Paketbote's Journal, 09 March 2016

It's not "starvation mode" that causes people to stall, and it's a lot more unhealthy to be overweight. A temporary strict calorie restriction is a great way to let the body heal from years of abuse caused by consuming poor food choices.  

Here's a link you should read, this guy argues in favor of "Starvation Mode", but it still torpedoes most of what you're saying. :) http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php 

From one of your links- "Starvation mode is real, but it’s not as powerful as some people think. It can make weight loss slow down over time, but it won’t cause someone to gain weight despite restricting calories. It’s also not an “on and off” phenomenon, like some people seem to think. It’s an entire spectrum of the body adapting to either increased or decreased calorie intake. Starvation mode is actually a terribly inaccurate term. Something like “metabolic adaptation” or “metabolic slowdown” would be much more appropriate. This is simply the body’s natural physiological response to reduced calorie intake. Without it, humans would have become extinct thousands of years ago. Unfortunately, this protective response can cause more harm than good where overfeeding is a much, much greater threat to human health than starvation." ^^ Really doesn't support your argument. lol 

https://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/ Very informative and ty for posting  

Ty Philmck for your post also that article was excellent also  

How does it now support my argument? I was saying: body adapts to lower intake -> slower weightloss with the same calories, that's also what it says in the article :) 

and I never said anything about short term low calorie intakes having no benefits for overweight people, I just said, that it is more difficult to keep off the weight, when your body has adapted to a very low intake over time.  

a very low caloric intake can become dangerous over time if one doesn't get enough vitamins, minerals etc. I never said obesity was "healthier" but malnutrition is not too great. 

How low and how long? I would surmise that by the time a person's metabolism had slowed down enough to have an impact weight would no longer be an issue. You're acting as if skipping a couple of meals will be such a shock to a person's system that they'll start hoarding calories and put on weight, a ridiculous contention and one that even the people like Tom Venuto that argue in favor of a starvation mode flatly reject.  

How am I saying that? It seems like you are interpreting a lot into my words here. I will end this discussion now, thank you for your opinion and the links you posted. Good luck on your journey :) 

Oh, sure, cut and run. That's fine, perhaps you won't be so quick to pull out "starvation mode" in the future. I appreciate your well wishes, nine months and 185 pounds lost, I'm past the point of needing luck.  

I never even used the word starvation mode ... as I said, I feel like you're interpreting a lot of things into my words and I cannot continue a discussion like that.  

No, you didn't use the term starvation mode, but abbadabba did and you were in essence defending that post, so you either agree with the concept of starvation mode, as any logical person would assume, or you're making a totally different argument which you have failed to lay out. From your own links the concept of starvation mode, "isn't as powerful as some people (that would be you) think", and you've already admitted that measuring metabolism is tricky at best. So, if you want to revise and clarify exactly what it is you're trying to convey I would be more than happy to consider it. My own take is that metabolism MIGHT slow down over time on a reduced calorie diet, but it would take a LONG time for that happen and it's not nearly as detrimental IF it happens as being overweight. Call it a metabolic slow down or starvation mode, doesn't really matter because at this point it's merely semantics. Experts that argue in favor of starvation mode concede that it's not nearly as big as deal as is often portrayed AND have modified their definition to mean "food-seeking behaviors" more than a physiological response to a low calorie diet. I've posted before, but it bears repeating, the best way to avoid food-seeking behavior (just another way of saying "being hungry") is to eat something low carb/high fat, like a teaspoon of butter, some fatty meat, an avocado, or a teaspoon of mayo and your hunger will die like IT starved to death, how ironic. Anyway, if you don't reply to this, that's fine, no hard feelings, I really don't expect a response because I covered all the bases. :) 

I have to go with phil on this one also...the medical establishment has lied to us for 40 to 50 years now....how can you still believe them...have they all been turned around in there thinking so fast....you have to go with the proof now not the theory...look for people that has been through all this....Why can't the medical professionals get together and agree on this once and for all....either it is or it isn't. 

If it was as easy as new medicine has "proven" then why hasn't the bulk of society progressed in relation to that? If those theories were so defunct, why are they still relevant? 

There is a big difference between low calorie and low nutrient. You can be very low calorie add Phil is, but have a very dense nutrient content, I.e a lot of fat and some protein. A diet that is low calorie and a very weak nutrient profile, I.e, a salad diet will not give you what you need to continue for very long. I feel like you're both pulling on either end of the same rope. Adaptation of the body to a low calorie diet can only go so far, your body needs "x" amount of calories to power itself and it will get this from food incoming or from fat stores. In the absence of food incoming it well and must slow down the rate at which it burns its fat stores and it delays various cellular functions until food is available. Starvation is real, but not an issue with America obese population. While you have sufficient body fat to use, you are not in starvation mode. For men when you drop below 6% body fat, this is when you cannibalize more muscle tissue, and critical functions cease. For women this may be around 13-15% (can't remember off the top of my head) 

@StillMR305: once you look beyond the drug marketing and the food hype, there is simply no scientific foundation for: low-fat, cholesterol lowering drugs, low-sodium 

The bulk of American society eat a high carb/high sugar/high fat diet and that's a recipe for the obesity epidemic and all the related health complications that come with it. "Those theories" is vague and you're going to have to clarify. I'll assume you're referring to "starvation mode", which has been thoroughly addressed already in this thread.