Is this not something anybody is concerned about? Do most people realize that if you go SUPER low-cal, your body thinks it's starving and will fight for its life to hold onto every pound? I'm just curious. I totally forgot that I used to buy into the "eat as few calories as you possibly can" camp. It's very unhealthy.

Perhaps I should "introduce" myself because I have not been around in awhile and I don't think I ever was that regular of a poster in this particular forum, anyway.

I had LAP-BAND surgery in November of 2007. I lost 55 lbs in a 5-month period by eating VERY low calorie and low carb. I yo-yo'd back up by 13 lbs over the next 4 months due to stress from a dissolving marriage and also going back to school at the same time. I managed to get back down the 13 lbs, plus 5.5 more lbs over the next 3 months. Again - being VERY calorie-restrictive.

I can't say I got a very healthy view of diet from my nutritionist or the class we had to go through. It felt like elementary all over again. "This is a portion size...." But nothing truly useful that STUCK. I have yo-yo'd around since November of 2008 with the same 10 lbs. I go down some, I go up some, I go down some, I go up some.

Anyway - after doing some thorough research on what works...I discovered that very low calorie is NOT GOOD. Not only does it lower your metabolism (people get used to eating 800 calories a day and then "lose" their band...then what?), but if your body doesn't get what it needs through nutrition, it eats your muscle. Muscle also keeps your metabolism firing high. You lose lean body mass and you are left with what is often referred to as a "skinny fat person." Meaning your WEIGHT might be low, but your body fat % sucks.

I'm just going to say - No, I have not been perfect. I have struggled to "get" this band thing. I have become major exercise monster. (It is IDEAL to exercise on top of eating better. Don't just rely on your band to get you there. Exercise ALSO fires up your metabolism.) Most recently, I ran a half marathon at the beginning of this month. There's NO WAY I would have the energy to run as much as I do if I was eating 800 calories. For instance - after this day is over, I will have logged 22 miles for the week, which included a 9-mile run yesterday. When I was doing super-low-cal before, I couldn't run that intensely for more than 3 miles at a time.

I also have picked up strength-training 3 days a week to build up my lean body tissue. I have been running regularly since August of last year and I picked up the strength training in December. So why am I still at my 2008 weight? Because - I was eating very high cal. It's not easy to stay in super low-cal for life, nor is it realistic for most people. I feel like my body was trying to compensate for the "stealing" I did by keeping the calories so low. This is actually quite common for many people.

I am now in a slight calorie deficit, calculated based on my basal metabolic rate (how many calories I use on a daily basis just living). The slight calorie deficit plus the huge amount of calories I burn through exercise (btw - it's MUCH better to burn the calories than to starve your body of them) is causing weight loss. And you know what? It's easy. I don't feel like I'm dieting at all. The band does make this tremendously easy because it's pretty much next to impossible to go over my calories for the day. I also have to add that losing weight at break-neck pace isn't good for anybody. It makes it hard for your body to adjust in many ways. But also, if you lose OVER a certain amount of weight per week, again, you're burning muscle to get that weight loss. It's not worth it to me. I'd rather keep the muscle and lose slower.

So I have to agree with the thing I have read on this board MANY times: The band is a tool. Period. But it shouldn't be used as a tool for starvation if you want life-long, healthy results.

I'm open to comment, discussion, insult (kidding). I am training for another race in October and probably December - lots of running. Still weight training, and keeping my calories at a slight deficit rather than a major one. I think I have about 6 lbs to go to get down to the lowest weight I have ever gotten with the band. But I plan to THIS TIME blow past that and keep going...losing the final 23 lbs below that to get to goal. I'm willing to admit I was wrong if I STILL can't get there. But I'm positive that this time I can because I don't feel deprived.

Well, you wont get an argument from me, I coudlnt agree with you more. I think eating half a cup three times a day is ridiculously underfeeding yourself and setting you up not only to be totally dependent on having a tight band forever (leading to increased risk of problems) but also probably to be quite malnourished over time. You'll get skinny and wasted looking and lose a lot of your lean body mass. If you focus on Protein to avoid this you'll get nowhere near enough of other major nutrients.

