PDA

View Full Version : Starvation Article



bradley
11-15-2003, 01:26 PM
I found this quite interesting and I wanted to post it, since I think most people will be able to relate to some of the symptoms described in the article. It is a little lengthy :read:, but i think most will find it quite interesting, especially those that have dieted down from a high bf%.

I hope this will generate some interesting comments and discussion.

http://river-centre.org/StarvSympt.html

defcon
11-15-2003, 02:37 PM
Thanx Bradely, i just skimmed it then, don;t have time to read the whole thing and study it. but i need to, since i did come down from a really high bf% ect ect.. a few of the things i npticed aplie to me.. Very intersting i think. We'll have to wait and seee :)

p.s. REFEED TOMMOROW! :D i almost started it today.. but im waiting for tommorow lol, legs + refeed day, yummy.

IronDaddy
11-15-2003, 02:38 PM
That was an enlightening article. What is tells me is that our body's need to meet physiological satisfaction is is so strong that it can actually control the psychological aspects as well. This lends weight to Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs big time.

It also tells me that we need to be very cautious in how we diet especially duration. I think this may help support the theories behind the CKD for psychological health as well as phsyical because you are starving yourself for a much shorter duration which will probably not allow your body the time to have to psychological effects it would during a much longer starvation.

TheGimp
11-15-2003, 02:40 PM
Thanks bradley, that was indeed an interesting read.

I wonder if they had any idea what they were getting themselves in for. In particular the man which this refers to:


Several days latter, this man actually did chop off three fingers of one hand in response to the stress.

Is the moral of the story that weight loss should be conducted in a slow and steady manner or simply that the body resists *any* kind of weight loss?

defcon
11-15-2003, 02:42 PM
From the article...
One of the most notable implications of the Minnesota experiment is that it challenges the popular notion that body weight is easily altered if one simply exercises a bit of "willpower." It also demonstrates that the body is not simply "reprogrammed" at a lower set point once weight loss has been achieved. The volunteers' experimental diet was unsuccessful in overriding their bodies' strong propensity to defend a particular weight level. Again, it is important to emphasize that following the months of refeeding, the Minnesota volunteers did not skyrocket into obesity. On the average, they gained back their original weight plus about 10%; then, over the next 6 months, their weight gradually declined. By the end of the follow-up period, they were approaching their preexperiment weight levels.

are they basically suggesting that its near impossible to change the bodys bf% point?

meaning since i was @ a high bf%, 35-40% at my highest, dieted down to low teens, then the "binge" problem came along.. i developed an eating disorder that no matter how much i told myself i shouldnt eat that food.. i still went out every night and ate 7000-8000 cals of junk food. Cuold this be my body almost, "forcing" me to get back to my higher bf%.. i am round 20% now, trying to cut again.. and the binging's has finally stoped, its been good for about a month now.. would this also be because i am @ a higher bf% level...

Lot of questions, bleh..VERY interesting article.

bradley
11-15-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by IronDaddy
It also tells me that we need to be very cautious in how we diet especially duration. I think this may help support the theories behind the CKD for psychological health as well as phsyical because you are starving yourself for a much shorter duration which will probably not allow your body the time to have to psychological effects it would during a much longer starvation.

That might be something to think about if a CKD actually caused an increased rate of fat loss, as compared to a more balanced diet.

I would also speculate that you would want to go about losing weight in a slow controlled manner, so as to allow your body to adjust. The greater the calorie deficit that you create, the closer you are to starvation, so in theory the higher the probability of experiencing symptoms mentioned in the article. Although another factor would be bf setpoint, and trying to maintain a bf under said setpoint.

bradley
11-15-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by TheGimp
I wonder if they had any idea what they were getting themselves in for. In particular the man which this refers to:


They agreed to participate in the experiment instead of military service, so I think this is the reason that they could not cease participation in the study.



Is the moral of the story that weight loss should be conducted in a slow and steady manner or simply that the body resists *any* kind of weight loss?

I think both of those are good points, and I think the body tries to resist weight loss that causes it to go below it's natural bf setpoint. You have to remember that being at a low bf% used to be detrimental to survival, when referring to overall human existence.

bradley
11-15-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by defcon
are they basically suggesting that its near impossible to change the bodys bf% point?

meaning since i was @ a high bf%, 35-40% at my highest, dieted down to low teens, then the "binge" problem came along.. i developed an eating disorder that no matter how much i told myself i shouldnt eat that food.. i still went out every night and ate 7000-8000 cals of junk food. Cuold this be my body almost, "forcing" me to get back to my higher bf%.. i am round 20% now, trying to cut again.. and the binging's has finally stoped, its been good for about a month now.. would this also be because i am @ a higher bf% level...

Lot of questions, bleh..VERY interesting article.

