starvation mode, myth or truth?
heyhey2015
Posts: 26 Member
Doc wants me to stay around 1000 calories, 40 p, 30f, 30c nutrition scale just for a couple months. It is working, with light exercise. I feel great but I am
wondering about all the talk of starvation mode
wondering about all the talk of starvation mode
0
Replies
-
It's a myth.0
-
Based on personal experience it is a truth, but under 400 kcal/day0
-
Thanks. I am not well educated in this and sometimes you get so many opinions it makes you confused.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
It depends on what is meant by starvation mode. The body does start shutting down less critical functions when it doesn't get enough calories. But some people have the idea that the body could actually stop losing weight while in starvation mode. That is a myth.0
-
hanymamdouh wrote: »Based on personal experience it is a truth, but under 400 kcal/day
What you experience was probably severe muscle loss and metabolic adaptation/adaptive thermogenesis. If you starve your your body, your metabolism will become more efficient and burn less calories.
0 -
hanymamdouh wrote: »Based on personal experience it is a truth, but under 400 kcal/day
What you experience was probably severe muscle loss and metabolic adaptation/adaptive thermogenesis. If you starve your your body, your metabolism will become more efficient and burn less calories.
I totally agree with you, it was metabolic adaptation.0 -
It's a myth.
Yeah, no. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol
It's a real thing. Not nearly as drastic as some people claim it is, but it's real.
You have to do some pretty mean things to your body to trigger large spikes of cortisol production. Being in an excesive calorie deficit is one way to ramp up cortisol produciton in your body (others include just stress in general, lack of sleep, etc.).
The TL;DR for the wiki: Cortisol basically does everything it can to minimize your body's energy consumption in order to maximize the time you can "survive". I am sure it was very useful to our primitive ancestors, but not terribly useful to us anymore. It tries to make you physically lighter so it takes less calories to move (reduces muscle mass, bone density), it reduces immune function, cell growth, slows the metabolism down, etc.
Basically, just don't be an idiot and you won't have to worry about it.0 -
OK. Thanks for all info. As to why she wants me to try this, ? I think she feels its enough to sustain my body and still lose. I am about 50 pounds overweight. I do feel fine, and am losing weekly, not rapid, but steady. It was just a question posed to those of you who are more informed with facts.
Thanks again0 -
heatherdeb2015 wrote: »Doc wants me to stay around 1000 calories, 40 p, 30f, 30c nutrition scale just for a couple months. It is working, with light exercise. I feel great but I am
wondering about all the talk of starvation mode Andrew
If it is being medically supervised, follow the advice of your doctor.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
50lbs of fat is enough to sustain a fairly substantial deficit, but it generally ends bad when doing that and most just gain the weight back, and at a higher body fat % because of the lean mass lost while consuming low calories. This is generally administered to the morbidly obese initially, to help support the general psychological hardships of weight loss. Statistics show that most gain the weight back. Personally slow and steady will little adjustment when the time comes for maintenance is the better approach, but people like magic and magic shows.heatherdeb2015 wrote: »OK. Thanks for all info. As to why she wants me to try this, ? I think she feels its enough to sustain my body and still lose. I am about 50 pounds overweight. I do feel fine, and am losing weekly, not rapid, but steady. It was just a question posed to those of you who are more informed with facts.
Thanks again
0 -
-
neanderthin wrote: »
50lbs of fat is enough to sustain a fairly substantial deficit, but it generally ends bad when doing that and most just gain the weight back, and at a higher body fat % because of the lean mass lost while consuming low calories. This is generally administered to the morbidly obese initially, to help support the general psychological hardships of weight loss. Statistics show that most gain the weight back. Personally slow and steady will little adjustment when the time comes for maintenance is the better approach, but people like magic and magic shows.heatherdeb2015 wrote: »OK. Thanks for all info. As to why she wants me to try this, ? I think she feels its enough to sustain my body and still lose. I am about 50 pounds overweight. I do feel fine, and am losing weekly, not rapid, but steady. It was just a question posed to those of you who are more informed with facts.
Thanks again
^this.
You should be laying down good habits now, so you will be successful long term.
Slow and steady really does win the race!0 -
OK. Thanks. Is 1 -2 pounds a week considered "magic"? I am not being snarky, I am really asking. I thought that was reasonable. Most weeks its not 2. Maybe0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
heatherdeb2015 wrote: »OK. Thanks for all info. As to why she wants me to try this, ? I think she feels its enough to sustain my body and still lose. I am about 50 pounds overweight. I do feel fine, and am losing weekly, not rapid, but steady. It was just a question posed to those of you who are more informed with facts.
Thanks again
You're 50 pounds overweight and your doctor is recommending you go on 1,000 calories a day?
Personally, I'd be looking for a new doctor.
And yeah, starvation mode is a myth.
0 -
hanymamdouh wrote: »Based on personal experience it is a truth, but under 400 kcal/day
What you experience was probably severe muscle loss and metabolic adaptation/adaptive thermogenesis. If you starve your your body, your metabolism will become more efficient and burn less calories.
