 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004Starvation mode
I've been searching on the web about this, and the general consensus is that if you eat too few calories your body will go into "starvation mode" and plateua and hold on to its fat. However, I have not been able to find a consistent definition of "too few." How do you know the minimum amount of calories you need to stay out of starvation mode? Is it based on your BMR? According to the calculator here: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html my BMR is 1500, but on most days I'm eating 200 or 300 calories below that. Not trying to, just, well, that's how much I want to eat. Obviously I'm not in starvation mode, because I have not stalled in my weight loss nor had any symptoms of not eating enough. Seems to me that I'd have to eat WAY under my BMR for an extended period to be in "starvation mode."  SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. One way is to monitor your temperature. Check it first thing in the morning, before even getting out of bed. IIRC, each degree drop means a 10% drop in metabolism. Or, google for "bodygem" to find out how to have your BMR actually tested. Mine was a lot less than the online web forms claim. > One way is to monitor your temperature. Check it first thing in the > morning, before even getting out of bed. IIRC, each degree drop means > a 10% drop in metabolism. If you're taking it regularly at the same time of day and see a trend of a drop, it could be cause for concern, but I wanted to step in to warn people against quackery based on the fact that human temperatures are normally quite a bit lower first thing in the morning than several hours later. Sites advocating taking basal temperature with regard to metabolism don't ever seem to mention that it is absolutely normal to have a basal temp of 97 or so. Doctors and women taking basal temp to determine fertility have known this for decades. Temperature in the morning after getting up is also typically lower than several hours later in the day, with a wide variance among humans. Bogus thyroid-product sites love to claim that normal basal or morning temperatures indicate a thyroid problem that their kelp or other bullshit will cure. Normal basal or morning temperatures are also used by quacks to "prove" the fake thyroid disorder called Wilson's syndrome. "http://www.thyroid.org/professionals/publications/statements/99_11_16_wilsons.html" Signaturejamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) "There's a seeker born every minute." Er, right, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The reason you take your temp in the morning is because activity raises your temp - even just digesting food is activity enough to raise it. Morning temp is the lowest, and happens to be the most accurate if you're interested in basal temp. And it's only *changes* in this morning temp that are interesting. You need to start taking your temp before you modify your diet, so you can notice the change in temp. The absolute temp is mostly irrelevent. So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would not lose weight? If someone locked you (not you LUNA) in a room and gave you only a cup of celery each day you would not lose weight? I wonder if this starvation mode is real. It probably is true that the body will ramp down systems in a response to calorie restriction, but somehow I don't think it will completely stop weight loss. I know, I know. Please claim to have gone months on end at almost no calories and have not loss weight. That still defies logic, imo. Oh, that's where Voodoo comes in :) I wonder how long I could go without eating..... :: I've been searching on the web about this, and the general consensus :: is that if you eat too few calories your body will go into [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :: I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 :: flaws. What starvation mode is, to me, is slowing down of metabolism (low BMR) as you eat less calories. It is a real concept and can be measured. For example, body temperature may drop one degree, blood pressure drops, etc. The body becomes more efficient at conserving energy as well as metabolising energy for food. As such, it is not necessarily a pathological state, although obviously, malnutrition can cause other pathological consequences. Some argue that such starvation mode has beneficial effects on longevity, again provided that there is no malnutrition. Do some searches on "calorie restriction". A person whose body is more energy efficient, would need less energy to sustain his or her weight. i > So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would not lose > weight? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >:: I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 >:: flaws. :: What starvation mode is, to me, is slowing down of metabolism (low :: BMR) as you eat less calories. It is a real concept and can be :: measured. For example, body temperature may drop one degree, blood :: pressure drops, etc. Don't have a problem with that...but that doesn't imply not losing, but losing slower. :: The body becomes more efficient at conserving energy as well as :: metabolising energy for food. I don't agree with that. I think the body does less, and hence needs less. It fights for survival and hence shuts down as much as possible to keep things going. Just like on StarShip Enterprise -- closes down all non-vital systems while in a low erergy state. I don't call that "more efficient." :: As such, it is not necessarily a pathological state, although :: obviously, malnutrition can cause other pathological consequences. I think if it as a different operation point, designed to maintain the system in response to external conditions (i.e., lack of food). :: Some argue that such starvation mode has beneficial effects on :: longevity, again provided that there is no malnutrition. Do some :: searches on "calorie restriction". You talking to me or Luna? I've heard those arguments. :: A person whose body is more energy efficient, would need less energy :: to sustain his or her weight. Closing down systems doesn't make the body more efficient. It is just doing less and hence needs less. A car engine my have optimal efficeincy at 55 mph....so gas mileage goes up. But one still uses more gas to go 50 miles at 55 mph than to go 1 mile at 55 mph, or 1 mile at 10 mph. :: i :: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] ::::: I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 ::::: flaws. >:: What starvation mode is, to me, is slowing down of metabolism (low >:: BMR) as you eat less calories. It is a real concept and can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don't have a problem with that...but that doesn't imply not losing, but > losing slower. and needing less food. >:: The body becomes more efficient at conserving energy as well as >:: metabolising energy for food. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > things going. Just like on StarShip Enterprise -- closes down all non-vital > systems while in a low erergy state. I don't call that "more efficient." No, scientists did measure how much food was used for energy. In a normal person, it is about 30%. In a calorie restricted person, it can go up to 50%. It is in Roy Walford's _Beyond 120 year diet_ book, with references. >:: As such, it is not necessarily a pathological state, although >:: obviously, malnutrition can cause other pathological consequences. > > I think if it as a different operation point, designed to maintain the > system in response to external conditions (i.e., lack of food). I agree. >:: Some argue that such starvation mode has beneficial effects on >:: longevity, again provided that there is no malnutrition. Do some >:: searches on "calorie restriction". > > You talking to me or Luna? I've heard those arguments. To you. >:: A person whose body is more energy efficient, would need less energy >:: to sustain his or her weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mph....so gas mileage goes up. But one still uses more gas to go 50 miles > at 55 mph than to go 1 mile at 55 mph, or 1 mile at 10 mph. If you were a car, maybe you would prefer to drive a little more slowly and live longer? Wouldn't you prefer a slow, steady, careful driver rather than a speed maniac teenager? Remember, on CR, intellectually etc you are the same person, but, supposedly, calorie restriction does slow down aging. This is a hugely interesting topic, and you may also find it interesting if you do some initial reading. i :: In article <burub2$l85a7$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, Roger Zoul :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] :: go up to 50%. It is in Roy Walford's _Beyond 120 year diet_ book, :: with references. So you're saying that the body is more efficent at extracting energy from food....that still doesn't imply that the body itself runs more efficiently, in terms of what it can do per unit of food extracted energy. I'm saying that body is doing less (i.e., lower metabolism) and hence needs less (even though it maybe be extracting energy from food at a high rate). ::::: As such, it is not necessarily a pathological state, although ::::: obviously, malnutrition can cause other pathological consequences. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: slowly and live longer? Wouldn't you prefer a slow, steady, careful :: driver rather than a speed maniac teenager? Not if I found that it bored to tears to get somewhere. There is this thing called quality of life, as opposed to just life. I do not prefer slow drivers nor do I prefer speed-manicas. To me, this argument is like saying would I rather be a 90 lb weakling than someone who is strong and robust. But, that's just make take -- to each his own. :: Remember, on CR, intellectually etc you are the same person, but, :: supposedly, calorie restriction does slow down aging. Sadly, I'm on CR and have been mostly for 2 years. :: This is a hugely interesting topic, and you may also find it :: interesting if you do some initial reading. Okay.... >:: normal person, it is about 30%. In a calorie restricted person, it >:: can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > efficiently, in terms of what it can do per unit of food extracted > energy. I cannot disagree. > I'm saying that body is doing less (i.e., lower metabolism) > and hence needs less (even though it maybe be extracting energy from > food at a high rate). Yes, and that is supposedly beneficial. >:: If you were a car, maybe you would prefer to drive a little more >:: slowly and live longer? Wouldn't you prefer a slow, steady, careful [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > someone who is strong and robust. But, that's just make take -- to each his > own. No, you can be a strong person (within reason) on CR. The key is exercise. i > So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would not > lose weight? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I wonder how long I could go without eating..... About 8 to 12 weeks. http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter2/2b.jsp As for starvation made all I know is what happened to me. About 18 years ago I went to a doctor who recommended a place called The Weight Loss Clinic that was in his building. He said they had a very good successful program. At the time I weighed approx 200 pounds. They put me on a 490 calorie a day diet. I was on that diet for close to 2 years. I lost about 50 pounds the first 6 months and it took another 18 months to get another 30 off. I followed it religiously. I never did get to my goal weight of 100 pounds. I ended up with an irregular heartbeat and I looked and felt like death warmed over. It's a good thing I got a job in another city or I would probably have died trying to lose that last 20 pounds. My present doctor agrees. I believe The Weight Loss Clinic folded about 6 months after I moved and I was notified around the same time that my old doctor was also closing his practice. Was I stupid? Yes. But I trusted my doctor and at that point I had never heard of starvation mode. Does it exist? You bet it does. SignatureJeri 265/189/120 Atkins since 11/5/01 "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." --Henry Ford :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message :: news:burt53$l7c28$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] :: at that point I had never heard of starvation mode. Does it exist? :: You bet it does. -- wow....I knew someone would say something just like this. Amazing. Do you remember if you had low body temps during this time? <snip> >>> Was I stupid? Yes. But I trusted my doctor and >>> at that point I had never heard of starvation mode. Does it exist? >>> You bet it does. -- > > wow....I knew someone would say something just like this. Amazing. > Do you remember if you had low body temps during this time? I really don't know. I don't recall ever checking it unless I was sick. I didn't know until much later about metabolism slowing down and starvation mode. I do know I was totally exhausted all the time. I just blamed it on working full time and going to school half time. >As for starvation made all I know is what happened to me. About 18 years ago >I went to a doctor who recommended a place called The Weight Loss Clinic [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >practice. Was I stupid? Yes. But I trusted my doctor and at that point I had >never heard of starvation mode. Does it exist? You bet it does. I, too went on a starvation diet many years ago. I ate only 500 calories a day. I did nothing but work and sleep. I didn't even have the energy to exercise. Good thing I was young and that my body was able to take that kind of punishment. Yvonne > >As for starvation made all I know is what happened to me. About 18 years ago > >I went to a doctor who recommended a place called The Weight Loss Clinic [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Yvonne Thanks to everyone who responded to this. Sounds like I have nothing to worry about eating 1200-1300 calories a day. I just wasn't sure if starvation mode was defined as anything below your BMR, or if you had to go much lower than that. Looks like it's the second option. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. >So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would not lose >weight? > >If someone locked you (not you LUNA) in a room and gave you only a cup of >celery each day you would not lose weight? Weight? Sure. Would the majority of that weight be fat? I doubt it. I could also hack off my arm and "lose weight" but that's not really a good thing. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/236/140 & hubby- 310/262/180 You'll never get to 140. SignatureJC Eat less, exercise more. -- > > > >So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would not lose [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Me- 265/236/140 > & hubby- 310/262/180 ::: So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would ::: not lose weight? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: I could also hack off my arm and "lose weight" but that's not really :: a good thing. If you hacked off your arm, would you then eat it? That would surely solve the weight loss problem. :) || I know, I know. Please claim to have gone months on end at almost no | calories and have not loss weight. | | That still defies logic, imo. Oh, that's where Voodoo comes in :) Now that you mention it, it *does* sound a lot like Ronald Reagan's former economic plan! Peter | So if someone locked you in a room and gave you no food you would not lose | weight? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] | :: I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 | :: flaws. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.