This is a topic that is highly debatable, and there is no definite answer to the question of changing your bf setpoint.

defcon
11-15-2003, 04:49 PM
i'll change it god da** it, * wrist 8%bf setpoint on my ripped abs

:P

IronDaddy
11-15-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by bradley


I would also speculate that you would want to go about losing weight in a slow controlled manner, so as to allow your body to adjust. The greater the calorie deficit that you create, the closer you are to starvation, so in theory the higher the probability of experiencing symptoms mentioned in the article. Although another factor would be bf setpoint, and trying to maintain a bf under said setpoint.

I think the key is how fast you lose the bf. Slow and meticulous with built in breaks. This would allow your body time to adapt even if there is a bf set point. Even then I imagine if someone stopped living the lifestyle that brought them down to that lower bf they would quickly return to that state. That all of course is strictly opinion and a little experience with this particular issue.

So it would be interesting to see some studies where individuals lost weight and maintaintained it for differing amounts of time. How quickly would there body revert to it's original state? Probably a lot of factors determining that but it would be interesting to see.

defcon
11-15-2003, 05:29 PM
I would assume the longer a person is at the lower bf% then the lower his/her bf% setpoint would become.. however this could take huge amounts of time. I remember reading a post on avantlabs about someone who was a high bf% all his life and dieted down to 10% or below and stayed at it for 2 years if my memory is correct. But he was always hungry, never had energy, etc etc. many of the symptoms that was discussed in the article.

TheGimp
11-15-2003, 05:35 PM
The question is - a long time or never?

defcon
11-15-2003, 05:39 PM
I think that if we do a "cut cycle" we basically shock our bodies, in this case i would think that our bf% setpoint will NEVER change.

However if we lose like 0.1 lbs of fat per week, and not shock the bodie, maybe our bf% will slowly decrease as well.

defcon
11-15-2003, 05:53 PM
Here is a question i would like to throw out in the open.

If a person has a set bf% that is pretty high. and he diets down to sub10%. He will constantly feel the need to have a refeed, right?

WEll what if there was a drug made ( such as sumthing like leptigen from avantlabs ) that was able to surpress these feelings of hunger and lathergy etc. Our bodyfat% setpoint will stil be the same, however we will "feel" as if it is lowered.

Opinions? Personally i like the way that the people @ avantlabs are looking at this leptin idea.

bradley
11-16-2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by defcon
WEll what if there was a drug made ( such as sumthing like leptigen from avantlabs ) that was able to surpress these feelings of hunger and lathergy etc. Our bodyfat% setpoint will stil be the same, however we will "feel" as if it is lowered.


That is a good idea, only no one knows exactly what regulates the bodyfat setpoint.

Reinier
11-16-2003, 04:37 AM
Thanks Bradley. I like it when you post these articles. Theyre interesting. They provide a real understanding to go with all the trial and error factoids BB knowledge is usually built of.

defcon
11-16-2003, 07:49 AM
Well the bf% setpoint is obviously controled by genetics, so lets assume its not changeable. Wouldn't it be just as good however( from a body building, fat loss, point of view )to develope a drug that makes our brain/body THINK we are at that setpoint, but in actual fact we are 10% below it..

Or instead of popping another pill every mourning, what if scientists were able to isolate the gene that controls the bf% setpoint and learn how to "change" it, then the world could be saved from obesity.. this however would raise a lot of moral arguments/dilemma :\

bradley
11-16-2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by defcon
Well the bf% setpoint is obviously controled by genetics, so lets assume its not changeable.

Maybe so, but most tend to think it is controlled in the brain, since bodyfat setpoints seem to increase but not decrease.


Wouldn't it be just as good however( from a body building, fat loss, point of view )to develope a drug that makes our brain/body THINK we are at that setpoint, but in actual fact we are 10% below it..

Yes, and I believe this was one of the focuses of Lyle's Bromocriptine book.

defcon
11-16-2003, 08:28 AM
Okay, personal question if you don't mind... Do you think scientists would beable to come up with something that makes the brain think that the bf% is @ its setpoint? and if so.. how far in the future?

bradley
11-16-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by defcon
Okay, personal question if you don't mind... Do you think scientists would beable to come up with something that makes the brain think that the bf% is @ its setpoint? and if so.. how far in the future?

Sure, once they figure out the exact mechanisms in the brain that control the setpoint. As far as a time frame, your guess is as good as mine.:)

defcon
11-16-2003, 08:35 AM
That will be the day :D

But, if you take this pill/supp/drug.. would you still be natural? ;)

well its refeed day, im out of bagels. time to go shoppiN! :D

bradley
11-16-2003, 10:26 AM
http://www.thinkmuscle.com/newsletter/021.htm

There is some more info regarding bodyfat setpoint in the Q&A section. You will have to scroll down a little to find the article.

defcon
11-16-2003, 05:46 PM
thanx for the link.

I got a question tho, in the answer to the first question, lyle says..

The real difficulty here is that setpoint is being primarily determined in the brain. That is, at birth [fetal programming], during puberty, depending on what you do as an adult, neural connections are formed that appear to be monitoring/regulating the setpoint.

