active network espn
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community
Click to view Kevin Shaw's profile Pro 158 posts since
Nov 3, 2007
15. Jul 6, 2006 8:12 AM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
Your BMR formulas are using the Harris Benedict Equation and it should be noted that a key factor is omitted by these two equations. that factor is lean body mass. Leaner bodies need more calories than less leaner ones. So this equation is accurate in all but the very muscular. In the very muscular it will under-estimate calorie needs; in the very fat it will over-estimate calorie needs.

Here is the source:
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/[/URL" target="_blank">


------------------
Good Runs, Xtrains and Rests to all,

My Webpage, Check it out![/URL" target="_blank">
Kevin's lame Blog[/URL" target="_blank">
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
16. Dec 21, 2007 7:37 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
The idea that the body would burn muscle in preference to fat as a survival strategy seems to me to be extremely unlikely. At first glance at least, it is a very poor strategy.

Contrast that survival strategy to the following far more logical strategy. The organism would consume fat for energy in preference to muscle so the organism would lighter, faster and stronger and thus better able to hunt and forage. Even at the point where the fat stores are depleted (or nearly so), the organism could still, as a final strategy, begin to consume muscle.
<HR>

Reboot, you forget one thing. It takes more than twice as much energy to burn a gram of fat than a gram of protein.

Under stress, the body takes the easy option, preserving its energy to maintain vital organs.

When mention nutritionists, I am talking about adequately qualified nutritionists.

Harris-Benedict is no more than an estimate. Anyone can use that as a starting point and experiment over the long-term based on the results.

http://This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Jul-06-2006).
Click to view reboot's profile Legend 398 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
17. Jul 7, 2006 9:52 AM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
AndyHass:
I couldn?t find the exact reference you referred to but the data you give simply indicates that as the AN patients recovered weight, their BMR increases. That is to be expected since everyone increases their BMR as their weight increases. The body weight is an important factor in determining BMR.

Oldgraydog:
The reference cited does indeed indicate certain body types burn fat less preferentially in thin people but the fat is always burned preferentially. As %BF declines, more muscle mass is used and used more in thin people. I?m not sure any of that data is applicable since they were experimenting with total starvation and survival times.

tecdad
The HB equations don?t exactly exclude body composition since the gender, height, weight, and age factors are all an attempt to include, or estimate the effects on, body composition. These equations have bees experimentally shown to be reasonably accurate over a wide range of the population. Their absolute accuracy is not particularly important since the point I was illustration is equally true regardless of what formula or method of measuring BMR is used. Specifically, there is no factor to adjust for individuals with a supposed fast or slow metabolism.

bigapplepie
I didn?t forget one thing. It doesn?t take more energy to burn fat than protein. Fat contains more energy than protein and when burned, delivers more than twice as much energy to the organism than would be derived from burning the equivalent mass of protein.

In any case, when an organism is required to expend energy (ie. To stay alive or warm or hunt), it doesn?t matter where the energy comes from (fat or protein). The sum total of the body?s energy reserves is depleted by exactly the same amount so there is no ?conservation? involved. The source of the expended energy most certainly has an effect on the survivability of the organism. Using that energy from muscle would be very detrimental to survival while preserving fat would contribute absolutely nothing to survival. Using energy from fat reserves would not be detrimental to the organism?s survival while preserving muscle would enhance its survival. If the energy must be expended, it is far more desirable that it comes from fat.

When talking to a qualified nutritionists, it requires at least a basic understanding of energy to fully appreciate the information.

