I too believe that "starvation mode" is a bad description. I do believe that our body has "set points", but this is simply a balancing act as Leah suggested above.

The poster said herself that she ate between 1800-2200 a day. 2200 is probably too much, 1800 not enough. Her body simply likes her current weight and balances accordingly.

The good part about this is it works both ways. My husband is overweight. He eats too much most of the time, but not all the time. He pretty much stays right where he's at. He doesn't gain anymore.

Eat more than you need you gain, eat less you lose, just right- maintain. However, it's not something that adjusts on a daily basis. It's a balance over time.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by teetime:
There isn't a lot of empirical research on starvation mode because doing "good" (scientifically sound) studies would require unethical research.

However, those of you who doubt it happens might consider that anorexic individuals do have symptoms one can see, such as lanugo (growth of fine hair on face, arms etc). If the body will promote hair growth to keep the individual warm, why is it hard to believe the body will slow metabolic activity to preserve fat stores?<HR>

Exactly! While I doubt "starvation mode" is relevant to any non-emaciated person ... there are a lot of changes that happen upon true starvation - core body temp is lowered, stress hormones are elevated which promotes fat storage, reproductive systems are shut off, etc. - all to preserve any calories that come in. Why anyone would debate this occurance, I have no idea. Any animal that cannot (evolutionarily speaking) adapt to times of little food would have become extinct pretty quickly.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by figbash:
The starvation mode theory is just an excuse for people who eat too much already, to eat even more. If this so called starvation mode theory was valid, then why does this guy look like he does?



If you want to lose weight, you need to reduce your calorie intake to the point where you burn more than you need. It's that simple.

Tom

<HR>

I think that it is pretty repulsive that you posted this picture. Furthermore, someone who has basically never eaten in his or her life will have completely different biological and physiological responses than someone who has eaten an adequate diet for the majority of their life and begins to severly restrict calories.

I would explain it to you, but the fact that you posted this picture in such a hideously offensive manner suggests to me that you are not intelligent enough to understand it.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by CSuzette:

Okay yes...I believe in cutting carbs to lose weight...others here don't. But, don't knock it until you try it!<HR>

What about these men and women? They eat a very high carb diet. How come they're not fat?

Just for kicks and giggles, I'll opine my take on the "starvation mode" phenomena. For the record, in regards to mainstream dieting (thereby neglecting unfortunate souls who are, in fact, starving to death) I don't think "starvation mode" exists. If it did, then gastric bypass surgery would not work. Folks who have gastric bypass lose dramatic amounts of weight and do not gain weight as the starvation mode theory would predict. Therefore, we can conclude that severe caloric restriction does not cause weight gain.

I usually replace the term "starvation mode" with "momentum." Your weight has momentum, if it is increasing it wants to continue increasing.

I'll offer up an analogy to better explain. Let's say that a person gaining weight is like a car going forward and a person losing weight is like a car going backward. Ok, so I'm a person who wants to lose weight. It stands to reason that I am in a weight gain mode, analogously, the car is moving forward. In this case a diet would be like hitting the brakes in the car or putting it into reverse (we'll pretend that putting the car in reverse would not destroy its transmission). Upon hitting the brakes or putting the car in reverse, the car will continue to move forward for a time before it slows down, stops and starts going backward. That's momentum.

Going on a diet effectively puts a force on your body that initially slows weight gain, then stops weight gain, before becoming weight loss. How long these stages last probably depends on any number of factors (how long one has been at current weight, how many lbs needed to lose, how severe the calorie deficit, etc.)

Does this make sense to anyone besides me?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by KimmiL:


I would explain it to you, but the fact that you posted this picture in such a hideously offensive manner suggests to me that you are not intelligent enough to understand it. <HR>

I would be interested as well.