Turn on thread page Beta

Weight loss by not eating? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't starve yourself, it's unsustainable, and you end up with more weight on when you give up!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    A load of people will tell you that it won't work, yet anorexic people lose a lot of weight fine. All this "your body will store all your fat and you'll put on weight bla bla bla" hasn't been the case at all in my experience. I did this a year or so back and got so obsessed with it, looking back I wasn't in a stable mindset, but it worked. I lost probably 3+ stone. Went from a size 16 to a 10/12 (back at 16 now, booooo). One thing to note though is that it really is true that you'll put it all back on when you start eating properly again! Good luck
    How did you put it back on? But congrats on your initial loss!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by und3niable_)
    How did you put it back on? But congrats on your initial loss!
    I was originally eating a cerial bar and a bowl of soup a day, and as soon as I started eating 3 meals a day again (felt very weak and tired all the time), it was all back within a few months. Thank you
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    I was originally eating a cerial bar and a bowl of soup a day, and as soon as I started eating 3 meals a day again (felt very weak and tired all the time), it was all back within a few months. Thank you
    Oh wow that's extreme and dedication! haha, did you get dangerously underweight or? My only negative is sweets Once that's gone, I think it'll be fine
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lou_100)
    Well then, perhaps it varies from person to person if you're a case study yourself. True, for me personally I don't find that much of a difference or struggle to lose weight when I only eat once or twice a day.
    When I said that was what the science indicated, I was refering to research into the issue; not my observations of myself. I was just pointing out that I was biased because I prefer to eat less frequently.

    (Original post by lou_100)
    Just saying that there has obviously been some research in the area and it makes sense to assume that there's a logic in what I said about metabolism, which I got from watching documentaries about food religiously. Also, the claim from health experts that's always in the press about "5 regular meals a day". Must have come from research.
    No. Not even once.

    Science, especially that pertaining to nutrition is notoriously misrepresented and poorly reported in the popular media.

    A lot of the "health experts" are often self-proclaimed experts and not nutritionists in any recognised sense.

    There is no logic in what you said really. I mean, your metabolic rate is essentially the sum of all metabolic processes in any given time period. Eating induces various metabolic processes. A priori, there is no reason, as far as I can think of at least, that eating more frequently differs from eating the same amount of food less frequently in terms of total metabolic processes involved.

    To me, the naive view is like filling a car with fuel: You start off the day with some fuel in the tank and either stop off several times to partially replenish it or you drive all day and then fill it all back up at the end. If you cover the same distance then you will use up roughly the same amount of fuel. Sure, there will be minor differences and you have to take into account things like the fact that you might have to drive a bit further to find extra fuel stations etc. etc. but fundamentally - the total amount of fuel you intake and the total miles covered in both situations are pretty much the same.

    Similarly with eating, you can either constantly keep topping yourself up or put a load in a couple of times. I think there are also misconceptions about the actual processes whereby we metabolise food that we eat. For example, pretty much every gram of fat we eat gets stored as fat. The body constantly turns it over - your fat stores are far from constant. It isn't like you eat some fat and burn those actual molecules of fat that day for energy, it may be that those fatty acids are stored and we simultaneously burn some from elsewhere.

    In very basic terms, the body has a tremendous ability to maintain homeostasis. This means that it has the capacity to regulate things like blood sugar pretty well (in most cases). So, if you eat, say, a lot of carbs in one meal, much of the sugars released into the blood as stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles and are then released later on as the blood sugars drop. Eating the same amount of carbs spread out over more meals just means that the body uses a slightly different mechanism to anabolise the sugars.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If you're going to the gym with hardly any food to fuel you, you are probably going to collapse sooner or later.
    There isn't a quick fix to weight loss, it takes time. I know it's not what you want to hear but I really wouldn't recommend losing weight through barely eating. It will come back on as soon as you start eating properly again anyway.
    I have lost nearly two stone just improving my diet. It's taken a year but true weight loss is gradual and patience is a virtue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    A load of people will tell you that it won't work, yet anorexic people lose a lot of weight fine.
    I think everybody realises that starvation causes dramatic weight loss. That isn't the point. Chopping off your left arm with a machete causes rapid and dramatic weight loss. The point is the damage it does to your health.

