.[/quote]

this is all nonsense. i mean iif one doest eat a single thing for a month, maybe some of it is true, but to talk about this in respect to 1200 per day is a LOL. 1200 is more than what many women need to merely maintain their weight. 1200 is a lot of calories... it's just that people are fat and eat a lot and feel they are starving when they eat the amount their body actually needs.[/quote]

I do not believe in "starvation mode", but [b]i can tell you most women need more than 1200 calories/day to maintain their weight. the exception being a women who weigh 100 lbs.[/b]  Anyone who says they ear eating 1200 cal and not losing weight is delusional and most likely not tracking accurately or eating 1200 cal consistently.

Now will metabolic rate slow down some on very low calori(e diets, yes. but this is due to the fact that low calorie diets, especially ones without sufficient protein and where heavy weigh lifting in not involved, will also cause someone to lose a lot of muscle along with the fat.  Loss of muscle decrease metabolic rate. This is also one of the big reasons our metabolism slows as we age; we are less active and lose muscle mass which decreases metabolic rate. Losing fat will decrease energy needs as well because someone who weights 200 lbs does not have the same caloric needs as someone who weights 150 lbs. but again, this reduction is not so sever that you will notice and it is not the reason some one has "plateaued" after a few weeks. [/quote]

an average woman in the USA is 5 4. [b]most women are supposed to weigh no more than 120 lbs.[/b] that is 1200 per day or less to maintain.[/quote]

Welp, this is ridiculous.[/quote]

I"m 5'1" and my lowest adult weight was about 127 lbs and my ribs were visible-my mom freaked when she saw me! I was doing a lot of field work that summer-running up and down outcrops and skipping lunch so I was constantly moving and dropped like 8 lbs without really trying that summer. I was wearing an xs and yet according to the charts I was borderline overweight and needed to lose another 20 lbs...trust me I didn't have it to lose.

Yes! This index was devised 200 years ago using young, white Western Europeans who were self-reporting their weights. There is no record of the age of the individuals as well...are these 16 year old ladies and 18 year old men?? Did the woman have any muscle mass-probably not, they were wealthy women that didn't do housework or farmwork or exercise to build muscle. The person that devised this wasn't even a medical doctor.

And up until like 1998 overweight status didn't hit until you have a 28 for BMI but that was changed to 25 which made millions of people overweight and their life insurance policies so up in cost...surprise surprise. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics