NewSarah!'s Journal, 10 March 2014

I reserve judgment on survival mode. I know a few facts that make me not doubt this theory as much and so many like to. 1, exertion does not necessarily equal calories out. Anyone who's dealt with a thyroid issue, especially one like Grave's Disease, is aware of this. Taking the leap from there to the body choosing to change metabolism based on the amount of food eaten regularly is not such a huge leap. Personally I believe this would not happen until a true starvation situation was dealt with, but I may be wrong. Speaking of starvation takes me to reason 2. People who are actually starving can survive much longer then calories in calories out suggest, which does suggest an altered metabolic state for starvation situations. Reason 3, we can see other instances of the body altering metabolic output based on food eaten. For example, when marathon athletes carb load. Again, I personally don't believe starvation mode exists outside of actual starvation. I think as long as you are getting regular food or have adequate fat storage you are not going to be in starvation mode. I do, however, recognize that logically I could be wrong and can easily see the logic behind why, either way. I also think that person genetics may play a part. A people that developed in a region with constant food shortages may be more prone to the theoretical starvation mode even when not in a true starvation situation (because by changing metabolism earlier it helped the race survive) versus a people that developed in a more resource rich region. 

However, I honestly think what most people are experiencing when they think they are dealing with survival mode is the unfortunately large leeway given on our nutrient labels. There is a 20% leeway for USA manufacturers. That means if someone thinks they are eating 1200 calories a day they may actually be eating up to 1440 or down to 960. That is a pretty serious difference without any way to know which side of the fence your most commonly eaten foods are on. I've seen people revamp their diets and suddenly be doing better or worse. It makes me think it's because the revamp either took them to foods that were commonly over, under or at the label- where their previous diet consisted of foods that were commonly the opposite. I get the need for some leeway, but I feel 20% is way too much. 

I have never bought into this Survial Mode thing either! 

No myth here, scientifically speaking things like this describe ketosis and your body going into starvation mode. Your body will even out and start to loose eventually, but it is absolutely unhealthy to go below 1200 calories a day. If you do, the moment you start to eat "normally" again, weight has been proven to pack on twice as fast. (especially with low carb diets aka the worst thing ever). :)  

From the research I have done, 'starvation mode' does not kick in until about 72 hours after eating NOTHING. I guess there might be some exceptions to this (Thyroid issues, etc.) But in general, a healthy person will lose weight by restricting calories. Not to get on the caveman bandwagon, but the humans did evolve by eating only what little food they found. Some would go two or three days without eating, until they finally found that bison or vegetable... I do a lot of fasting, and I have not had a (noticeable) reduction in muscle mass or slow metabolism. 

I'm looking for the 'like' button! hahahaha... been a while since I was here, but anyway... for what it's worth I am SO in agreement with CalynLZ. That woman knows her stuff!!  

so your mostly agreeing with me then> these crazy fitness " experts" that say you damage your metabolism and stop your body from burning are full of crap? 

I don't really agree or disagree. The cience in the field atm is largely inconclusive. I doubt most people could permanently damage their metabolism this way, but they may temporarily alter it, depending on circumstances. I think it largely depends on a person by person basis. Varying from personal genetics, health scenarios and the food each individual is eating. So no I don't think they're full of crap, I think they are just interpreting data in the commonly accepted way, atm. Give it ten years and that'll probably change ;-) However whether or not you could damage your metabolism, damaging your health not getting enough nutrients over long periods of time is a real possibility. So however you eat, diet or fast- just be smart about it and research. Make sure you're getting within reason of what you need. 

I believe there is a minimal amount of calories your body needs in a day. I think the actual number depends on so many things, that jus stating a caloric number is wrong. First of all you need to activate internal organs and BM on a daily basis. If you stop BM, you should eat more, if you stop menstruating, you should eat more. Second argument is when you let very very heavy people starve, they do not die thin! Apparently the body can only use so much of the fat at a time! Third thing i want to say about the subject is that i believe in partial starvation. If you deprive your body of some foods, you can seriously and permenently damage your body. Examples: iron, B12, salt. It's not the starvation mode they talk about, but you do slowly "starve". Finally i believe your body adjusts to any and all regime. The body is created to do just that, it is why humanity survived to begin with!!! Only organisms that can adjust fast to new situations are the organisms who will survive the game of life. That is why most diets work for about 5 to 10 kilos! After that the body bounces back. The really fat people, are our expert examples for us, can never loose the weight using Atkins or shakes. The only way they can loose all the weight is by healthy nutritional eating! You must research what nutritients the daily amount should be for you.