"Starvation mode"?

Have you heard this term bandied about?
As in, "if don't eat enough your body won't allow you won't lose weight if..."

Where is this coming from? Is this a real scientific demonstratable fact?

Thu. Mar 13, 11:48am

Yes. We are built to survive. If your body isn't getting enough calories, it starts holding on to everything you give it, "thinking" there isn't enough food available.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 11:56 AM

I agree with 11:56....

Our bodies are truly a work of art.

If we eat very few calories, our metabolisim slows way down. A person could eat a few carrot sticks and still gain weight.

Our bodies are like a furnace, which needs to be fed to keep the fire buring!

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 12:38 PM

Yeah, right!

Explain actual starvation then, as in Ethiopia and other underdeveloped nations. Check out what Weight Watchers says about this at the link below. My suspicion (NOT Known FACT just suspicion) is that the people at weight watchers might actually have information from real weight management specialists, dieticians and doctors.

Link

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 12:59 PM

Thanks 12:59!

Interesting article.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 1:17 PM

This concept always interested me. The advice 'make sure you're eating enough' when someone complains of not losing weight really interests me - is not eating enough really the problem most people have here - ha. Along with starvation in developing countries, I always wanted to ask, 'How do you explain anorexia?' Oddly, any time I restrict calories, whether on purpose or it just works out that way - I lose weight.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 1:30 PM

OP here - no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth

Thank you 12:59 that is what I was looking for ! !

I like:

"reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds."
&
"Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day)."

but:

"While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.

...This last bit is really irrelevant though b/c that is just saying that if you can't do it it won't work...duh..

THANKS!!

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 1:51 PM

You want to make sure that you eat enough calories so your body can "survive" in a healthy way. Depending on your size, your body requires a certain amount of calories to function normally.

People that have eating disorders are losing weight yes, but really damaging their internal organs.

You need to figure out your BMR. Once you know your BMR, as long as you are around that number, you should be fine. Make sure you re-calculate as you lose. If you gain, then reduce it slightly, if you lose too quickly, up it slightly.

Woman:
BMR = 655 + (4.35 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years)

Men: BMR = 66 + (6.23 x weight in pounds) + (12.7 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years)

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 2:33 PM

Another interesting article about it...

Link

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 3:12 PM

Starvation mode entails more than just a slower metabolism. It includes sleepiness, irritability, and uncontrollable cravings which can keep you from losing.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 3:13 PM

I agree with the sleeplessness, irritability, and cravings part - of course the latter (especially) suggests you're feeding those cravings which will obviously hinder weight loss. But, then if you have uncontrollable cravings you're not really starving yourself!

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 3:20 PM

Conclusion:

So... from reading the above..."starvation mode" is when you drop to 800 calories or less and your metabolism slows by up to 40%. So the rate at which your body will naturally burn off fat while just going through your day goes down, but you are still losing up to 2.5 lbs a week...that makes sense
It is not like you actually stop losing weight - it is just the law of diminishing returns on your diet when you go hard core. Okay cool.

BTW - I am eating 1100 +/- per day and working out 2 hours a day and losing lots of weight fast

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 3:41 PM

I don't know about it all. I have dieted at 500 cal or less for 3 months one time.
Almost killed myself in the process.
For me it had nothing to do with metabolism but what your body needs to maintain an even or consistant chemical balance.

When I started this journey this time I started at 850 a day. By drs recomendation.
I did fine for the first couple of months. I don't remember exactly when I upped that calories. But I got to the point that I was so weak I couldn't function or think properly. So I went to 1000 and it is much better. Has been for months now.
I do still fight making myself eat the 1000 calories. In my mind I feel better at 700-850 but my body doesn't agree.
I have been a pretty consistant loser aside from a short period of time that I had to figure out what changed.
It seems one food is not the same as another. Your body needs certain foods for health.
My point is I have never seen my metabolism change no matter what I restrict my calories to if the way to judge that is consistant weight loss. But I do see where my body reacts differently.
Loved the ww article by the way.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 3:42 PM

...oh and I don't care about irritability, I am a pretty nice guy to start with ;) ; or sleeplessness...I am exhausted enough to sleep; or uncontrollable cravings, I have and will control them

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 3:43 PM

If you're eating enough to be in starvation mode but still exercising and lifting weights, I wonder if your metabolism is still affected in this way?

