Starvation mode

Yeah, I didn't go primarily into what types of foods in a refeed, but it should probably look like your diet meals in LARGER quantities.

Not exactly.

Often times my refeeds consist of less fat than my regular diet.

A regular diet contains protein, fats, and carbs. A refeed keeps everything static except carbs. If you're doing the normal refeed of 5 hours to a couple of days, the amount of carbs needed for a real refeed is pretty intense.

And it's just not more carbs. It's more of the right carbs. Fructose and sucrose should be limited, for the most part.

At least that is how I've handled all of my refeeds most recently... It's helped with getting through some hungry times and it's helped with kick starting my metabolism.

I'd label that more of a planned cheat or diet break, personally.

I thought I've read in Lyle's book that they can last a few months (but I suppose you're looking at a bulk at that point if you get into too high of calories).

What book?

If you refeed for a month, you're exactly right, you are no longer dieting. A month of refeeding may be necessary to really bump up metabolic rate but the side effect of that is fat gain.

At anyrate, mines has never lasted more than 4 or 5 days. I wonder if I should have even been doing them at all according to your post.

Lyle has categorys for people who should do refeeds based on body fat. If you've got a good bit of fat, there's no reason to do a refeed. A lot around here say they're doing a refeed... but they're not. Not in the traditional sense anyhow.

I can't remember his categorys off the top of my head but going from memory I think cat1 was something like 15% or below and cat3 was 25% and above. Cat2 was everything in between... and it's not black/white. You can be a blend.

cat3 don't do refeeds

cat2 do shorter refeeds than cat1.. from what I remember cat2 might do something like a 5-6 hour refeed and a cat1 will do something like 2 days.
 
I borrowed the book from my cousin, "A guide to flexible dieting", I think.

Whatever you want to call what I've done, I am happy with the results. As long as I can record what I've done and repeat the procedures (after my bulk), than I would say I know how to treat my body. After one time, it's kind of a hit or miss (with educated guesses obviously).
 
That's exactly right.

Refeeds are not mandatory parts of dieting.

At least not in the context of what a refeed is exactly.
 
Right....

I like to modify *my* definition a bit; in that anyone who is dieting is in starvation mode. The longer or 'harder' you diet, the more pronounces the characteristics associated with the starvation mode will be.

But the take home point is, in controlled settings a metabolic slowdown associated with prolonged dieting has never been greater than a the caloric deficit itself.

For example, if your maintenance intake is 2000 and you are eating 1200. Your metabolism is never going to downregulate to a point where you are gaining weight eating the constant 1200 calories.
Thanks, Steve. I was not sure if you would still check this thread.

Well, I was confused over all this starvation mode talk, but you have made it so much clearer. In the quoted post, you said that a metabolic slow down has never been greater than the caloric deficit.

So does this mean that there is no reason to worry so much about a metabolic slow down, as if you continue to eat 1200 cal, for example, your weight loss should continue? Sorry if I'm mistaken and sorry if I'm wasting your time!!!
 
Thanks, Steve. I was not sure if you would still check this thread.

Well, I was confused over all this starvation mode talk, but you have made it so much clearer. In the quoted post, you said that a metabolic slow down has never been greater than the caloric deficit.

So does this mean that there is no reason to worry so much about a metabolic slow down, as if you continue to eat 1200 cal, for example, your weight loss should continue? Sorry if I'm mistaken and sorry if I'm wasting your time!!!

No, you don't have to worry about it if all your concerned about is the number on the scale...

Which I'll say is a silly mentality.

Who cares what the scale says? We should be more interested in things like health and appearance. Optimizing these things does not come by way of eating fewer and fewer calories and creating big caloric deficits.

And it's tough to speak blanketly since it depends on the person and his or her stats...

Someone who has less fat to lose also has to be more concerned with drastic metabolic slowdowns than someone who has a lot of fat to lose.

Also, the less you eat, the more important it becomes to make sure you're getting adequate amounts of the right nutrients in. I don't know anyone who does this who is also using some diet with ridiculously low calorie levels.

Does this answer your question?
 
Thank you!!! That is the answer I was looking for!

So you're basically saying that the metabolism will not slow down enough for you to stop losing weight at that number of calories, but it would also be hard to get the right nutrition at that restriction, so you may be invisibly less healthy?
 
Yes.

To add, the metabolism will slow too, don't be fooled. It could slow to the point where you don't even realize you're losing b/c it's so inconsequential and water fluctuation masks any movement in the scale.

Dieting with too strict/rigid parameters is not the way.
 
What would you determine as not dieting so strictly then?

Well, I'm about 5'6, 143lbs. I am sedentary most of the times, but eating 1300 cal works. I'm basically wondering if I can keep this up untill I'm at least 130 lbs?

Also, if you start extra excercise, how would that help, as you would have to eat more calories anyway, to prevent yourself from not consuming enough calories.
 
What would you determine as not dieting so strictly then?