    (Original post by Kateislate)
    All this "your body will store all your fat and you'll put on weight bla bla bla" hasn't been the case at all in my experience. I did this a year or so back and got so obsessed with it, looking back I wasn't in a stable mindset, but it worked. I lost probably 3+ stone. Went from a size 16 to a 10/12 (back at 16 now, booooo). One thing to note though is that it really is true that you'll put it all back on when you start eating properly again! Good luck
    In the first sentence you say that it hasn't been the case that you put the weight back on and in the last sentence you note that you do put weight back on when you start eating properly again.

    It is a very basic idea: you starve yourself and you become very lethargic. You don't get all of your energy back straight away when you start eating again and your body takes advantage of that by storing food.

    There is really no point in talking about anorexics in this context anyway. Anorexia is a disease whereby sufferers are pushed to the point of ignoring the dramatic reactions of the body to starvation. Anorexics manage to not put the weight back on because of a sickness that makes them override what would otherwise be powerful survival urges. In many cases, this leads to severe illness or even death. Try holding your breath for as long as you can - at some point the body automatically makes you breath. In the same way, if you starve yourself, your body will eventually do what it can to preserve your energy and make you ravenously hungry.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark85)
    I think everybody realises that starvation causes dramatic weight loss. That isn't the point. Chopping off your left arm with a machete causes rapid and dramatic weight loss. The point is the damage it does to your health.



    In the first sentence you say that it hasn't been the case that you put the weight back on and in the last sentence you note that you do put weight back on when you start eating properly again.

    It is a very basic idea: you starve yourself and you become very lethargic. You don't get all of your energy back straight away when you start eating again and your body takes advantage of that by storing food.

    There is really no point in talking about anorexics in this context anyway. Anorexia is a disease whereby sufferers are pushed to the point of ignoring the dramatic reactions of the body to starvation. Anorexics manage to not put the weight back on because of a sickness that makes them override what would otherwise be powerful survival urges. In many cases, this leads to severe illness or even death. Try holding your breath for as long as you can - at some point the body automatically makes you breath. In the same way, if you starve yourself, your body will eventually do what it can to preserve your energy and make you ravenously hungry.
    No, what I said if you'd read it again is that people try to scare people off under eating by saying that your body stores the fat you have and you actually put on weight, and that this obviously isn't the case with anorexic people. That's different to putting it back on when you're finished eating that way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    No, what I said if you'd read it again is that people try to scare people off under eating by saying that your body stores the fat you have and you actually put on weight, and that this obviously isn't the case with anorexic people. That's different to putting it back on when you're finished eating that way.
    Ok. I have never heard anyone say that. I don't think many people really think that eating less makes you gain weight. I think most people realise that if you don't eat much you lose weight quickly since most people must have at least had the flu or something where they couldn't eat much for a few days.

    The majority of people are just saying that after dramatic weight loss, you tend to put weight back on quickly. When they say it won't work, they mean, it won't 'work' in doing anything other than causing a temporary weight loss and generally won't make you actually look any better unless you were very obese to start with.

    The body tends to burn fuel in the proportions it has them available. If you are heavily overweight then you could probably go without much food for a decent period of time without it doing too much harm as long as you still get essential nutrients and maintain good electrolyte balance. On the other hand, a nine and a half stone woman who starves is just going to **** herself over. Yeah, in the short term she may lose weight but she won't look any better, she will just look slightly smaller and just as soft.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark85)
    Ok. I have never heard anyone say that. I don't think many people really think that eating less makes you gain weight. I think most people realise that if you don't eat much you lose weight quickly since most people must have at least had the flu or something where they couldn't eat much for a few days.

    The majority of people are just saying that after dramatic weight loss, you tend to put weight back on quickly.
    I've heard it said a lot of times, if you just search it on google you'll see a lot of people say it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't it true that once you have built up fat cells, eating normally will just simply fill up the cells again? Once they are made, they cannot be destroyed.

    That is why I think you get such things as yo-yo dieting.

    Personally, I think a size 12 is perfectly fine, and if its the weight your body wants to get to, without having eaten tonnes of food more than you should, then stick with it.
    Personally, not everyone can be a healthy size 8-10. It takes a certain figure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    I've heard it said a lot of times, if you just search it on google you'll see a lot of people say it.
    I have only ever heard people say things like 'it won't work in the long term' or 'you will put the weight straight back on after'

    I just googled 'starvation causes weight gain' and all of the first five links made exactly the same point.