As for the HB equations, see my comments to tecdad above.
Click to view AdventureGirl63's profile Pro 61 posts since
Jun 15, 2006
18. Jul 7, 2006 1:14 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
I'm glad you brought this up, austingirl. I have to say I too think of the starvation mode theory as hooey, but only to a certain extent, and here is how my thinking goes...
and for the experts among you, it's OK, I don't really need any info from you, I'm just talking here.
I think when two groups of people talk about starvation mode, and they disagree about it, it's because they are talking about two different things.
Starvation mode version #1. If you just want to be SKINNY....then there is no such thing. Just cut your calories way, way back and keep them there. You'll get skinny. You won't have any energy, you won't be able to work out, and if you did it would just make matters worse and you'd never appear fit, you'd just appear skinny. Do I think this equates to good health? **** no, and I'd never do it or recommend it. It's awful.
Starvation mode version #2. You don't want to look like a skeleton. You want to be lean, but fit, and have acceptable muscle mass and you work out regularly in an effort to reach this goal. This is where the calorie intake vs. calorie expenditure issue comes into play and needs to be accounted for, because if you DO end up taking in too few calories, and start messing with your metabolism, it will be harder and harder to reach your physical goals, and you can reference the arguments above about why.
Just my thoughts on that subject and why there's disagreement.
Click to view Llewelyn's profile Amateur 10 posts since
Jun 26, 2006
19. Jul 10, 2006 9:42 AM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
Well, to begin with, let me say that I fully acknowledge that I'm no expert on the subject, but, as I have seen a nutritionist, had my hair fall out, and passed high school biology, I feel entitled to at least spew out some vaguely related thoughts.

Your metabolic rate changes throughout the day. It's slowest when you're sleeping. Eating breakfast sends a message to your body that it's daytime, and it should kick back into normal mode. So when random fat person #977 thinks that skipping breakfast will help them lose weight, they're burning less calories from their activities that morning than a person who eats breakfast.

The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn, even when you're resting. (Those TV commercials are actually right, even if they are just trying to sell you AbPro9000)

Your body slows its metabolic rate down when it has less food, so that you don't die. It's a process we've gained from evolution. And I don't mean just a little less, I mean long-term food reduction, like anorexia. It's not something that happens in a week, it's something that happens when you go for months and months getting, say 1000 calories a day when you should be getting 2500.

Think of bears, and anything else that hibernates. No matter how much they mannage to shove in beforehand, they'd still starve from not eating anything the entire winter if their metabolic rate didn't slow down.

end babble
Click to view reboot's profile Legend 398 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
20. Jul 10, 2006 11:20 AM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Llewelyn:
Well, to begin with, let me say that I fully acknowledge that I'm no expert on the subject, but, as I have seen a nutritionist, had my hair fall out, and passed high school biology, I feel entitled to at least spew out some vaguely related thoughts.

Your metabolic rate changes throughout the day. It's slowest when you're sleeping. Eating breakfast sends a message to your body that it's daytime, and it should kick back into normal mode. So when random fat person #977 thinks that skipping breakfast will help them lose weight, they're burning less calories from their activities that morning than a person who eats breakfast.

The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn, even when you're resting. (Those TV commercials are actually right, even if they are just trying to sell you AbPro9000)

Your body slows its metabolic rate down when it has less food, so that you don't die. It's a process we've gained from evolution. And I don't mean just a little less, I mean long-term food reduction, like anorexia. It's not something that happens in a week, it's something that happens when you go for months and months getting, say 1000 calories a day when you should be getting 2500.

Think of bears, and anything else that hibernates. No matter how much they mannage to shove in beforehand, they'd still starve from not eating anything the entire winter if their metabolic rate didn't slow down.

end babble
<HR>


Yes, of course your metabolism changes throughout the day. I never made any representation that it didn?t. Your mistake is to equate ?metabolism? with BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate). As you become more active, your metabolism increases. Your activity IS your metabolism (in part).

The individual with a higher percentage of muscle will have a very different body composition. Once body composition and mass are factored out, all humans have the same BMR.

BTW, the calorie burning ability of muscle at rest is vastly over rated. The entire body at rest burns calories at about 10 cal. per pound per day. A pound of added muscle (quite a large addition for most people) would add something less than 25 cal. per day to an individuals BMR. It would definitely increase a person?s BMR but the increase would be something like 25 cal. in a daily typical total BMR in the neighborhood of 1500 cal.

Bears in hibernation undergo some dramatic and very obvious effects that are the manifestation of their reduced metabolism. Both their BMR and their overall metabolism reduce. Their respiration rate, heart rate and temperature all are reduced dramatically. Most obvious is their reduction in physical activity. It becomes near zero. Their metabolism is reduced to less than their normal BMR. Indeed, their BMR is reduced as is obvious with their reduced HR, temp., etc. So, if you think a human can have an altered BMR, then you must have in mind the aspect or their BMR (life processes) that are dramatically reduced or stopped. And, of course, you should be able to suggest some process that is not obvious and does not seriously impact the individuals health. I am very anxious to hear your speculation. I would be even more interested to see any clinical evidence. Surely if such a phenomenon were as common and as well known as you suggest, there would be large numbers of clinical trials involving such a phenomenon.

The ?reduced BMR? theory (or sometimes ?starvation mode?) is usually dredged up to offer an irrational explanation for a perceived inability to lose weight despite a dramatic reduction in caloric intake. The people offering such an explanation are frequently willing to believe such a reduced BMR, or starvation mode, will account for zero weight loss (or even a gain) that would otherwise be experienced by someone with a daily caloric deficit in the range of 500 cal. per day. That kind of reduced metabolic activity in the BMR part of a person?s metabolism would necessitate a huge (and very easily detectable) reduction is some aspect of their life processes. As I said, I am very anxious to hear what part you think is slowing down so dramatically.


------------------
gotta run...
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
21. Dec 21, 2007 7:37 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:

bigapplepie
I didn?t forget one thing. It doesn?t take more energy to burn fat than protein. Fat contains more energy than protein and when burned, delivers more than twice as much energy to the organism than would be derived from burning the equivalent mass of protein.

In any case, when an organism is required to expend energy (ie. To stay alive or warm or hunt), it doesn?t matter where the energy comes from (fat or protein). The sum total of the body?s energy reserves is depleted by exactly the same amount so there is no ?conservation? involved. The source of the expended energy most certainly has an effect on the survivability of the organism. Using that energy from muscle would be very detrimental to survival while preserving fat would contribute absolutely nothing to survival. Using energy from fat reserves would not be detrimental to the organism?s survival while preserving muscle would enhance its survival. If the energy must be expended, it is far more desirable that it comes from fat.

When talking to a qualified nutritionists, it requires at least a basic understanding of energy to fully appreciate the information.

As for the HB equations, see my comments to tecdad above.
<HR>


Reboot
Thanks for the insult to my intelligence. Perhaps I should throw these books on nutrition away (by the way, they sell them at Barnes and Noble). You should try reading one sometime.

The transformation of the macronutrients carbohydrates, fats, and proteins in food to energy, and other physiological processes are parts of the metabolic process.

ATP (adinosene triphosphate) is the major form of energy used for cellular metabolism.

Carbohydrates may be utilized directly for energy by all tissues; temporarily stored as glycogen in the liver or in muscle; or converted to fat, amino acids, and other biological compounds.

Carbohydrate metabolism begins with glycolysis, which releases energy from glucose or glycogen to form two molecules of pyruvate, which enter the Krebs cycle (or citric acid cycle), an oxygen-requiring process, through which they are completely oxidized. Before the Krebs cycle can begin, pyruvate loses a carbon dioxide group to form acetyl coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA). This reaction is irreversible and has important metabolic consequences. The conversion of pyruvate to acetyl-CoA requires the B vitamins.

The hydrogen in carbohydrate is carried to the electron transport chain, where the energy is conserved in ATP molecules. Metabolism of one molecule of glucose yields thirty-one molecules of ATP. The energy released from ATP through hydrolysis (a chemical reaction with water) can then be used for biological work.

Only a few cells, such as liver and kidney cells, can produce their own glucose from amino acids, and only liver and muscle cells store glucose in the form of glycogen. Other body cells must obtain glucose from the bloodstream.

Under anaerobic conditions, lactate is formed from pyruvate. This reaction is important in the muscle when energy demands exceed oxygen supply. Glycolysis occurs in the cytosol (fluid portion) of a cell and has a dual role. It degrades monosaccharides to generate energy, and it provides glycerol for triglyceride synthesis. The Krebs cycle and the electron transport chain occur in the mitochondria. Most of the energy derived from carbohydrate, protein, and fat is produced via the Krebs cycle and the electron transport system.