I have always taken the view of LOTS of cardio, some strength training, a daily limit of more like 1500 calories and be satisfied with slow, steady weight loss instead of seeking spectacular 100lb losses in a year.

the other thing I've noticed as a fellow runner ande exercise enthusiast is that I cant function without good carbs in my diet, and I do not feel good on a low carb plan.

I will say though that many people simply find themselves unable to lose without cutting so dramatically, and really, who could blame anyone for doing what they have to do?

I was looking forward to you responding, Jacqui. :cool: I remember your posts from when I frequented here before and appreciate a lot of what you have to say.

I just wanted to agree with you that I also cannot function to do as much exercise as I do without carbs. I tried low-carb back in November '09 while I was running 6 miles a day 3-4 times a week and could barely get out 3 miles without feeling like I was going to die. I have discovered the use of healthy carbs, though. That was always my downfall before. Now I go whole grain as much as possible, more veggies, more fruits. As far as processed, sugary carbs - I used to binge on them daily. This week I have had only two such items and I don't feel deprived at all and I'm STILL losing.

Anyway - thanks for adding your words! :cursing:

As a "couch potato" I though I'd chime in on the topic. :cursing:

I can't agree more. As I don't have the energy expenditure of an avid exerciser, I can't take in as many calories, but I still don't do a very low calorie diet. I consume around 1200 calories a day. I am still losing at a VERY slow rate.

Due to some recent medical issues, I have not been as active as I was up to a couple of months ago.

But I often suggest to people here to try upping their daily calories if their losses have come to a standstill and they report consuming less than 1000 a day.

I have to keep my calories 800-1000 a day and do some kind of exercise for at least an hour a day or I don't lose. I got a body bugg to use to tweak my schedule and it recommended that I eat 1250 a day, I did that for a week and gained 3 pounds. I went back down to the 800-1000 range and lost those 3 plus a few more since then. For exercise I ride my bike, walk on the treadmill, I have started the C25K program, and I lift weights. I do something for at least an hour every single day. And now I lose an average of 1 pound every 10 days.

When I first started getting fills I could lose with just diet, then it slowed down and I started walking an hour 3 days a week then that stopped working, that is when I got the body bugg and realized I would have to do at least an hour a day, everyday.

I start week 5 of C25K on Sunday and I look forward to July when I am graduated from the program and can run for a solid 30 min. I agree with your statement that "I ran a half marathon at the beginning of this month. There's NO WAY I would have the energy to run as much as I do if I was eating 800 calories." But at this point, I don't have the ability to run a half marathon no matter how many calories I consumed. I am just not in the physical condition to do that. So I intend to gradually increase my physical conditioning and I'm sure as I am able to run further I will increase my calorie consumption to fuel those runs.

By the way, I do not intend to keep eating that few of calories forever, when I reach my goal I intend to start eating 1200-1300 a day, keeping the hour a day of exercise and see if my weight stabilizes. If I continue to lose I will up it to 1300-1400 and continue to increase it by 100 each week to 10 days until I know where my maintenance level is.

The moral of my story is everyone is different and each of us have to find what works for us.

Hey Leigha! You are so right about everyone being different! You have done the "research" for your body and found what works for you. You are also very close to goal! Yay!

I think some bandsters tend to eat too little without considering the consequences thinking that less is more when it comes to weight loss. For me, when I tried low carb pre-surgery, I had zero energy. I was doing martial arts at the time, and needed the quick bursts that carbs give.

If I drop below 1000 calories a day, my loss grinds to a halt. Well, ok, it has mostly stopped anyway, as I am about where I want to be.

I think calorie intake is something to look at if losses have stopped and the person doesn't know why.