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 4:46 PM

Nutrients

Another thing to keep in mind with a highly restrictive diet (ie VERY low cal intake) is that you are probably not giving your body enough of the nutrients it needs. It is a major factor in the getting sleepy and irratable concent.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 4:52 PM

12:59

You are all welcome for the link. It takes a long time to get ones metabolism to speed up. To think that by dieting you could slow it down so fast it goes to detriment is ridiculous. Your body has stored calories. It will burn those if it thinks it has to.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 5:18 PM

The MAX

OP here,

I am trying to figure out the MAX that diet can do...how far I can go?
I have developed a seriously good tolerance for hunger (500 calories eaten so far today with 2 hours of exercise and I do not really notice any hunger)
I eat 1100 a day now (one week in) and wonder how low I can go. Looks like 850 is the minimum?
Of course I eat a multivitamin and have a V-8 to ensure nutrients and eat healthy stuff, I just don't want to push it really low far for nothing,
Thanks for all the great posts, I am going to go have dinner...(Italian beef sandwich and coleslaw + veggies)

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 5:35 PM

Hey OP, just wondering how much are you aiming to lose ?

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 5:40 PM

looking to lose 30 more pounds so I can do better in a 1/2 Marathon

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 5:47 PM

And you really think your performance, your ability to work out at all, isn't affected by the lack of nutrition or energy (aka calories)? Please come back and let us all know when you pass out in training. Epic stupidity is a great spectator sport.

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 8:26 PM

What's your story 8:26? Any time I read these type of responses I imagine someone who's 23 or younger and my apologies to the under 23 set if you're older . I kind of feel bad about that assumption - but I'm just curious - age?

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 10:13 PM

Yeah I'm offended by that 23 and under comment...b/c I'm 21 and my comments are very rational and mature...but at least you acknowledged that lol. That comment could be made by any age. But what that person said is absolutely correct....you need adequate amount of calories to perform...or even if you're not running a 1/2 marathon you still need to eat to function. I mean when I eat 1800 calories and work out 3-4 days per week, I lose weight.

Friday, March 14, 2008, 12:00 AM

I'm pushing 40. I've volunteered at local races and marathon practice runs, and picked up dozens of women who were running and "dieting" to lose weight. They've fainted, they've gone catatonic and stumbled in their loss of coordination, all kinds of good stuff including crapping their pants - yup, one of them took a laxative 2 days beforehand to make herself lighter for a 15K and it didn't take effect when it was supposed to (well, that's what she says, but who knows). The funniest was a man running a marathon who took a diner detour at the 15-mile mark because he was painfully hungry.

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

Friday, March 14, 2008, 12:03 AM

I do apolgoize - it's not a fair assessment to the younger crowd. I guess I just expect more support or insight or something framed more positively from someone who's older. Why, I have no idea! The back story given about the races was interesting and makes sense - I guess it was the delivery of the first comment. Again, my apologies to the younger crowd!

Friday, March 14, 2008, 10:04 AM

“Starvation mode” is a real phenomenon that hails from early human history during the time when people were hunter/gatherers. When food was plenty, people would eat well and often. But when it was scarce, the body “learned” to adapt by kicking in to what we have heard called “starvation mode.” It was basically an involuntary survival response used to get the body to another time of plenty. When society evolved and learned to tend cattle and grow, preserve and store food so that food was more readily available during those times of scarcity or famine, the body still held on to the survival instinct that it had adapted. So, yes, there is such a thing as “starvation mode,” but you would have to “binge” and “starve” on a regular basis over a period of time for it to kick in. It could be accomplished as easily as “binging” 3 days a week, then “starving” for four days a week as long as it is done regularly. That is why it is important to maintain steady, healthy eating habits. As long as your caloric intake is fairly stable, you will lose weight if you burn more than you eat. A lower cal day here or a higher cal day there shouldn’t make much difference. If a pattern develops of high calorie/low calorie (plenty/scarce) over a long period of time, though, what we know as “starvation mode” could kick in.