Glycogenesis is the conversion of excess glucose to glycogen. Glycogenolysis is the conversion of glycogen to glucose (which could occur several hours after a meal or overnight) in the liver or, in the absence of glucose-6-phosphate in the muscle, to lactate. Gluconeogenesis is the formation of glucose from noncarbohydrate sources, such as certain amino acids and the glycerol fraction of fats when carbohydrate intake is limited. Liver is the main site for gluconeogenesis, except during starvation, when the kidney becomes important in the process.

Proteins contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sometimes other atoms. Nitrogen is essential to the formation of twenty different amino acids, the building blocks of all body cells. Amino acids are characterized by the presence of a terminal carboxyl group and an amino group in the alpha position, and they are connected by peptide bonds.

Digestion breaks protein down to amino acids. If amino acids are in excess of the body's biological requirements, they are metabolized to glycogen or fat and subsequently used for energy metabolism. If amino acids are to be used for energy their carbon skeletons are converted to acetyl CoA, which enters the Krebs cycle for oxidation, producing ATP. The final products of protein catabolism include carbon dioxide, water, ATP, urea, and ammonia.

Vitamin B6 is involved in the metabolism (especially catabolism) of amino acids, as a cofactor in transamination reactions that transfer the nitrogen from one keto acid (an acid containing a keto group -CO- in addition to the acid group) to another. This is the last step in the synthesis of nonessential amino acids and the first step in amino acid catabolism. Transamination converts amino acids to L-glutamate, which undergoes oxidative deamination to form ammonia, used for the synthesis of urea. Urea is transferred through the blood to the kidneys and excreted in the urine.

The glucose-alanine cycle is the main pathway by which amino groups from muscle amino acids are transported to the liver for conversion to glucose. The liver is the main site of catabolism for all essential amino acids, except the branched-chain amino acids, which are catabolized mainly by muscle and the kidneys. Plasma amino-acid levels are affected by dietary carbohydrate through the action of insulin, which lowers plasma amino-acid levels (particularly the branched-chain amino acids) by promoting their entry into the muscle.

Body proteins are broken down when dietary supply of energy is inadequate during illness or prolonged starvation. The proteins in the liver are utilized in preference to those of other tissues such as the brain. The gluconeogenesis pathway is present only in liver cells and in certain kidney cells.

Fats contain mostly carbon and hydrogen, some oxygen, and sometimes other atoms. The three main forms of fat found in food are glycerides (principally triacylglycerol triglyceride, the form in which fat is stored for fuel), the phospholipids, and the sterols (principally cholesterol). Fats provide 9 kilocalories per gram (kcal/g), compared with 4 kcal/g for carbohydrate and protein. Triacylglycerol, whether in the form of chylomicrons (microscopic lipid particles) or other lipoproteins, is not taken up directly by any tissue, but must be hydrolyzed outside the cell to fatty acids and glycerol, which can then enter the cell.

Fatty acids come from the diet, adipocytes (fat cells), carbohydrate, and some amino acids. After digestion, most of the fats are carried in the blood as chylomicrons. The main pathways of lipid metabolism are lipolysis, betaoxidation, ketosis, and lipogenesis.

Lipolysis (fat breakdown) and beta-oxidation occurs in the mitochondria. It is a cyclical process in which two carbons are removed from the fatty acid per cycle in the form of acetyl CoA, which proceeds through the Krebs cycle to produce ATP, CO2, and water.

Ketosis occurs when the rate of formation of ketones by the liver is greater than the ability of tissues to oxidize them. It occurs during prolonged starvation and when large amounts of fat are eaten in the absence of carbohydrate.



http://This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Jul-10-2006).
Click to view reboot's profile Legend 398 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
22. Dec 21, 2007 7:37 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by bigapplepie:
[b]
Originally posted by reboot:

bigapplepie
I didn?t forget one thing. It doesn?t take more energy to burn fat than protein. Fat contains more energy than protein and when burned, delivers more than twice as much energy to the organism than would be derived from burning the equivalent mass of protein.