A sane deficit of balanced foods that is more of a lifestyle than a diet. The more weight you have to lose the higher your deficit can be and the less weight you have to lose, the lower your deficit should be.

This is not to say a person with a lot of weight MUST use a big deficit. They simply can if they are willing and able.

Anything aside from this, in my experience, isn't going to work. The other things are simply temporary solutions to permanent problems.

There are some very strict diets out there that utilize tactics to get the weight off fast. Most everyone is not conditioned (in terms of psychology or the knowledge) to go about them properly. When this is the case, the net outcome is frustration and lack of results.

Well, I'm about 5'6, 143lbs. I am sedentary most of the times, but eating 1300 cal works. I'm basically wondering if I can keep this up untill I'm at least 130 lbs?

Define "works?"

1300 calories actually isn't all that bad for someone with your stats.

You then have to look at what that 1300 calories is comprised of, which is critically important as well!

Will this deficit carry you to 130 lbs?

Who knows. It's hard to say, each person's metabolism responds uniquely. But don't worry about that. Expect plateaus and then you won't be shocked when they inevitably come along. When they do come along, you can handle them accordingly.

Also, if you start extra excercise, how would that help, as you would have to eat more calories anyway, to prevent yourself from not consuming enough calories.

Exercise contributes to the deficit.

So for example... if you need 2000 calories to maintain your current weight, you would lose weight if you dropped your daily intake down to 1500. This deficit comes entirely from diet.

If you added exercise to the mix, you could maintain that same deficit from above by eating a bit more. Suppose you burn 250 calories per day via exercise. Well now you can afford to eat an additional 250 calories per day, again, assuming you're shooting for that same 500 calorie deficit.

There's much more that exercise offers beyond the contribution to the deficit.

I mean, anyone using that thing between their ears wants more than to be thin. They want to be healthy, strong and capable too.

Things like resistance training tend to help 'persuade' where you lose weight from. Without it, you're more likely to lose muscle while you diet. With it, you're more likely to lose predominantly fat and preserve the muscle.

Not including things such as resistance training is one of the primary places (especially women) go wrong in their programming. They focus solely on the scale and then they end up a lighter, still soft version of their former self.

If you're going for the soft look, it's not as important.

But even if you are... there are a lot of health benefits associated with this sort of exercise that go well beyond the various physique enhancing qualities.
 
Thank you so much! You have really cleared this up for me :) . Are you a personal trainer or something?

I was reading about zig-zagging your calories and it seems like an easy way to delay a plateau.
 
You're welcome. Yes, I am a trainer.

I wouldn't worry about zig zagging calories until you find it necesssary, if ever. No sense in muddying the waters.
 
Yea, that's true. Hopefully 1300 will be enough for a while. Thanks for helping me. All of your posts are really interesting. Almost every thread I've read has a reply from you lol.
 
Yea, I have an office job plus I do the vast majority of my personal training over the Internet. My eyes are glued to a screen more often than not, lol.
 
Hey Steve,

Just posted this in my journal and wanted to get your thoughts.

A little bummed out after the metabolic test this morning. As it turns out I have compromised my metabolism. My predicted RMR was pretty much on point with what I was thinking (1849); however, the test result shows my actual RMR @ 1539. Even those these are all estimates it definitely helps to explain why my weight loss has been slowing down.

So, I plugged this into the HBF and came up with my current maintenance @ 2385 (1539*1.55-moderate exercise) this would mean eating @ around 1885 is where I should be right now.


The question I have is: should my goal now be to get my RMR back up to around 1849? I believe the way to do this is to continue to bump my calories up until I get to my supposed maintenance @ this RMR (2866) park there for about two weeks or so then create the 500 deficit (2366) to continue with weight loss?

I’m gonna continue poking around the board to get more info and DEFINTELY want your thoughts but from what I understand this is the way to go. Last week I ate @ 1800 so I'll be bumping up to 2100 starting tomorrow, the next week 2400, the following 2800.

Of course I know I’ll experience some short term weight gain but the goal is to be healthy right?!? Right, so I’m trying to keep a positive attitude here. I will also be sticking with the strength training which was suggested as a way of improving my metabolism as well.

Any journal articles, resources, words of wisdom etc in this regards is much appreciated!!
 
29, 235, 5'5 1\2, lost the first 40lbs in 3 months eating below rmr early 2007- not sure of cals b/c then I was tracking portions not cals. Gained 25 back by end of 2007 so started tracking cals jan this year-pretty much have stayed b/t 1400-1800 this year.
 
First it's important to note that your metabolism might be naturally slow. Or you might want to get blood work done to rule out anything going on hormonally.

The more fat you carry, the less likely you are to have a serious impact on your metabolic rate.

What is your exercise history like?
 
I had my thyroid checked aboiut a uear ago- no probs.

I went from no activity to cardio twice a day for about 1.5-2hrs a day total. Been doing this since I started in 2007 minus the break I took from about april-oct'07.
 
Do you know what exactly they tested?
 
Back
Top