Every body is different. I burn in excess of 2000 calories a day, and do not lose weight ---at all---unless my eating still remains in the 800-1000 calorie range. I need a deficit that large.

So a statement like,

Is this not something anybody is concerned about?

regarding "metabolism" (which is a very individual sum total of all chemical reactions in the human body) really just kind of irks me. It assumes that what works for you works for everyone. It assumes that those of us who have different requirements are incapable of analyzing what our bodies require.

In fact, there is NO peer-reviewed research that supports the existence of starvation mode. None. It is bandied around on message boards and in popular media, but it has not been supported by the medical and scientific community. It's just accepted because enough people have said it enough times.

Does that mean that some people don't benefit from more calories? No. Clearly, some people really do. Others do not.

There are many different approaches to weight loss that are healthy and effective. Yours works for you. Mine works for me. Yours does NOT work for me--a significant portion of the weight that caused me to require banding was added to my body following directives like you've issued. Before my surgery, I required a very low calorie level, and after my surgery I required a very low calorie level. The band allows me--quite effortlessly--to remain in the calorie range where I lose best. I am not adjusted tightly. I do not measure my meals by the half-cup. (I do weigh my protein--but primarily because it prevents waste.) I give my body what it needs---which is vastly, vastly different from what your body needs.

Both of us likely meet our nutrient and calorie needs---even though our needs are very different.

My point is, while I congratulate your success, remember that it was YOURS, and not applicable to all. Generalizations with faux science backup may apply to some, but don't work all that well for many.

Every body is different. I burn in excess of 2000 calories a day, and do not lose weight ---at all---unless my eating still remains in the 800-1000 calorie range. I need a deficit that large.

So a statement like, regarding "metabolism" (which is a very individual sum total of all chemical reactions in the human body) really just kind of irks me. It assumes that what works for you works for everyone. It assumes that those of us who have different requirements are incapable of analyzing what our bodies require.

In fact, there is NO peer-reviewed research that supports the existence of starvation mode. None. It is bandied around on message boards and in popular media, but it has not been supported by the medical and scientific community. It's just accepted because enough people have said it enough times.

Does that mean that some people don't benefit from more calories? No. Clearly, some people really do. Others do not.

There are many different approaches to weight loss that are healthy and effective. Yours works for you. Mine works for me. Yours does NOT work for me--a significant portion of the weight that caused me to require banding was added to my body following directives like you've issued. Before my surgery, I required a very low calorie level, and after my surgery I required a very low calorie level. The band allows me--quite effortlessly--to remain in the calorie range where I lose best. I am not adjusted tightly. I do not measure my meals by the half-cup. (I do weigh my protein--but primarily because it prevents waste.) I give my body what it needs---which is vastly, vastly different from what your body needs.

Both of us likely meet our nutrient and calorie needs---even though our needs are very different.

My point is, while I congratulate your success, remember that it was YOURS, and not applicable to all. Generalizations with faux science backup may apply to some, but don't work all that well for many.

Thank you for writing this. I understand what the OP was trying to say. Depending on a very very low cal diet to get long term results can be the wrong thing to do. It CAN set you up to fail. HOWEVER, I am under the supervision of my primary care doctor, my personal trainer, as well as my Surgeon and Nutritionist. My daily goal is anywhere from 900 cals to about 1200 cals. I keep my body guessing. So far, so great. I refuse to be spooked into thinking that just because I have managed to lose the amount I have in a shorter than average time frame I am doing something wrong. I know that when I get to my goal weight I will need to adjust my calorie consumption once again to find what works to help me stay at goal. And FTR....I have fitness assessments every 6-8 weeks and I am getting stronger. Much stronger. No muscle loss here!

Every body is different.....So a statement like, "Is this not something anybody is concerned about?" regarding "metabolism" (which is a very individual sum total of all chemical reactions in the human body) really just kind of irks me. It assumes that what works for you works for everyone. It assumes that those of us who have different requirements are incapable of analyzing what our bodies require.