    Either your friends are stupid or you are misinterpreting what people are saying.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark85)
    I have only ever heard people say things like 'it won't work in the long term' or 'you will put the weight straight back on after'

    I just googled 'starvation causes weight gain' and all of the first five links made exactly the same point.

    Either your friends are stupid or you are misinterpreting what people are saying.
    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...1115952AAV9lHs
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3105347AAUjl0A
    There will be plenty more
    I'm really not the only person who was told that, it's a common thing people tell others when they aren't eating. I'm not trying to say it's true, as I clearly said I don't think it is
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark85)
    When I said that was what the science indicated, I was refering to research into the issue; not my observations of myself. I was just pointing out that I was biased because I prefer to eat less frequently.



    No. Not even once.

    Science, especially that pertaining to nutrition is notoriously misrepresented and poorly reported in the popular media.

    A lot of the "health experts" are often self-proclaimed experts and not nutritionists in any recognised sense.

    There is no logic in what you said really. I mean, your metabolic rate is essentially the sum of all metabolic processes in any given time period. Eating induces various metabolic processes. A priori, there is no reason, as far as I can think of at least, that eating more frequently differs from eating the same amount of food less frequently in terms of total metabolic processes involved.

    To me, the naive view is like filling a car with fuel: You start off the day with some fuel in the tank and either stop off several times to partially replenish it or you drive all day and then fill it all back up at the end. If you cover the same distance then you will use up roughly the same amount of fuel. Sure, there will be minor differences and you have to take into account things like the fact that you might have to drive a bit further to find extra fuel stations etc. etc. but fundamentally - the total amount of fuel you intake and the total miles covered in both situations are pretty much the same.

    Similarly with eating, you can either constantly keep topping yourself up or put a load in a couple of times. I think there are also misconceptions about the actual processes whereby we metabolise food that we eat. For example, pretty much every gram of fat we eat gets stored as fat. The body constantly turns it over - your fat stores are far from constant. It isn't like you eat some fat and burn those actual molecules of fat that day for energy, it may be that those fatty acids are stored and we simultaneously burn some from elsewhere.

    In very basic terms, the body has a tremendous ability to maintain homeostasis. This means that it has the capacity to regulate things like blood sugar pretty well (in most cases). So, if you eat, say, a lot of carbs in one meal, much of the sugars released into the blood as stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles and are then released later on as the blood sugars drop. Eating the same amount of carbs spread out over more meals just means that the body uses a slightly different mechanism to anabolise the sugars.
    Okay, I'm not trying to be dismissive but it's late and that was far too long for me to read properly, sorry.

    I guess some of my logic comes from the fact that it's a well known claim that , in general, "eating not very much very often means that when you do eat more and more often you're going to put weight back on". That's the blunt message reiterated throughout this whole thread by most.

    So I'm suggesting that this sort of path of argument can work for smaller time frames. Who are you to know the exact time frame and length of time between meals this applies to? Look, I'm a student and clearly not some kind of health scientist, I just gave my 2 cents to the OP and challenged a couple opinions by expressing my own and you've blown up with essays back to me and, by the looks of it, another poster too.

    If you're on TSR, you can't be some massive professional expert yourself, so why not just chill out a bit and listen to other points of view? Anyway, someone else can take this up with you if they want - am off to bed. Nuniiight.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The thing about fasting is yes, you will lose a lot of weight initially but as you fast your metabolism also slows down. When you start to eat normally again, as other people have said, you will gain A LOT of weight because your metabolism is so slow and can't keep up with breaking down the fats, carbohydrates, etc in your food. This is why generally, a lot of people with a high metabolism are 'naturally' quite thin.

    As other people have said, it's probably best to cut down on fatty goods and portion sizes. Have smaller, regular meals throughout the day instead of 3 large ones to avoid the temptation to snack and to also allow your body to have time to break down the fats etc.

    Exercise wise, cardio (jogging, dancing, boxing, anything that gets your heart rate up quickly and make you run out of breath) is probably the best for weight loss.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not eating - an absolute NO NO NO. That makes the situation worse because your body then tries to preserve fat stores (it's a natural survival instinct when deprived of food for long bouts) by reducing metabolism, which goes against the purpose.

