Two things strike me about this. I read extensively, and love to read older novels. When I read Agatha Christie, or even Jane Austen, the meals described are very full, especially breakfast. Lunch is light, because tea is coming up. Supper is usually quite a large meal again. So, a hard boiled egg for lunch is not something I would consider unusual for the time your novel was written. Heck, there have been days where I have eaten one egg for lunch since I went LC. Knowing supper would be early, etc.

Regarding the chicken, this chicken would not be your little deli chicken from the grocery store. It would have been an older chicken, hence larger. Here where I live, we can occasionally buy chickens from the Hutterites. They are raised organically, brought to full chicken size and when you buy them, they are big. Picture a small turkey in your head. One thigh would be too much for a woman to eat, and the chicken would easily feed six adults. That's a real chicken, not the small ones we get nowadays. Oh, and don't forget that the chicken they had would have had a lot of fat on it, too. And all of us here know that fat means satiety, even if it is all you eat.



Gotta agree with you that the women's clothes were smaller, but again, there are a few reasons for this. Some of the women were naturally smaller than others. They wore corsets, which make your profile very small, and suck your waist in. If you lace your corset up tight enough, you can barely breathe, let alone eat much. Also, let's not forget that these people were not eating crap all the time, like most people in our society nowadays. They were eating a diet primarily composed of meat, veggies, fruit and small amounts of sugars. Rich people could afford to buy the best in terms of meat, veggies and fruits. Does this sound like anything we all know about?

Bawdywench, don't think I am picking on you, just trying to give reasons for what you have cited that would be consistent with what is historically correct. I like reasons for stuff.


Regarding the starvation mode theory, I personally think it is a bit of bunk mixed with a bit of reality. If you eat too little for too long, when you go back to eating more, your body will latch onto every bit of nutrition you give it and try to keep it. No, I have no facts or studies, etc. If you are sick for two days, this is not an issue. If you systematically undereat for a long time, then if you want to eat normal amounts of food, you will need to eat more ever so slowly over a period of months to prevent your body from noticing the transition.

A tad off topic, I read this book once by Esquire that is called "What it's Like to.." and it is a collection of stories from people that survived amazing things. One of the things was "What it was like to starve to death". It was pretty crazy, he talked about the process of his body shutting down, and how eventually he went blind, and all other sorts of bad things. Pretty freaky. If I recall correctly he went 40 days or so with no food.

This is a connection without fasting or anorexia, and it mentions the 300 cal. reduction, and it mentions the scientific research.

Quote:

5. Prevent the metabolic “lull” by eating snacks on time. Duetz, R.C., D. Benarfot, D.E. Martin and M.M. Cody. (2000). Relationship between energy deficits and body composition in elite female gymnasts and runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32(3):659-668. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between 24-hour within-day energy balance and percent body fat. Sixty-two female National Team gymnasts and runners (age 19+6 yrs) underwent DEXA and skinfold assessments, as well as a 24-hour diet analysis and activity review. Results Percent body fat averaged 12-13% for all athletes. The average energy intake was 1,600+657 kcal/day, while the estimated daily expenditure was 2,384 kcal. This left the mean energy balance profile in the negative, and even more so for the gymnasts. Energy deficits were positively associated with percent body fat. The greater the deficit, the higher the body fat percentage. Implications Even during training, when exercise is supposed to maintain the metabolic rate, an athlete who is in a state of energy deficit (i.e. not eating enough to meet individual caloric needs) may experience a gain in body fat. This effect (due to a decrease in metabolic rate and rise in fat deposition) is the body’s way of conserving energy when it is being deprived. Athletes should not be encouraged to lose fat weight by cutting calories. Usually a deficit of more than 300 kcal/day is not recommended. Encourage athletes to prevent energy deficits throughout the day by eating snacks before hunger sets in. Staying fueled staves off the starvation mechanism, thus preventing the metabolic “lull.” Just like thirst is not an accurate indicator if hydration status, hunger may not be an accurate indicator of energy balance.

OK guys, I give up, I cannot go deliver evidence for the non-believers. It is an endless task because if you keep questioning any new item I'll have to show the underlying base of each subject going down to proving 2 + 1 = 3. And have to hear the triumph voices that that is not scientifically proven, because it is an assumption that 1 + 1 = 2...

Nope. Didn't think you were. You raised some good points. The book I referred to may not been typical, and now that I think of it, it probably wasn't. Still, I do think people back then ate better-quality food than we do today, and they probably ate less than we do today.

It had nothing to do with the topic at hand, besides using the phrase. It certainly didn't answer the question I asked. I suppose I'm doomed to blindness, along with, in all probability, everyone besides yourself who read the links. I also suppose that your inability to provide what I asked for means you couldn't find it.





Sorry, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. It must be the blindness, so you'll have to excuse me. The only sentence I can understand, the first one, contextually makes no sense, as anyone reading this thread knows exactly how people have been using the phrase "starvation mode." It was, in fact, defined by the original poster.




The blindness has struck me again. Maybe if I get a Braille computer this will make more sense.

Sorry Kwikdriver if I offended you.

I should not have let me drawn into this kind of useless word-battling.

I learn from this to give the info only and keep silence after that.

There is a saying people can only be convinced of things they already want to believe.

It might help to know and consider that Watcher's primary language is not English and some words/phrases in other languages do not readily translate into English. I'm sure that some of the things that we say and expressions that we commonly use don't always make a lot of sense to him, either.

