Starvation mode...real or fake?

cocates

Before I found MFP, I thought the whole starvation mode concept was real. That changed when I read lot of MFP members' comments to discredit this (as well as reading VIP posts and articles).

But this, may be one of the reasons why n00bs continue to think it is real:

http://www.etonline.com/news/156369_dr_oz_says_no_need_for_exercise_with_total_10_diet_plan/

"I actually think it's wise to periodically take a large carb load in, because it reminds your hormones that you're not in a starvation mode, so it'll relax those hormones so they keep your metabolism pretty high,"

GiveMeCoffee

Well if they believe anything that Dr Moron says they need to look for better sources and stop trying to find miracle fixes.

neanderthin

Metabolic adaption does happen and refeeds can reset hormones but calling it starvation mode is not correct, that's a whole different ballgame and people trying to lose a lot of weight wll never experience the real thing.

Daiako

'Starvation mode' is a thing, but the way it's commonly understood and explained in regards to dieting is not...a thing.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

martyqueen52

I thought he was in some serious hot water for what he's been doing? (making up crap with no proof and pushing it onto the public)

jacksonpt

Daiako wrote: »

'Starvation mode' is a thing, but the way it's commonly understood and explained in regards to dieting is not...a thing.

Agreed.

Also, why the hell did you get flagged for it. People suck at flagging.

Liftng4Lis

Dr. Oz is an idiot, albet a rich one...

ryanhorn

Daiako wrote: »

'Starvation mode' is a thing, but the way it's commonly understood and explained in regards to dieting is not...a thing.

This. You would need to be at an EXTREMELY low calorie intake for an extended period of time. If you read the studies on it, you won't ever see this in the context of dieting.

J72FIT

neanderthin wrote: »

Metabolic adaption does happen and refeeds can reset hormones but calling it starvation mode is not correct, that's a whole different ballgame and people trying to lose a lot of weight wll never experience the real thing.

^^^This. Was Just reading a Lyle McDonald article on this.

From the article...
"I’m going to assume (and hope) that your readers are familiar with leptin. If not, basically it signals to the brain (and elsewhere) about energy stores in the body (and how much you’re eating) and when it drops it induces much of what is often incorrectly called the “starvation response” or “metabolic damage”. I say incorrectly because this simply represents a normal ADAPTATION to dieting that occurs because the body, fundamentally, doesn’t give a damn that you need to look good on stage. It wants to keep you from starving to death."

sheltol

Why the semantics? Whether you say metabolic damage like Layne Norton, starvation mode/response or Leptin adaptation. It's all related to not eating enough. Just like the last sentence in that quote.

lemurcat12

sheltol wrote: »

Why the semantics?

Because people sometimes use "starvation mode" to mean metabolic adaptation, but there seems to be a common understanding of it where your body "hangs on to fat" and you won't lose weight if you eat too little, so believing in this people are often advised that if they aren't losing they might be in starvation mode and should eat more.

There are instances where this might work--if someone is eating too little and then going overboard once a week in reaction or if someone simply feels such a lack of energy that she stops being active at all--but usually if someone isn't losing it's because of eating too much, which is due to inaccurate logging if that person thinks the calories are really low. The idea that you have to eat in a narrow range of calories in order to lose is a common and unhelpful misunderstanding and the term "starvation mode" as often used on MFP plays into that.

There are other reasons not to eat too little, of course, which include metabolic adaptation, as well as lack of nutrition and loss of muscle mass, among other things.

cwolfman13

"Starvation mode" as it is thrown around here is a bunch of *kitten*. That said, people who crash their diets often have more difficulty losing weight than they otherwise would because they stress their bodies and raise their cortisol levels and just generally jack up their hormones. They'll still lose eventually, it'll just be more of a struggle than necessary.

Mr_Knight

You're not in starvation mode until your body actually looks like its been starved. IE, super lean and emaciated.

GingerbreadCandy

Short answer… what everyone else said and also don't listen to Dr. Oz.

You can find a far more detailed answer in these two posts here if you haven't seen them yet:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

honkytonks85

I just think it's kinda funny when someone who is overweight eating 1000 calories deficit for a few days thinks they're in starvation mode. Or skipping a meal puts you in starvation mode. You have to have very low body fat for it to really be an issue. The only reason you need to eat at least 1200 calories is for adequate nutrition.

JillyCornwall

honkytonks85 wrote: »

I just think it's kinda funny when someone who is overweight eating 1000 calories deficit for a few days thinks they're in starvation mode. Or skipping a meal puts you in starvation mode. You have to have very low body fat for it to really be an issue. The only reason you need to eat at least 1200 calories is for adequate nutrition.

Spot on, -as someone with a husband who has been struggling for over a year to get their calories to or over 1000 calories due to a severe health problem i can assure people that they can and will continue to lose weight. Yes a lot of its muscle & no its not healthy but 'fat' people like myself don't need to worry about it for a year or two!