Okkkkk....I'm confused.

[L.J 0]

So im getting mixed information and i do not know which to believe. It seems as if low calorie intake is what causes weight loss, and this isn't reduced calorie intake but like i said LOW calorie consumption. However, i have also been told that a low calorie diet can kill ones metabolism especially for us that need or have had this surgery. Both of these ideas contradict each other and im officially confused. Many of us banders can't consume any more than 700-1000 calories which is what causes them to loose weight (purpose of lap band). So heres the question> Can we have a slow metabolism and still lose at a rapid rate like i see most do who eat no more than 1000 calories? or better yet> Does the lap band decrease our metabolism and still cause us to lose fat? hope this makes sense.

[HappyHomeCC 2]

The way the dr explained it to me is that by creating the pouch above the band, the top of that pouch is where the nerve endings are that send the signal to the brain that you are full... hence the body is satisfied, and brain so it does not go into sarvation mode and shut down your metabolism.

hope this helps

Lor

[L.J 0]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ok this makes so much sense. So as long as your are satisfied your metabolism will not shut down. I figured there were a certain amount of calories your body had to have or it would go into starvation mode. I understand, i hope this is my answer. Thanks.

[crystal525 26]

For me, If I consume too few calories for too many days in a row, I will not lose. I lose best consuming 1100 to 1200 per day. I realized when I was eating 8-900 calories, I wasn't losing anything. So--consuming too few calories can put you in "starvation" mode--it depends on how many you expend per day.

I know the pouch has nerves that signal the brain that you are full, but I haven't heard of the stomach signaling the brain not to go into starvation mode--I'd like to hear more about that.

Hope this helps.

Crystal

[L.J 0]

This shows that right when we think we know everything we really dont because theres always some theory or idea that will refute what we thought we knew.>>>>> back to the drawing board, more research. thank you guys though for your knowledge.

[RestlessMonkey 7]

Of course you can lose on very low calorie; aside from bypass patients (or other WLS patients, other than banding) think of prisoners of war, or concentration camp victims. Your body may temporarily try to not lose but it is GOING to happen if you don't get fuel.

"Starvation mode" is bandied about quite a bit on weight loss sites but if you consistently eat very low calories (below what your body needs to just survive) you WILL lose. Of course, not eating (or consuming only very low calories) isn't healthy, and your energy level may be low, but you WILL lose weight.

[crzytchr 3]

I hear different stories on starvation mode, but I know the following from experience:

I ate one meal a day from high school through college until I became pregnant with my daughter. I consumed about 700-900 calories per day. All the while, I was still overweight. When I became pregnant with my daughter I ate the suggested 3 meals per day and 1800-2000 calories per day. My body, being the efficient machine that it was, could run on the 700 calories per day, so I immediately began gaining. In all I gained 75 lbs in the 9 months of pregnancy. Eventually my metabolism stabilized and when I became pregnant with my son, I ate the same, if not a little more with him, but only gained 25 lbs because my metabolism had risen. So people can say what they want about metabolism, I know I will NOT lose weight past the first couple of months if I consume below 1000.

Since being banded, I have consistently eaten 1200-1500 calories per day and I have lost 80 lbs. Many people lose faster, but I don't feel hungry and I eat most foods that I want, including the occasional sweets.

[Mary of MO 0]

I had been thinking about the same thing. This is what I figured I'd do (I'm being banded this Thursday)--

after my four weeks of soft/mushies, I plan on eating UNDER 1000 calories a day for like maybe four days in a row, then I'll eat 1200-1300 calories for one day only. It is my understanding that this will keep your body from going into the starvation mode.

Mary

Edited May 11, 2009 by Mary of MO
spelling error

[crzytchr 3]

I had been thinking about the same thing. This is what I figured I'd do (I'm being banded this Thursday)--

after my four weeks of soft/mushies, I plan on eating UNDER 1000 calories a day for like maybe four days in a row, then I'll eat 1200-1300 calories for one day only. It is my understanding that this will keep your body from going into the starvation mode.

Mary

Mary, it does help to keep your metabolism guessing. They have a ww plan that is called the wendi plan that isn't really endorsed by ww, but it goes on that same principle. Eat 2 days low cal, then a day of high cal, then moderate, or whatever. As long as you throw in an extra 200-300 calories every third day or so, your metabolism is less likely to shut down. I make sure young girls know the dangers of eating low calorie and starving themselves. My daughter eats healthy, but knows that not eating enough is REALLY bad for her body. She has heard the gained 75 lbs in 9 months story before and knows it is true.

[tylrgurl 0]

I have been researching these topics and issues for the past 10 years because of my own personal issues and have discovered that it is as simple as this. We have to burn more calories than we consume. Overall to make sure we are getting all nutrition we need, we should consume between 1000-1200 calories a day and that is with nutritious food and not just empty calories. If you are fairly active, then that amount needs to be increased slightly. The more active we are the more efficient our body becomes and begin to burn the food we are eating. If we are starving ourselves, we begin to store food and it takes a lot of activity to make our bodies burn those calories. I noticed that if I drop the amount of food I eat and dont workout either I will be at a stand still or I will gain a couple of pds. But, if I eat 3 meals and workout I will lose a lot in a week. so it really depends on what we are burning.

[Jachut 487]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ok this makes so much sense. So as long as your are satisfied your metabolism will not shut down. I figured there were a certain amount of calories your body had to have or it would go into starvation mode. I understand, i hope this is my answer. Thanks.

This isnt really right. Tricking your body into satiety like a band does doesnt negate the fact that you're underfeeding it. It still has to learn to be VERY efficient with what it is fed. Starvation mode is a contentious issue, and not everyone agrees it exits, but for some people super duper low calories dont result in much weight lost - although over time it HAS to. But the sad fact is for ALL of us who have lost weight, they dont remove the band at the end because in the process of losing we have all taught our bodies to become remarkably efficient and most of us can probably never again eat the calories that a person of our weight who had never been fat could eat. We will always have to undereat to maintain our losses. It may not be by much, but even an excess of 100 calories a day does result in a lot of weight over say a decade.

Moderate calories and slower weight loss is better. Most women cant really achieve adequate nutrition under 1000 calories a day and honestly, a band that restricts you to 700 or so is probably too tight (apart from in the post op phase). If you eat too little, you will lose a lot of lean body tissue as well as fat and that compounds the metabolism slowing problem doubly - since muscle is metabolically active and the more of it you have, the more you can eat.

I had a good example of this the other day. As a 5ft 10 150lb woman, who is very fit, I can eat quite normally - about 1800 calories a day to maintain my weight. That's fantastic. But to do that, I have to run for an hour most days and do some good honest heavy strength training on a regular basis. My pals at uni were incredulous, being 20 somethings who had never been fat - most of them ate much more calories than me - because being that age, there was a fair bit of alcohol and fast food in there - and never exercised. They stay THINNER than I am and were generally much smaller too (I'm very tall) so the calorie disparity is really obvious. I dont care, 1800 a day to me is generous, satisfying and allows for a very normal diet. But it illustrates a point.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Jachut