Blog

1

Sorry if this is a stupid question, and having just finished reading Taubes' Why we Get Fat book, I feel like I should understand this better, but:

If I don't eat enough, am I in danger of confusing my body thinking it is starving, which would result in slowing my metabolism?

I'm 5'10" male, 190 pounds. I'd like to lose 15-20 pounds.

I'm totally convinced that carbs & elevated insulin are my enemy, a storage hormone, and will prevent me from burning body fat.

This morning, I had 7 ounces of baby back ribs (45 grams fat, 30 grams protein). It was really satisfying.

It's lunch time now and I'm not really hungry.

I'm debating whether to eat my lunch or save it for dinner.

Was my breakfast enough to convince my body that I'm not starving?

I have the impression that the difference in calories of what I eat, vs. what I expend will be the body fat I burn. Is that right?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mike

flag
5 
 That's the third time today that someone posted about 'loosing weight'. Sorry to pick on you, Mike, but it's 'lose weight'. You can 'shake it loose' if you want. Okay, I'll take the grammar stick out of my ass now. – Dave S. Apr 12 2012 at 17:49
2 
 Problem solved... – Happy Now Apr 12 2012 at 17:52
The only thing that prevents you from burning body fat (net, as in losing fat mass) is being in caloric balance or excess. Taubes is convincing but ... – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 12 2012 at 18:00
I probably make that mistake toooo frequently, but did I make that mistake in this post? (I did a CTRL-F and only see 'loosing' in your comment. Unless I'm loooosing my mind! – CaveMan_Mike Apr 12 2012 at 20:05
I love Gary Taubes. Believe everything he says. I think you should miss the lunch if not hungry. Lorene Codaine speaks anecdotaly about the fact that he never eats lunch. – Sean Parkes Apr 13 2012 at 10:32

4 Answers

4

If I don't eat enough, am I in danger of confusing my body thinking it is starving, which would result in slowing my metabolism?

This statement has truth to it, but it is repeated so often, and so misunderstood, that it is basically a myth - one you'll even see repeated here.

Not getting enough energy from food for a few, consecutive days will indeed trigger what most call "starvation mode." This is not something that happens suddenly if you miss a meal. In fact, skipping meals is known to increase metabolism! ... just don't not eat for 2-3 days and think you're doing the body good.

You can get to a starvation state by consecutively, and purposefully, not eating enough - even if you are eating everyday. The number thrown around is "eat at least 1200 calories a day". When you're eating that little, that number is a good stopping point. I wouldn't go past that unless your doctor advises you to do so. I'm a 5'10'' male working on "those last 15lbs", and I workout and eat 1900 calories a day which is barely enough, imho.

Skipping meals, but yet getting enough energy during the day (or any time period) is not the same as starving yourself.

Eat well & workout -- you'll reach those goals!

link|flag
Intermittent low calorie days seems to be a better approach than a consistent calorie deficit in terms of tricking the body not to go into "starvation mode" ... Incidentally chronic carb restriction can and has been shown to do the same thing. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 12 2012 at 17:58
8

The best part - eat when hungry.

Save it for dinner, or do as I do and combine dinner and lunch (linner? dunch?)

We've been made to believe over the past 20-30 years you should eat x amount every x hours to control hunger. But honestly, if you simply listen to your body you'll go much farther in your goals.

link|flag
Yep ... save the meal until you're hungry for it. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 12 2012 at 17:57
Totally agree! It only took me 15 years to figure this out... :( – HeatherN1321 Apr 13 2012 at 0:58
3

It's 1:35pm here and I haven't had breakfast or lunch and I'm not hungry. I will eat when I am and I have some nice grilled steak and carrots standing by.

Both protein and low carb/ketogenics diets have a tendency to reduce appetite/hunger, so this is not an unusual situation, especially if you just read WWGF.

Although everyone (any dissenters?) here agrees about Gary Taube's demolition of the lipid hypothesis, there is some haggling over the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity. But whether people get fat because of insulin's effect or not, being low carb is a pretty useful strategy for many who need to lose weight. Appetite suppression for the win!

Just be aware that many here have felt the need to add some carbs (like sweet potato) back in as they approach goal weight. If you start to get cold hands/feet or feel very lethargic/wigged out, you may want to add some starch (and/or fruit).

link|flag
No dissent here on the lipid hypothesis, but "some haggling" ... HUGE understatement there! – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 12 2012 at 17:55
1

I've always wondered why people in famine areas and concentration camps look the way they do if the body is capable of going into a starvation mode that allows it to miraculously maintain its fat.

link|flag
1 
 They don't start out overweight or obese. Also, the starvation response slows metabolism but it cannot adapt completely for a calorie deficit. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 12 2012 at 19:06
There is successful and unsuccessful adaptations to long-term starvation- one is to allow muscle and fat wasting (that emaciated look) and the latter is to not use up all the fat/muscle stores and go into major edema (the swollen bellies seen in small children who can't successfully adapt due to stage of development). The slow metabolism cannot account for such an extreme calorie deficit, and suppresses hunger, immune system etc to just try to hang in there. – JeJ Apr 12 2012 at 19:40

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.