I see.1111

The study you brought up, Watcher...was for National Team Athletes with very little body fat in the first place...not those who were overweight with excess body fat.

I dont think this discussion has ever been about those who are already in basically outstanding condition cutting calories to any great degree. ...nobody that I've seen on this board is doing that. It's been about those who are overweight and trying to lose excess fat... which those cited in the article had very little of. Of course someone in pristeen physical form is likely to lose muscle when calorie restrictions are placed on them...there's nothing else for their bodies to utilize.

I'm looking for something relevent to this forum and to those who have excess fat and have reduced caloric intake. Anything?

If this is so, why is it then that those following PSMF need to take periodic diet breaks? As I understand it, it's not just because of diet boredom but to reverse the inevitable metabolic slowdown that accompanies VLC dieting, even though protein requirements are being met and nutritional needs may be met (I remain unconvinced about this). Thyroid slows down metabolism evidenced by a lowering of basal temperature. Slowed metabolism = slowed weight loss. Yes, there is a point beyond which this can be overridden, but do you really want to go there?

Obviously, adequate nutrition (assuming everyone doing VLC is getting it and that's a pretty big assumption) and adequate protein aren't enough to prevent this or diet breaks would not be needed; one could simply stay at very low calorie levels until desired weight was reached.

Starvation mode may not be quite the correct term and 'conservation mode' may be a better fit but regardless of what you call it (and when it comes down to it, we're arguing semantics here), you're messing with your metabolism and making weight loss ultimately harder by cutting calories too low on a consistant basis. Obviously a day or two here and there of low intake isn't going to present a huge problem but when I see people staying below 1,200 calories for weeks at a time, yes I get concerned and I think that blowing this information off as 'irrelevant', 'complete nonsense' and 'myth' is doing others a great disservice.

I was basing my arguments in this thread primarily on this statement:

Which I still consider to be an alarmist comment...also a disservice....dontcha think?

PS...hope that didnt sound too critical....I honestly enjoy discussions of this sort.

I'm gonna step out on a limb here.

1,200 calories per day with nutrient dense foods (veggies, meats, and even fruits) would not be considered an eating disorder.

A scientic investigation to the quality of calculations of BMR:

Quote:

[Calculating the basal metabolic rate and severe and morbid obesity] [Article in German] Muller B, Merk S, Burgi U, Diem P. Abteilung fur Endokrinologie und Diabetologie, Universitat Bern, Inselspital, Bern. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the currently available predictive equations for basal metabolic rate (BMR) in subjects with obesity class II and III, and to assess the contribution by the components of a two-compartment model of body composition, namely the lean body mass (LBM) and the fat mass (FM) to the prediction. A second objective was to examine the reliability of the Harris Benedict equation in obese subjects, especially with a weight > or = 120 kg. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 43 patients (age range 18 to 61 years, 5 men, 38 women) with obesity class II and III (body mass index, BMI, mean +/- SD 45.6 kg/m2 +/- 5.4 kg/m2, range 37.1-58.6 kg/m2) basal metabolic rate BMR was determined using indirect calorimetry (Deltatrac MBM, Datex, Instrumentarium Corp., Helsinki, Finnland) and the components of body composition were determined using the bioelectrical-impedance-analysis (BIA) method (BIA, Akern-Gerat, RJL Systems, Detroit). Calculated BMR was compared with measured BMR. RESULTS: The best fitting equations for predicting BMR in these 43 severe und morbidly obese subjects were the Harris-Benedict (ratio calculated BMR to measured, BMR mean +/- SD%; correlation coefficient r = 101 +/- 12.9; 0.69), the Jensen (101.5 +/- 12.3; 0.74), the Nelson (99.3 +/- 11.4; 0.76) and the Cunningham equation (98.9 +/- 11.7; 0.74). The predictive value of the original Harris-Benedict equation was slightly different from modified Harris-Benedict equation, which was recalculated by Roza et al. (101.1 +/- 12.9; 0.69 vs. 99.7 +/- 12.8; 0.69). In the group of the 22 subjects with a body weight > or = 120 kg ratio of estimated values for BMR using original Harris-Benedict equation to measured BMR was 102.2 +/- 15.4% (mean +/- SD%, r = 0.61), respectively 93.2 +/- 14.5% (r = 0.50) when weight was set at 120 kg due to current recommendations. The ratio calculated BMR/measured BMR according to the Nelson equation in this subgroup was 101.0 (12.1/0.74). CONCLUSION: In patients with obesity class II and III the equation of Harris-Benedict predicted the average BMR with acceptable precision for clinical use and was better fitting than most of the currently available predictive equations for basal metabolic rate (BMR). However, the recalculated version (by Roza et al.) was more accurate and should therefore be used instead of the original equation: BMR (men) = 88.362 + 4.799 x (length) + 13.397 x (weight) - 5.677 x (age); BMR (women) = 447.593 + 3.098 x (length) + 9.247 x (weight) - 4.330 x (age). The Nelson equation, including not only LBM but FM as additional predictor, was the best predicting equation ([108 LBM + 16.9 FM]0.239). Harris-Benedict equation had sufficient precision also in extreme obese subjects with a body weight > or = 120 kg, so there is no need for adaptation. Publication Types: Evaluation Studies PMID: 11817239 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This is validating the calculations of this kind from the www.bodybuilding.com site.

absolutely agree