Friday, March 14, 2008, 2:17 PM

PP you are just confusing the issue more... as in another thread:

"Starvation mode" concept ...is in reality just the law of diminishing returns on calorie reduction: if you slash your calories from 900 to 500 you will not lose as much of an ADDITIONAL amount of weight as going from 1300 to 900 did, but you will still be losing more than you did at 900!

...NOT that you will stop losing weight altogether as people seem to say.
Look at Isabelle Caro for crying out loud, she ate three cornflakes and a square of chocolate every day and went down to 55 pounds at 5'5''. Or Christian Bale who did a can of tuna and an apple for four months and went from 180 down to 120 for The Machinist.

Friday, March 14, 2008, 2:24 PM

2:17 Here:

My apologies. It wasn't my intent to confuse.

Friday, March 14, 2008, 2:59 PM

This is the way I understand it: if you drastically reduce your calories you will lose weight. But you will also reduce the speed of your metabolism because your body will go into 'starvation mode'. Your body thinks it is going into a period of scarcity so slows itself down.

If you continue to eat nothing, you will eventually starve and die.

However, if you begin eating normally again (as most dieters evenutally do), you will gain weight quickly or just have a difficult time losing more weight. This is because your metabolism doesn't automatically adjust to the same rate it was before the starvation because you begin eating again. So the food you are eating after starving yourself isn't burned off as quickly.

Saturday, March 15, 2008, 6:41 AM

excuse but i am living proof of the starvation mode because my body did it about 10 yrs ago.thats how i gained all my weight. yes cutting calories does make you lose weight but starvation mode is different. they are talking about less then 800 calories a day. i was only eating 500 or less calories a day and did lose weight very shortlived and then gained weight very rapidly because my metabolism was no longer burning the calories
and dont tell me there is no such thing. i went to a licensed md and dietician for two yrs to cure tthis
anorexia and bulemia are different. those peol are actually consuming alot of calories in small amounts and then purging

Monday, March 31, 2008, 1:17 PM

Living proof ?

PP did you read the thread at all ? - read it again.

Don't seriously tell me that you gained weight on 500 calories a day, but only when you started eating normally again - right ?
People seem to state the "starvation mode" is where you stop losing weight on less than 800 calories a day. That is ludicrous. Sure, your metabolism would slow a little, but you would eventally look like a holocaust victim if you could keep it up. What you seem to be saying is that your metabolism was permanantly damaged / reduced - questionable. Any science to back it up ?
I think you just got super hungry on that uber-strict diet and then lost it.

I can totally understand what you did to yourself ( I am capable of the same) but it has nothing to do with "Starvation mode""

-OP / 2:24

Monday, March 31, 2008, 1:29 PM

it asbolutely does. your body will only continue to lose weight for so long on that little cal intaKE AND THEN IT WILL DO what my body did and start to store it as fat instead of burning it . by the body doing this it helps a person to be able to survie and yes i do have proof. as i stated earlier i was diagnosed with this by a licensed dietician and an md
would you like to challenge them?

i guess unless you have experienced it for yourself then you wouldnt really know now would you? so until you do isuggest not commentingon it any more to other people

Monday, March 31, 2008, 1:48 PM

500?

So you are telling me you GAINED weight on 500 "or less" calories a day ?
At what weight did you stop losing weight - 80 lbs ?
Your BMR would somehow have to be 450 and you would have to be in a coma rather than walking around. You burn more than 500 just being alive and breathing in 24 hours.

Can you be more specific ?

Monday, March 31, 2008, 1:56 PM

Look 1:48

Simply put, if starvation mode made people store fat, nobody would ever starve to death. If you were not eating more then 500 calories a day, where did your body get the fat to store? Did I missread it? Did you gain weight once you started eating 'normally' (relative term) again? I am not trying to be a smart alek. I am just a little confused by the statement.