    What I suggest (I can proudly say I've been there, done that - went from 85.6kg to 67.3 within 8 months) is regular cardio - and include more natural food in your diet, stay away from processed food as much as you can.

    (My general rule of thumb is if it's been made with more than 10 different ingredients, or is made with anything you can't pronounce, stay well clear. Might sound silly but it certainly helped me :top:)

    For the cardio, I started off with fast paced walking. While that helped initially, I couldn't lose weight until I upped the difficulty and incorporated more running (see interval training, it's a massive help) - the workouts keep your metabolism going, and the low-calorie-dense fruits and vegetables stop your body going into its 'survival' mode.

    [Edit] should also add that you should try and eat as often as possible, in small quantities - this also keeps metabolism up. But DO NOT starve. And I've gone back to eating some foods I would've avoided. Safe to say, my weight has been pretty much stagnant.


    Good luck!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...1115952AAV9lHs
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3105347AAUjl0A
    There will be plenty more
    I'm really not the only person who was told that, it's a common thing people tell others when they aren't eating. I'm not trying to say it's true just to disprove the theory you seem to have that I'm an idiot.
    Well, in the first link - every answer says the same as we said here - that starving eventually leads to weight gain when you resume normal eating. In the second thread, most people are saying the same thing. Sure, there are a couple of people who seem not to understand it but yahoo answers is a very retarded corner of the web.

    In my experience, I have never read or heard people say that starving yourself causes weight gain apart from when there was (at least an implicit) understanding that it most often leads to one losing weight and eventually putting it back on at the cessation of the starvation.

    In any case, if people really think that eating less causes weight gain, then in my opinion - they are an idiots. I stand by my comments, if saying something like that was common amongst the people you know then idiocy (or at least fairly extreme ignorance) is common amongst people you know. Sorry, but I consider people who don't understand such a basic principle of human metabolism to be a but backwards.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark85)
    Well, in the first link - every answer says the same as we said here - that starving eventually leads to weight gain when you resume normal eating. In the second thread, most people are saying the same thing. Sure, there are a couple of people who seem not to understand it but yahoo answers is a very retarded corner of the web.

    In my experience, I have never read or heard people say that starving yourself causes weight gain apart from when there was (at least an implicit) understanding that it most often leads to one losing weight and eventually putting it back on at the cessation of the starvation.

    In any case, if people really think that eating less causes weight gain, then in my opinion - they are an idiots. I stand by my comments, if saying something like that was common amongst the people you know then idiocy (or at least fairly extreme ignorance) is common amongst people you know. Sorry, but I consider people who don't understand such a basic principle of human metabolism to be a but backwards.
    But I'm not saying that it's true. I'm saying that I DON'T think it's true. In my experience it's something that's said commonly and I laugh at it, because I know it's not true...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kateislate)
    But I'm not saying that it's true. I'm saying that I DON'T think it's true. In my experience it's something that's said commonly and I laugh at it, because I know it's not true...
    I know, you refuted it... that was the whole point. I am not saying that you are stupid.

    My point, however, is that if you consider it common for people to have that belief, you must be surrounded by idiots since most reasonably intelligent people don't come out with stuff like that.

    What I was saying was that either you know a lot of stupid people (who actually belive things like that) or you misinterpret people who say things like 'starvation doesn't work' which is something I would consider to be commonly said albeit, people who say that are generally at least implicitly saying that it doesn't work as a long term strategy due to the reasons already mentioned.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Orange_123)
    Now before anyone jumps at me to say that this is an unhealthy way to lose weight...I KNOW! I'm aware that it's not the best way to lose weight, but i just want to lose weight really quickly at the moment. I'm going to the gym twice/three times a week, so i AM doing exercise.

    I'm a UK size 12, not really sure about my weight..probably about 9 or 9 and 1/2 stones. I want to noticeably lose weight fast - i wanted to know by drinking water + going to the gym twice a week + eating one meal a day, how much can i expect to lose? and how quickly?

    Has anyone else tried to lose weight by doing this? How did it work out?
    If anyone knows of other ways to properly lose weight quickly, then i'm up for listening.

    Thanks.
    Starving yourself will actually slow the process down :facepalm: You can only lose so much weight as your body does not want to starve itself. Just search google for "cutting diets" as that is what you want to do....and no, it isn't fast but it is the fastest method.
 
 
 

1,445

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.