This MDA post has some interesting information on the topic.Actually, many people died in famines--even entire cultures wiped out because of famine. Starvation is very stressful and taxing on the body, whether you're a "sugar burner" or a "fat burner". Just because you've transitioned into a "fat burning beast" does not mean that the negative attributes that come with severe calorie restriction automatically don't apply anymore. It's naive to think that these things only apply to "sugar burners" and CW dieters and that paleolithic people or fat burners are somehow immune to metabolic deregulation and adaptation.
If you are a fat burner, you are efficiently metabolizing fat providing the body with needed energy to go hunt for food. If you are a sugar burner you are sitting there in a hypoglycemic daze after three hours without food and would not have survived to reproduce. I never said severe caloric restriction was not stressful on everybody, just that fat burners handle the stress better.
The body conserves energy when it perceives a famine...or whenever you simply eat less. This is fact. It slows down the metabolism. When our paleo ancestors experienced prolonged shortages of food (and I'm not talking about going a few days or a week without food... IF has its place). I'm talking about chronic calorie restriction. To assume that their bodies were not impacted in a negative way by that is pure skepticism and not scientifically backed. I'm pretty sure the paleopeople weren't concerned with their weight when famine passed and they began eating a surplus of food again, which would result in weight gain but. It makes sense that those who were able to remain the fattest, survived. Not because they were fatter to begin with, but because their body found a way to better conserve energy (decrease metabolic rate more than the average Joe who died), and whose body was most efficient at promoting body fat storage during minimal caloric refeed (which of course was passed down through the generations).
To say that a "fat burning beast" is not effected or damaged by calorie restriction simply has no backing, and the current scientific data that has been published concludes otherwise.
I think the word you were looking for there was "speculation".
Since the goal is in fact weight loss, let's pretend that a paleoperson "fat burner" wasn't affected as much by famine. It would still be impossible to make the assumption that they didn't gain weight immediately after the famine was over and a surplus of food was available to which they could eat until satiety. So again, it makes no sense to say that a "fat burning beast" is somehow immune to the ill effects of severe chronic calorie restriction.
I never said they didn't gain weight. I would gain the weight back if I went back to eating at my old level.
I wish more people realized they should probably heal their metabolism before assuming theirs is simply "slow" after a prolonged period of damage. There are several other factors influencing a decreased metabolic rate. And weight loss doesn't always translate to "eat less calories". Sometimes it's not the CI that needs to be adjusted, but rather the CO side of the equation should be balanced first.
In my calorie counting thread, I repeatedly made the point of, "Healing and health first, then calorie restriction if you still need it."