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:03 PM

i couldnt tell you exactly what weight i was cause it was ten yrs ago.
since this is causing confusion for you i should let you know this was not overnight this happened over a period of 2 yrs
because i was eating so little my metabolism slowed drastically over a period of time
and my body started to store almost everyting i ate as fat because my metabolism was not working fast enough to be able to keep up with even that few calories. on a normal metabolism yes your body would burn 500 easily just being alive and breathing but when you get as drastic as mine went it doesnt burn them so easily.
i dont know how to explain in a better way so as you can understand it better.

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:08 PM

2:03 - "if starvation mode made people store fat, nobody would ever starve to death" - exfrigginxactly !!
I don't think 1:48 has taken the time to read the thread or the posted responses carefully enough to respond well.

1:48 can you take the time to read the thread and the responses and then respond more clearly? I mean - even if you had some genetic, thyroid, melabolic whatever condition, you couldn't get fat on 500 cals a day - it is impossible. That is what hospitals put 1000 lb people on and they lose like 15 lbs a week.

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:13 PM

What was the name of your condition?

-2:13

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:14 PM

Frankly I think it exists but is just overused by people looking for justification to eat eat eat

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:27 PM

You state, "my body started to store almost everyting i ate as fat " That is just not possible, you need calories (energy) just to breathe, move a little and keep you heart beating. You would definitely burn more than 500 just doing that...am I right people ?

Activity Calories Used:

Bed rest, sleeping 60 per hour
Reading, Watching TV, Sitting (some brain activity) 75 per hour

http://health.utah.gov/lhd/tooele/Community_Health/CVD/Calories_Burned.html

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:29 PM

Starvation mode is not a myth.

The reason people starve to death in "underdeveloped countries" is because they are truly starving, in the literal sense of the word. They die of malnourishment and related illnesses. You do understand that a lack of nutrition causes the body to fail, yes? Organ failure without medical intervention = death. This is not the same as people with access to food and water limiting their intake in extreme efforts to lose weight. A body that is literally starving eventually breaks down muscle (because there is no fat) and other tissue in order to keep vital systems from failing. Eventually, there is not enough, and the nervous system and heart fail, resulting in death.

The body is a precise mechanism, with a precise manner of converting food to energy. Limiting your food intake to extreme degrees ("500 calories", etc.), particularly without the direction of a physician, is UNHEALTHY and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. Your body WILL store as much of what you eat as possible, meaning your metabolism WILL SLOW DOWN. As long as you are still consuming food/nutrients, your body will continue to metabolize what it receives, but at a MUCH SLOWER RATE. This is simple science, guys.

In an optimal state of health, you should be fueling your body with nutritious foods and water, and maintaining regular exercise. The idea of lowering your food intake to extreme degrees on your own in order to lose weight is not a healthy or practical choice.

You may see weight loss, but you will NOT be able to build muscle, and any weight loss you have seen will eventual reverse when you return to "normal" eating patterns. You will most likely gain back more than your starting weight, because your metabolism will be at a much slower rate due to your recent eating habits. The only way to NOT gain the weight back is to continue to eat next to nothing on a permanent basis, and well guess what? That's an eating disorder. That's not reasonable, healthy weight loss.

Don't be fooled into thinking STARVING yourself is a healthy way to lose weight. There are better, healthier, more enjoyable ways to lose weight...and only those ways are potentially permanent.

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:39 PM

2:39 - Can you please read the thread before posting?

We have already determined that starvation mode is MERELY the law of diminishing returns with regards to diet - nothing more. So it IS a misnomer and a myth if people use it - as 1:48 does - to state that they stopped losing weight and even got fat on a 500 calorie diet. That is just preposterous. On 500 calories a day diet over several years you would ultimately starve to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

-OP

Monday, March 31, 2008, 2:53 PM

OP: Are you a moderator?

Just weighing in with my opinion - perfectly reasonable since this is a public message board. BUT, if you're needing to police the thread for some reason, oblige me by stating it?

Or is it that you feel once you've weighed in, there is no need for any afterthought by anyone else?

Just curious, not hostile.

