| Author | Post |
|---|
Ohm
Senior Member
|
Posted: 1 October 2007 11:24 pm |
|
OK Suenos, I will dig out some more refs for you. BTW, an ATHENS password, as you may know, is a password paid for by either you or your institution which, when entered along with your personal identifying username allows you access to those academic journals to which your particular institution has paid a subscription. (In the nicest possible way it ensures that articles aren't misinterpreted by people who don't really have the background to fully understand them).
NB when I say institution, I don't mean hospital - I mean institution of higher education - although some colleges do provide ATHENS access for their staff too. THus, if you haven't got an ATHENS password and ID, you won;t be able to access some of those articles without taking out a subscription to the particular journals and that can be very expensive - hence I offered to forward the pdfs. Still, some are freely available.
And then there's the classic Richardson et al (1961) study, which everyone already knows about but which was replicated with quite surprisingly extreme results by Latner and Stunkard (2003) (as previously cited.
One of my favourites is Jaffe and Worobey (2006) Mothers’ attitudes toward fat, weight, and dieting in themselves and their children. Body Image, Volume 3, Iss.2, pages 113-120
That's a really good one if you ahve the time to digest some really startling and scary stuff.
Last edited on 1 October 2007 11:25 pm by Ohm
|
Lucy
New Member
| Joined: | 8 May 2008 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 208 |
|
Posted: 13 June 2008 04:41 pm |
|
This is an old thread, but interesting. I am one that does not believe we stop burning calories if we limit our intake. It makes no sense.
As was referenced earlier, look at prisoners of war. Look at those with eating disorders, such as anorexia.
I myself know on two occasions where, I was going through a very emotional time, and eating was the last thing I wanted to do. I did not go into starvation mode, I lost a lot of weight, both times.
I have always questioned the theory that our bodies will stop burning calories. It has to, everything we do uses energy.
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 13 June 2008 05:12 pm |
|
Part of the problem is that starvation mode is misunderstood.
No, we don't stop burning calories or we would die.
The idea is that your body thinks there's a shortage of food because you eat so little, so it does all it can to conserve fat/energy. In other words, it slows down your metabolism and makes it harder to lose weight.
Peter
|
christyandmuddy
New Member
| Joined: | 5 May 2008 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 248 |
|
Posted: 13 June 2008 05:28 pm |
|
Yes, this is an interesting thread that I had not read before.
I suppose I am in the camp that does believe in starvation mode to a point. Here's how my reasoning goes:
I'd say just about everyone, including those in the no-starvation-mode camp, agree that eating too few calories can result in muscle loss. Muscle is what drives our metabolism and I would think most people agree that those with more muscle mass are able to eat more calories and still maintain their weight. This is one of the reasons that the recommended caloric intake is higher for men than women (because in general, men carry more muscle mass). So, if one is eating too few calories and starts to lose muscle mass, the body cannot metabolize as many calories as before, thus the metabolism slows down. I think this is the cause of "starvation mode". So the best thing to do is eat a calorie deficit but not so much that you start to lose muscle.
Also, going into "starvation mode" doesn't mean your body quits metabolizing calories, just that it can't metabolize as many. Even if the body is in "starvation mode" it will continue to keep burning some calories to stay alive until it starves and dies.
Well, there's my two cents. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I think debating issues like this is very healthy.
|
Lucy
New Member
| Joined: | 8 May 2008 |
| Location: | Canada |
| Posts: | 208 |
|
Posted: 13 June 2008 05:34 pm |
|
I know metabolism' differ, age, weight, activity all being factors. However, when I went through those 2 troubling times in life, I was barely eating anything and this was for a few weeks each time...I would eat maybe a sandwich a day...and I dropped an extreme amount of weight those times.
Also, I had surgery two years ago, basically fasted for 4 days, as I was not permitted anything but ice chips...left the hospital 17 pounds lighter. I realize some is water, but not 17 pounds. My body used my fat stores, as that is what they are for, nothing coming in, well look at all that yummy flubber over there...so if its hanging on, how do you measure that? How does the metabolism slow if I lost 17 in 4 days. I know our bodies work harder after surgery to repair.
