MYTHBUSTERS AT YOUR SERVICE: Please read!!

[bmi10]

I just posted this on the Anorexia forum, and was advised to put it here. READ IT!

GUYS. LISTEN UP. This sort of thread comes up ALL THE TIME, and if you're ever thinking about "starvation mode", "metabolism shocking", and "zigzagging", bookmark this shit and come back to read this post before you do!

1. The idea of "shocking" your metabolism with a day of higher intake is a myth.
2. The idea of "starvation mode" at some magical caloric theshold is a myth.
3. Calorie alternating ("zigzagging") does NOTHING when the amounts are all well under 1000 calories.
4. Food/water weight after a day of higher intake is not REAL weight, just as food/water loss after a day of fasting is not real loss.

To elucidate further: Your metabolism adjusts gradually. Just as one day of restriction doesn't markedly slow down your metabolism, neither will one day of higher intake "shock" or "trick" or "rev up" your metabolic rate. Metabolism is the sum of every function your body completes, from heartbeat and breathing to digestion to homeostasis to cell division to reproductive system and everything else. It isn't a sentient being that can be "tricked"; it's a physiological function that must be slowly adjusted upward the same way it was slowly adjusted downward: over time.

"Starvation mode" is not a defined state, nor is it hit at some concrete point, intake-wise. Metabolism is a continuum, and varies for every person. As you eat less, weigh less, or exercise less, your metabolism will become slightly slower; the opposite is true if you increase intake (to a point), gain weight or improve body composition, or exercise more. The longer you have had an eating disorder, the more quickly your body will begin to shut down in fasting/restricting situations (for example, you'll lose your period more quickly than during your initial phase of restriction, and you'll find it harder to lose on the same level of restriction). This is because your body is a winner at evolution and has learned to adapt to what it perceives as intermittent famine: it wants to hold on to bodyfat as long as possible, to tide you over to the next "harvest" or whatever. There is no quick way to get out of "starvation mode", because it's not really a thing...it's just an undefined and fairly meaningless label.

Calorie terracing, alternating, or "zigzagging" is reasonable effective for healthy dieters, but it has more to do with helping out the weak-willed than anything else--on this system, you eat normally one day and restrict the second, repeating over and over. It helps people deal with "down days" because they'll have an "up day" next; therefore they feel less confined and are more likely to stick to the diet. To a degree, it's also beneficial metabolically, not because "it keeps your metabolism guessing" (this sentence is meaningless), but because it prevents average intake from being too low. There are a million variables I won't get into here (message me if for some reason you're dying to know all about metabolic intricacies), but the point is, FAD DIETS THAT CLAIM TO "BOOST" OR "TRICK" YOUR METABOLISM WITH TINY INTAKE DIFFERENCES ARE NONSENSE (SEE ALSO: ABC, SGD, 2468). Going back and forth between 200 and 400 calories is no better than eating 300 every day, simply because they're both incredibly restrictive and they're almost insignifigant in your body's perception. A pound, calorically-speaking, is 3600 calories--there's no way "varying" your intake by a few hundred calories is going to make a difference.

And finally, yes, if you have been restricting heavily, or particularly if you've been fasting, HAVING A CHEAT OR HIGH INTAKE DAY WILL MAKE THE NUMBER ON THE SCALE GO UP. An average person has 5-7 pounds of food matter in his/her digestive system; when you're restricting or fasting, that's not the case (hence the "amazing weight loss" on the first few days of fasting/restricting). You also hold less water while restricting or fasting; this level will increase if your intake does. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU "GAINED", BUT THE NUMBER *WILL* GO UP. It also means you didn't really lose 5 pounds in a day of fasting--it's metabolically impossible; sorry. It's very, very hard to gain or lose substantial REAL weight in one day: the body is tends toward maintaining itself. "Cheating" with 1000 calories or "punishing" with a water fast may show a difference on the scale, but will be essentially inconsequential once the food/water weight levels out.

If you're at a "plateau", which is also a meaningless fad-diet word, the best way to break it is to vary your exercise and, if you're restricting heavily, work gradually toward a healthier intake. Yes, the scale will go up for a bit--but then it will go down, and in a much healthier way. This is assuming a current weight in the "healthy" range; if your weight is already low, chances are it's not a "plateau" at all, but your body reaching its sustainable limits.

Also, in regard to carb intake, unless you've been on an extremely low-carb diet (under 25 or 30 g net carb), you won't see noticeable weight change from varying carb intake; fruits are simple carbs the body handles just the same way as pasta or pastry. And for what it's worth, weight gain from "cheating" on low-carb is simply water weight, and comes off as soon as carbs are restricted again--this is why so many crash diets advocate cutting carbs. It makes no long-term difference unless in conjunction with overall calorie-restriction, but provides a few days or weeks of rapid "weight loss" as water weight comes off.

THE END.

[everett]

Clapps ecstatically! (I wonder how many calzzz I burned)

[bmi10]

I probably terrified everyone, but oh well. I wish this could get stickied...it would really cut down on the moronic questions.

[leylusha]

I have a sneaking suspicion that half the people who talk about these magic fixes know that it's bullshit but trick themselves into believing it because it's the only way to fuel their disorder
False hope is a bitch.

[The Aftermath]

I probably terrified everyone, but oh well. I wish this could get stickied...it would really cut down on the moronic questions.

Hah you really think so? Apparently nobody reads the "NO TIPS ALLOWED" sticky. I doubt people would read this one. Unless you renamed it "ULTIMATE DIET TIPS FOR MAXIMUM WEIGHT LOSS!!!!!!1!1!"

[bmi10]

Yeah, but it never hurts.

[The Aftermath]

Oh, absolutely. I hope it does get stickied. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be beaten into the heads of people with eating disorders.

[holsie]

Thanks for this I'm not really the kind of person to do all the weird calorie changes because I'm happy eating 300 a day and the idea of having to eat just a few hundred more calories terrifies me, but a few things you said there really settled me.
(except for the comparison between pastries & pasta and fruit, but I'll get over that)

[BrokenKitty]

I found that really helpful, thank you It explained a few things for me as well xx

[alm0ndmilk]

"Going back and forth between 200 and 400 calories is no better than eating 300 every day, simply because they're both incredibly restrictive and they're almost insignifigant in your body's perception."
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I've been saying this for the longest time ever.

Now, calorie alternating diets that are HEALTHY can be beneficial, only because they provide a calorie deficit over time, and are less stressful on the user because they only feel like they're "dieting" some days. Ex. Eating normally 5 days out of the week, then having 2 days that are very low calorie. There's no "metabolism trick", but it DOES prevent the slow-down that comes with maintaining a very low calorie diet for a prolonged period of time.