- 2:39

Monday, March 31, 2008, 3:20 PM

I am not a Nazi - I just don't appreciate it when there is some complicated thing like this and people muddle the issue by weighing in with a long post that doesn't take into accout good opinions given before, that we have all learned from - that's all, I am looking for conversation and for the truth, not comments on subject line of the thread. I think there have been some really great posts so far that I have really appreciated and so I don't understand why people don't just read the thread - it seems rude to all of those who have tried to help me to understand. That's all.

Monday, March 31, 2008, 3:29 PM

I'm not buying it. 500 calories a day over 2 years. Was this 2 years also 2 years of bingeing when the 500 calorie intake was to much to bear? Maybe 500 calories for a week and then a Saturday night in front of the fridge with the door open?
I really hope if this is what happened to you that you are getting help and you are healthy now. If this was 10 years ago, has it had any lasting health effects? Distressed liver and heart abnormalities are common in aneroxics.

Monday, March 31, 2008, 3:32 PM

OP, just a thought...why don't you just disregard a post instead of deciding that because you don't agree with it no one else might find it helpful? You're not the AOE (authority on everything).

Monday, March 31, 2008, 4:18 PM

relax. I am just stating my opinion too. Isn't it good ettiquete to read the thread before posting? I very much respect good posts and the thread...
I am not AOE which is why I asked the question - I just think that together we come up with great answers - like 12:59, 2:33, 6:41 etc...
vs. others who post without taking the time to say, "hey, maybe someone answered this question already or said something interesting...let me check on it and then I will enter the existing conversation" - isn't that more fun ?
Whatever... opine as you will, I just think it is bad form not to converse.

-OP

Monday, March 31, 2008, 4:50 PM

Isn't this called anorexia? Considering that ONCE upon a time I was an anorexic and I was only eating 500 calories or less a day. And weighed 82 pounds....Just a question..if im wrong..sorry.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 12:21 PM

12:21 Can you clarify your question ?

Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 1:34 PM

Isn't starving your self called anorexia?

Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 2:31 PM

a la mode

Ummm, I guess so....

We are talking about the theory of a "Starvation mode" where your body's metabolism slows down somewhat in response to highly restricted calorie intake... so you lose weight less rapidly.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 2:41 PM

Exactly, people lose weight less rapidly. They don't stop losing and start gaining. By the time you make the signicant changes in your body, so that instead of losing 5 pounds you only lose 3. You only have 3 to lose.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 3:52 PM

S. mode is a popular concept

bump - another two uses of the term in question today...

? ?

Thursday, April 3, 2008, 6:20 PM

Starvation Myth

I'm 39, Male, 241lbs, 5'8"... I started eating less calories and Fatg at the direction of a doctor...he gave me a budget that would allow me to reach my goal by Nov 2010. I am on 1800 Cal, 40g Fat per day...I started counting calories and Fatg's and learned alot about myself. The oddest thing is I never make it to 1800 calories... I mean there are many days when I finish around 1000. Iam losing weight and feeling great... down to 215 in 6 weeks...26lbs. I started to get worried about "Starvation Mode" Ive heard it my whole life...this is not my first time in the weight loss arena...in the past I attribute all of my successes to eating less and working out. The Weight rebound I have experienced over these times...has directly and simply been because of me eating more and not exercising. Starvation Mode really became an obsession with me this week because I am doing so well and I am satisfied with what I eat... I started researching it... I can't really find to many acredited physicians or scientific proof that it is real...what seems to be more real is someone reduces their cal intake to 1200 calories and then over time starts eating more cal and bad food and then decides to blame it on... "My body went into starvation mode..." They don't count the Taco Bell they started eating because they just finally couldnt handle taking in that much less calories. This is just an opinion... My experience tells me dieting is 80percent mind and 20 percent body... You have got to be ready and willing to make a change and keep it...this comes from someone who succeeded in a big way and just simply allowed himslef to start eating poorly again and then woke fat again... its all in the mind. You have to make the mental change. Losing weight is so easy when you think about it...Eat Less and Exercise... thats it. Put the diet book down and get on the stationary bike... and please dont sit on the stationary bike if you intend to ride as if its Sunday afternoon in the park. Your literally just spinning your wheels... ok, ok, I'm venting a little bit. I'm going to see my Doctor next week and ask him for an opinon on Starvation mode...then I'm going to show him my journal... and see if I can have a healthy debate about the subject because its driving me insane. Good Luck all!!!

Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 11:50 AM

I think its complicated, or, a quick tutorial on understanding science

Science is great, but its important to point out two things. First, assuming you have a perfectly designed study, its important to note that group differences and individual differences *are not the same*...statistics always compares group *means*, which means that a result of "no difference" doesn't mean that no two people didn't have a difference, only that there is no significant difference in the group *average*. Human variation means that there are always people...and not an insignificant number of people...who vary from the average.

Second, just because some source says "there's no evidence" to support a hypothesis...that doesn't mean its conclusive. Just means there's not good evidence. " No evidence" may mean, "since the beginning of time, only 10 people tested this question, and 8 of them were done by crack pots who designed really crappy studies." Or it may mean, "out of 300 well designed studies, 299 showed no evidence." Hell, remember the HRT hypothesis? A million studies showed a therapeutic effect, but one really expensive longitudinal randomized controlled trial showed them all to pretty much be wrong.

What do I conclude? After losing and keeping off weight...and seeing other people lose weight, the one thing I can say is that people are different. So I can only say...if you're concerned about a *practical* answer instead of on an *academic* answer, try it out on yourself. I personally have found that when I don't eat enough, the weight doesn't come off...I've starved myself for weeks and would lose 2 lbs, then when I started eating a little more (still below my supposed BMR), I immediately gain 4 lbs. But I know other folks who get depressed or sick and stop eating for 2 or 3 weeks and lose 20 lbs.

Now, reality check: Do I believe that if I "tried to be anorexic" and ate 100 calories a day for 3 months that I'd miraculously never die? Of course not. But some people are certainly more capable of "hanging onto the weight" in times of "starvation" than others...otherwise, there'd be few survivors during a village famine. I think I'm one of those people who would die last...well, me and the 600 lb man. Diversity is how we as a species have survived. None of us are the "mean" of any group.

Saturday, April 10, 2010, 6:45 PM

a simple way to tell

I've been on heavily caloric restricted diets before, and they work. Your body can be starved, while still eating plenty of calories. So the converse is true.

If for example, let say, you are a raw vegan, and your diet consisted of juicing, wheat grass and sprouts, you can easily consume under 500 calories, while still getting all your nutrition needs met.

A better way to tell if you hit starvation mode, if the inches are staying the same, however, you are losing weight, that weight loss probably came from the wrong place, (like muscle tissue)

Saturday, January 1, 2011, 7:33 PM

Related Content: How To Lose Weight- The Basics Weight Watchers Points System The Fat Smash Diet The Eat To Live Diet The Beck Diet Solution How To Get The Motivation To Lose Weight		How To Be Successful Using PEERtrainer How To Burn Fat Online Weight Loss Support- How It Works Does Green Tea Help You Lose Weight? Tips On Using PEERtrainer Visit The PEERtrainer Community Diet and Fitness Resources
Fitness Weight Watchers Meetings Learning To Inspire Others: You Already Are Writing Down Your Daily Workouts Spending Money On A Personal Trainer? How I Became A Marathon Runner		Preventive Health How To Prevent Injuries During Your Workout Flu Season: Should You Take The Flu Shot? Are You Really Ready To Start PEERtrainer? Super Foods That Can Boost Your Energy Reversing Disease Through Nutrition
New Diet and Fitness Articles: Weight Watchers Points Plus How To Adjust Your Body To Exercise New: Weight Watchers Momentum Program New: PEERtrainer Blog Archive Review Of The New Weight Watchers Momentum Program		Weight Loss Motivation by Joshua Wayne: Why Simple Goal Setting Is Not Enough How To Delay Short Term Gratification How To Stay Motivated How To Exercise With A Busy Schedule
Real World Nutrition and Fitness Questions Can Weight Lifting Help You Lose Weight? Are Protein Drinks Safe? Nutrition As Medicine?		Everyday Weight Loss Tips How To Eat Healthy At A Party How To Eat Out And Still Lose Weight The Three Bite Rule Tips On How To Stop A Binge