In any case, when an organism is required to expend energy (ie. To stay alive or warm or hunt), it doesn?t matter where the energy comes from (fat or protein). The sum total of the body?s energy reserves is depleted by exactly the same amount so there is no ?conservation? involved. The source of the expended energy most certainly has an effect on the survivability of the organism. Using that energy from muscle would be very detrimental to survival while preserving fat would contribute absolutely nothing to survival. Using energy from fat reserves would not be detrimental to the organism?s survival while preserving muscle would enhance its survival. If the energy must be expended, it is far more desirable that it comes from fat.

When talking to a qualified nutritionists, it requires at least a basic understanding of energy to fully appreciate the information.

As for the HB equations, see my comments to tecdad above.
<HR>

Reboot
Thanks for the insult to my intelligence. Perhaps I should throw these books on nutrition away (by the way, they sell them at Barnes and Noble).

Aerobic Energy Sources
At exercise intensities below the anaerobic threshold, energy conversion is primarily aerobic. The energy for aerobic metabolism comes from two sources glycogen (muscle and liver glycogen, blood glucose) and fat. Aerobic glycogen conversion is the most readily available source of energy and the primary energy source up to about 30 minutes of exercise. After 30 minutes, fat has been mobilized from fat stores and becomes a major contributor. There is always a combination of glycogen and fat usage with the relative contributions at any time determined by the intensity of exercise.

More intense exercise will tend to burn more of the most readily available fuels, first muscle glycogen, then liver and blood glycogen and finally fat. As the intensity of the exercise decreases, a higher ratio of fat is used. At paces more than 30% slower than your 10K race pace (1.3 x 10K pace/mile), you should be utilizing the highest ratio of fat for fuel.

There is a finite storage of glycogen which can be increased somewhat through training. These stores will run out usually after 1 hour 45 minutes to 2 hours of hard running. On the other hand, there are nearly unlimited supplies of fat making it the fuel of choice for longer events. One pound of fat contains enough energy to run over 50 kilometers (31.2 mi).

Fat, however, cannot be easily metabolized without the presence of muscle glycogen. Therefore if muscle glycogen levels are badly depleted, fat is available but cannot be utilized leading to a drastic drop in performance ("hitting the wall"). This is why it is important not to start too fast in long training runs or races and "waste" your muscle glycogen stores.

At lower intensities more glycogen from the liver and bloodstream can be utilized. This spares some of the important muscle glycogen stores so that efficient aerobic metabolism using fat can be maintained for a longer duration. In ultramarathon events liver glycogen depletion has been observed indicating that ingestion of sugar or sugared drinks may be necessary. There is evidence it will enhance performance in marathons.

In exercise lasting over 4 hours, protein may be broken down, first from muscle enzymes and then from muscle tissue itself, to make the necessary glycogen for fuel. This method of energy conversion is extremely inefficient and the body's last resort for survival.

http://This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Jul-10-2006).[/B]


I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make. Your post looks like a copy and paste from one of the books you mention. In any case, I am in total agreement with everything you said above.

It does seem entirely unrelated to anything I said in my post and is certainly not contradictory of anything I said.

------------------
gotta run...
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
23. Jul 10, 2006 1:54 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
Some more copying and pasting, this time from "Body for Life".

quote:<HR>
When anyone severely restricts their daily caloric intake, their body rapidly goes into a starvation modeâ??a reaction we have all inherited from our distant ancestors who were forced to survive through long periods of famine. There is absolutely nothing that you or any of us can do to prevent this from happening except to never allow our caloric intakes to drop below 1,200 calories for women or 1,800 calories for men. When calories are restricted below these levels our bodies go into action to keep us alive by protecting us from starvation. In other words, the body instinctively kicks in all of its survival mechanisms to prevent death.
The first thing to happen when we enter the starvation mode is our basal metabolic rate begins to slow down. This occurs primarily by a reduction in the release of thyroid hormone from our thyroid gland. With severe caloric restriction our resting metabolic rate can drop by as much as 40 to 50 percent.

Next, our bodies begin metabolizing our own muscle tissue, converting it into glucose for its primary energy source in order to preserve fat stores that are essential for survival. Thatâ??s rightâ??all that hard-earned muscle starts disappearing. And as if all of this isnâ??t bad enough, the activity of our fat-storing enzymes increases and our fat-burning enzymes decrease so we become very efficient at storing fat. This is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve!