I don't believe I said you have to do what I'm doing. Did I tell you how many calories I take in on a normal day? Did I tell you my BMR? Did I tell you how many calories I burn in a given week through exercise? No. Actually, I did none of those things. THAT would be trying to say that we are all the same. My post was pretty much for people to FIND exactly what works for them and not just starve the hell out of their body because that's what they were told to do. I AM recommending that people get out there and start researching to see what their body needs. But when you have people on 800 cal/day and NOT losing and can't figure out why - might be time for them to take a look at what they can do differently. That is what I was suggesting. :cursing:

In fact, there is NO peer-reviewed research that supports the existence of starvation mode. None. It is bandied around on message boards and in popular media, but it has not been supported by the medical and scientific community. It's just accepted because enough people have said it enough times.

It's not a fluff term, unfortunately. I wish more people were aware of it. I'm not speaking of people that CONTINUE losing on low, low, low calories. If that works for you - go for it. I still say you're going to lose muscle. And strength test is not enough to measure that - body mass analysis can do that. But anyway...a few in the medical and scientific community that have mentioned it:

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (if you don't like wiki, then find another source, This is a well-known study and produced 1,385 pages of text called The Biology of Human Starvation)

There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest) and reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate.

Why hasn't the study been reproduced? It's hard to find people willing to put up with all that these subjects went through. Especially when you take a look at the mental/emotional trauma that many of them suffered.

Other quotes:

Abdul Dulloo from the University of Geneva regarding the above-mentioned study:

Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition. Quote:

“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”

“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”

Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”

quote: “It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”

Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard

(two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )

quote: “The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”

Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)

Quote:

“During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.

This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”

American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”

American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”

quote: “Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”

and Dulloo 1998: “The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”

Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”

Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:

“Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”

---------------------------------------------------

What is leptin, then? Leptin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leptin acts on receptors in the hypothalamus of the brain where it inhibits appetite by (1) counteracting the effects of neuropeptide Y (a potent feeding stimulant secreted by cells in the gut and in the hypothalamus); (2) counteracting the effects of anandamide (another potent feeding stimulant that binds to the same receptors as THC, the active ingredient of marijuana); and (3) promoting the synthesis of α-MSH, an appetite suppressant.

The absence of a leptin (or its receptor) leads to uncontrolled food intake and resulting obesity. Several studies have shown that fasting or following a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD) lowers leptin levels.

The studies mentioned above:

• Dubuc G, Phinney S, Stern J, Havel P (1998). "Changes of serum leptin and endocrine and metabolic parameters after 7 days of energy restriction in men and women". Metab. Clin. Exp. 47 (4): 429–34. PMID 9550541.
  
• Pratley R, Nicolson M, Bogardus C, Ravussin E (1997). "Plasma leptin responses to fasting in Pima Indians". Am. J. Physiol. 273 (3 Pt 1): E644–9. PMID 9316457.
  
• Weigle D, Duell P, Connor W, Steiner R, Soules M, Kuijper J (1997). "Effect of fasting, refeeding, and dietary fat restriction on plasma leptin levels". J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 82 (2): 561–5. doi:10.1210/jc.82.2.561. PMID 9024254.
  

----------------------------------------------------

Don't feed people the BS that it doesn't exist without doing your own research. I'm not even selling anything, so what do I have to gain by trying to ask people to RESEARCH this? Not a dang thing. I'm trying to help. If you don't like the info, then don't accept it. It makes no difference to me. But don't say it's not backed by the medical/scientific community - that is simply untrue.

I did want to add - about the half-marathon. I didn't just hop on the road and get running. I put in a lot of work to get there, to include going through the C25K program like 3 times. It's not easy. Some days are a b*tch. I have bad running days and good running days. But anyway - I was running for about 6 months before deciding to try to work up to running one, then I followed a difficult 12-week program to build up to it. I wish I was one of these genetically-blessed people that doesn't have to train at all and can peg a personal record (yuck - one of my friends on FB...LOL). It's all baby steps.