And what about anorexia? 
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 14 June 2008 07:05 am |
|
I would eat maybe a sandwich a day...and I dropped an extreme amount of weight those times.
It's a frequently-committed mistake to equate 'weight' with body fat. The point about 'starvation mode' or whatever you call it, is that the body seems to hang onto fat at all costs, even beyond the point of consuming lean body tissue (muscle). Since that's the last thing just about anyone can afford to lose, it's a course worth avoiding.
Even if it's only used as an analogue to explain the discernable diminishing of metabolism after repeated starvation diets, 'starvation mode' is a handy concept.
As to the frequent citing of POWs as evidence that starvation mode can't exist, nobody would surely argue that an extended period (years) of poor and little nourishment, coupled with extremes of temperature, exhausting work and daily stress about one's future, would tax any bodily system?
The point is that most 'dieters' aren't subject to such stress and workrates, and their enforced calorie deficits are not so long-lasting (usually). We are a pretty sedentary lot, given to cyclical behaviours - like dieting then gorging - which plays havoc with our metabolisms.
I've seen enough instances of successful slimming by doing the right things most of the time to be convinced that it works for most body types. And, equally, I've seen enough people (myself included) do the 'serial dieter' routine for years and years, with the same unlooked-for effects (loss of muscle and more rapid regaining of body fat after each diet cycle) to be convinced that, call it what you will, a period of severely restricted caloric intake is the last thing that most of us need.
Terminology isn't the issue here, observable results are all that count.
(Phew! Long time no write...)
|
lynn40
New Member
| Joined: | 24 July 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
|
Posted: 24 July 2008 05:12 pm |
|
I know this thread is old, but I'm new here, and I was reading some of the posts, and this one really got my attention. I, too, have long looked askance at the idea of a "starvation" mode. I've been in circumstances where I've eaten very little due to stress, and I've lost a lot of weigt. Yes, when I've regained weight after dieting, I've always been heavier than before, but that's because I rebelled from healthy eating and was eating everything in site. I think that the only reason that dieting might make one fatter is because after restricting food for so long, we tend to go to the other extreme and pig out. At least that was the case with me.
Some of you may remember a diet that came out in the 80's called The Rotation Diet, written by Dr. Martin Katahn (Ph.D., not MD). Basically, the diet is a 3-week cycle: during week one, you eat 600 calories a day for three days & 900 calories a day for four days. During week two, you eat 1200 calories per day. During week three, you repeat the week-one cycle of 600/900. Menus are provided to maximize the nutritional benefits of those calories. At the end of the three-week cycle, a loss of 12 - 20 lbs. can be expected (with men losing more). Then, you go on maintenance calories for at least a week (or however long you like) until you're mentally ready to start another three-week cycle. Katahn worked for Vanderbilt University, and he conducted studies on people who followed the aforemented diet (the Rotation diet). In all cases, NO ONE'S metabolism slowed down. In fact, in most cases, the subjects' metabolism was slightly raised. Now, part of Katahn's plan is to incorporate exercise daily, building up to 45 minutes per day, 5-7 days a week. Maybe that's why the test subjects' metabolism stayed steady. In any case, the point is that the temporary low-calorie diet did not lower the metabolism of the subjects.
Anyways, it's an interesting subject.
|
CrimsonAnimus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 25 July 2008 06:38 am |
|
All of our bodies and different. The standard RMR calculation by weight is not always accurate.
As a 6'0" 26 year old male, my RMR is 2,170 at 254 pounds. I have been eating close to a 1700-1800 calorie diet on most days since I was over 300 pounds, and my body has never entered starvation mode. I have had great energy, and have lost many inches all over my body.
Guys and gals, moderation is critical in a diet, but what you eat is at least equally as important as how much you eat. I eat lots of fruits, veggies, and whole grains. I actually eat MORE food than I did before I started this, but it's HEALTHIER food with less calories. The whole "fat-burning mode" philosophy is actually not a myth, and to reach it, you have to treat your body right. 
|
Current time is 02:05 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