The key to avoiding this all-too-common scenario is to stay out of the starvation mode by creating a small caloric deficit of only 500 to a maximum of 1,000 calories a day below your maintenance levelâ??as long as you donâ??t go below the 1,200 or 1,800 I mentioned above. This will assure a 1- to 2-pound weight loss per weekâ??the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommendation for a safe weight loss. Remember, this is just a guideline. If you have a low body weight or you donâ??t exercise much, a 1,000-calories-per-day deficit may be too much. And inally, we must be sure to eat about every three hours. Our bodies will interpret any missed meal as starvation.

The bottom line is, the more slowly we lose weight the easier it is to hold on to our lean muscle mass and take the fat off!<HR>
Click to view LewJ's profile Pro 149 posts since
Feb 13, 2006
24. Jul 10, 2006 2:31 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by bigapplepie:
[B]Some more copying and pasting, this time from "Body for Life".<HR>


I know I?m butting in here, but I?m curious on what basis you believe Bill Phillip?s version of the ?starvation mode? theory? Is it because he?s a book author?

Does he happen to give any citations to back up the quoted text, some doctors or some studies? Or do you accept it just on his say-so because it?s printed in a book?

-- Lew
Click to view MnD's profile Pro 146 posts since
Jan 21, 2005
25. Jul 10, 2006 3:14 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
I lost 105 pounds in 7 months, right down to 4% body fat and never experienced any "starvation mode" or significant loss of muscle. Fat came off just as predicted from body mass, calories in, calories burned calculators. By month the loss was 20 pounds, 20, 15, 15, 15, 10, 10. The lighter I got the lower the calorie deficit became from a 2000 per day calorie intake (1800 last two months).

Some minor dry skin and occasional light-headedness when standing up quickly were about the only adverse effects. Not a fun or easy 7 months, but the process itself was pretty straightforward.

IMO cheat days, alcohol, binge-eating, dining out, vacations, holidays etc. have a lot more to do with diet plateaus and diet failures than entering "starvation mode", at least for people that do have fat to burn. That and the fact that people don't understand that a lighter and fitter body needs a lot fewer calories to operate than their former fat selves.

I'm appalled that some nutritionists don't seen to understand this and still peddle the starvation mode theory. Maybe "eat less and exercise more" isn't a good way to impress people as to why they should be paying for advice?
Click to view LewJ's profile Pro 149 posts since
Feb 13, 2006
26. Jul 10, 2006 8:40 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Where does it say I accept it?<HR>


In post #4 in this very thread you said:

quote:<HR>Originally posted by bigapplepie:
starvation mode is definitely no a myth. Any nutrionist will tell you its fact.<HR>


So now you're saying you don't believe starvation mode exists?

-- Lew
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
27. Dec 21, 2007 7:37 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
Click to view MnD's profile Pro 146 posts since
Jan 21, 2005
28. Jul 10, 2006 9:13 PM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
quote:<HR>Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I'll keep posting these until someone posts something that counters it.
<HR>


Given how many people on this board have lost significant amounts of weight by sustaining significant calorie deficits (through eating less and exercising more) - why keep embarassing yourself further? If you are a) fat to begin with and b) cut calories and increase activity, you will burn fat until the decreased calorie demands of your lighter fitter body equal your intake.

Weght loss 101.
Click to view bigapplepie's profile We're Not Worthy 2,636 posts since
Dec 14, 2007
29. Jul 11, 2006 4:04 AM in response to: austingirl
Re: **Reboot** Starvation Mode
Lew,

Apologies, I deleted some of my posts as I realised I was becoming a little obsessive in order to prove a point. I don't normally do that.

I recently lost 36 pounds of which 26 pounds was body fat. The rest had to come from lean body mass.

I added some links below that demonstrate that the "starvation mode" theory is commonly used in the bodybuilding community.

I hope the article above explains why bears don't lose body mass when hibernating but humans do.

MnD, your progress is remarkable, congratulations. See you in the clubhouse.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/kurilla1.htm[/URL" target="_blank">

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/catcommand2.htm[/URL" target="_blank"> (see item 2).

Again, apologies for my earlier feistiness.