Does he mean that whatever bf% we are during purberty would be a determining factor as to what our setpoint is for the remaninder of our life?

If this is true, then what if parents "dieted" their kids down to a lean lvl during purberty.. would their setpoint be low?

maybe I totally misread it tho :P

* eats another rasberry muffin * :D

bradley
11-17-2003, 02:09 AM
[i]Originally posted by defcon
Does he mean that whatever bf% we are during purberty would be a determining factor as to what our setpoint is for the remaninder of our life?


I think he is implying that it is a contributing factor, not the only factor.



If this is true, then what if parents "dieted" their kids down to a lean lvl during purberty.. would their setpoint be low?

I think the key word is "dieted," and I doubt it would have that much of an effect on your setpoint, since once you hit puberty these connections in the brain are already being formed. I would suspect that kids who are forced to go on diets as children/adolescents will be more likely to have food issues later on in life.

defcon
11-17-2003, 04:34 AM
Hmmm, ight then, i dun think many parents would want to force their kids on diets @ that age anyway :P but would you have any links to any more articles regarding setpoint etc? i'd like to read up a bit more on it, specifically these" connections in the brain" that you've referred to. thanx

jinxx
11-17-2003, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by bradley
http://www.thinkmuscle.com/newsletter/021.htm

There is some more info regarding bodyfat setpoint in the Q&A section. You will have to scroll down a little to find the article.

Thanks.

Good read.

IronDaddy
11-17-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by bradley


I think he is implying that it is a contributing factor, not the only factor.


When I took phsiology a few years back "they" were saying that this could actually be set by the time we're toddlers. I'm not saying that's true just what they were teaching a few years ago.

AllUp
11-17-2003, 10:44 AM
Hehe, Thx for the article Bradley. An interesting read.

AllUp
11-17-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by bradley


I think he is implying that it is a contributing factor, not the only factor.



I think the key word is "dieted," and I doubt it would have that much of an effect on your setpoint, since once you hit puberty these connections in the brain are already being formed. I would suspect that kids who are forced to go on diets as children/adolescents will be more likely to have food issues later on in life.

I agree.
I have a friend who has this problem. Unfortunately when he was young Him and his brothers Refrigerator was chained by the parents to limit the overall food consumption to breakfast small lunch and a dinner (no snacks). This actually created a sibling rivalry over food during meal-time. Nuff said they both have eating/binging problems to this day, and they basically eat whatever they can buy mass qty's of for cheap. (Even if its crap like donuts or Fraunhaufers Poundcakes)

raniali
11-17-2003, 01:31 PM
an interesting thought to what determines set point is that with the rise of adolescent obesity, are we as a society determining the set point of these children to be obese??

bradley
11-17-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by raniali
an interesting thought to what determines set point is that with the rise of adolescent obesity, are we as a society determining the set point of these children to be obese??

I think it would be an indirect effect, with the direct effect being a higher percentage of children's calories are coming from calorie dense snack foods, sodas, etc. This is causing an increase in bodyfat, which in turns keep the bodyfat setpoint moving in the wrong direction. Although my comments are based on the theory that you can increase bf setpoint much easier than you can decrease it (if you can decrease it at all).

defcon
11-17-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by bradley


I think it would be an indirect effect, with the direct effect being a higher percentage of children's calories are coming from calorie dense snack foods, sodas, etc. This is causing an increase in bodyfat, which in turns keep the bodyfat setpoint moving in the wrong direction. Although my comments are based on the theory that you can increase bf setpoint much easier than you can decrease it (if you can decrease it at all).

Bump on that, but its strange how we could increase it but not decrease it..

However if you think about human history and evolution, we use to have long bingie periods followed by longer fasting periods.. so in reality it would be smart for us to not beable to decrease it, if the bf% setpoint was lowered during these long periods of very little food, then when the food did come our bodies would not store much of it as fat.

Get what im saying here?

bradley
11-18-2003, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by defcon


Bump on that, but its strange how we could increase it but not decrease it..

Not really. Did you read the Q&A article that I posted? Once these "connections" are made in your brain they are there for good. Have you ever been able to un-learn something?

defcon
11-18-2003, 04:22 AM
Yup.... i got knocked out skateboarding once, and i forgot what i was trying to do in the first place.. bleh nevermind.. i remember now :P

but yeah.. i guess that makes sense. I will be trying all day to unlearn sumthing :D

BUT, in the same sense.. we can learn new things to cover up previous thoughts, as in school.. first they teach you 1 way to do a problem, then later on they teach you another, eaiser way to solve more complicated problems.. then you often forget the other way.. for example.. i forget my multiplication tables for some numbers :P * hides in embarrasement *. SO according to this, wouldn't it be possible to still change the bf% setpoint, by forcing a new one onto our body. I do not have any idea how we would go about it.. but eh.. it follows good logic IMO :)