^^^This^^^...The body, in its "wisdom" will, when the calories are too low, shuttle the available calories to essential tasks. Maintaining muscle mass is a "luxury" in the situation where there is little food forthcoming. In addition, skeletal muscle burns far more calories than other types of tissue in the body, so it will be "cannibalized" by the body which is desperate for calories to maintain essential functions. Hormonal alterations will also take place--the reduction of thyroid hormone will be one adaptation, and the body will now be burning fewer calories just sitting still. The result of the reduced muscle mass and the new smaller body is a significantly lower calorie burn than before the "starvation" diet was pursued. And that is a setup for regain when that person resumes what he/she thinks are calories needed for "maintenance". Small reductions in calories along with increased activities (especially resistance training for maintaining muscle mass and burning body fat) is much the preferred way to avoid metabolic adaptation/adaptive thermogenesis. It was demonstrated many years ago with released prisoners of war, that the way to go for gaining weight, in those who are painfully thin, is to alternately "starve" and then allow them to eat "normally". Slow and steady wins the race (for long-term weight loss). The real goal is to not only lose as much body fat while maintaining lean body tissue as possible but for the metabolism to stay as healthy as possible. Because of the influence of estrogen (which works to maintain fat stores) and because they have a smaller lean body mass, women are more likely to fall into metabolic adaptation when on very low calorie diets. To counter this as much as possible, women, even more than men, need to lift weights and avoid drastic calorie reductions.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »hanymamdouh wrote: »Based on personal experience it is a truth, but under 400 kcal/day
What you experience was probably severe muscle loss and metabolic adaptation/adaptive thermogenesis. If you starve your your body, your metabolism will become more efficient and burn less calories.
^^^This^^^...The body, in its "wisdom" will, when the calories are too low, shuttle the available calories to essential tasks. Maintaining muscle mass is a "luxury" in the situation where there is little food forthcoming. In addition, skeletal muscle burns far more calories than other types of tissue in the body, so it will be "cannibalized" by the body which is desperate for calories to maintain essential functions. Hormonal alterations will also take place--the reduction of thyroid hormone will be one adaptation, and the body will now be burning fewer calories just sitting still. The result of the reduced muscle mass and the new smaller body is a significantly lower calorie burn than before the "starvation" diet was pursued. And that is a setup for regain when that person resumes what he/she thinks are calories needed for "maintenance". Small reductions in calories along with increased activities (especially resistance training for maintaining muscle mass and burning body fat) is much the preferred way to avoid metabolic adaptation/adaptive thermogenesis. It was demonstrated many years ago with released prisoners of war, that the way to go for gaining weight, in those who are painfully thin, is to alternately "starve" and then allow them to eat "normally". Slow and steady wins the race (for long-term weight loss). The real goal is to not only lose as much body fat while maintaining lean body tissue as possible but for the metabolism to stay as healthy as possible. Because of the influence of estrogen (which works to maintain fat stores) and because they have a smaller lean body mass, women are more likely to fall into metabolic adaptation when on very low calorie diets. To counter this as much as possible, women, even more than men, need to lift weights and avoid drastic calorie reductions.
Thanks for that explanation. So are we defining starvation mode as eating so little that even the muscle in your organs starts to be cannibalized? Or is that just starvation, period. I'm also very interested in your comment that the body chooses to cannibalize skeletal muscle first. I read recently about incidences where an obese person has starved to death, but dies technically still obese. Meaning it's not an orderly progression of glycogen/fat/LBM. I'd love to read something reputable supporting your statement. Not trying to argue, I want it to be true!
0 -
thank you. that is very informative0
-
I think although I log everything, maybe I am off on calculations and am consuming more than I realize, and that is why I am not feeling really restricted, or bad. I do some resistance and hand weight excercise, and walking. Like I said i didnt feel it was rapid weight loss, i am at the end of the two months that was the time period, lost about 18 pounds. Going forward I am going to increase my calories and my activity. This is a lifestyle change for me. I was very sedentary and my portion sizes were really off. My doc is not a weight loss dr, she is an md. Thanks for all (most) comments and help.0
-
heyhey2015 wrote: »I think although I log everything, maybe I am off on calculations and am consuming more than I realize, and that is why I am not feeling really restricted, or bad. I do some resistance and hand weight excercise, and walking. Like I said i didnt feel it was rapid weight loss, i am at the end of the two months that was the time period, lost about 18 pounds. Going forward I am going to increase my calories and my activity. This is a lifestyle change for me. I was very sedentary and my portion sizes were really off. My doc is not a weight loss dr, she is an md. Thanks for all (most) comments and help.
This is what I was going to suggest. If you are losing at a moderate rate (1-2lbs a week), your deficit is likely not as drastic as you think. You can either increase your calories a little and get more accurate in your logging or just keep doing what you are doing.
That said, if you are actually eating about 1000 calories a day, it might be difficult to get all the necessary nutrients in. You might want to talk to your doctor about if any vitamins are necessary and have some blood work run every few months. You could also ask for a referral to a nutritionist as well.0 -
heyhey2015 wrote: »I think although I log everything, maybe I am off on calculations and am consuming more than I realize, and that is why I am not feeling really restricted, or bad. I do some resistance and hand weight excercise, and walking. Like I said i didnt feel it was rapid weight loss, i am at the end of the two months that was the time period, lost about 18 pounds. Going forward I am going to increase my calories and my activity. This is a lifestyle change for me. I was very sedentary and my portion sizes were really off. My doc is not a weight loss dr, she is an md. Thanks for all (most) comments and help.
Most MD's have little to no training. Before you do that, I would be referred to a dietitian.
Most of us don't like 1000 calorie diets because it will lead to increased muscle loss and if done for long periods can lead to metabolic adaptation, so gaining will be easier. Also, many of us prefer to concentrate on maintaining muscle and have almost all of your loss from pure fat. Reasoning being that body composition impacts look more than weight. And like I always say, weight loss will make you look good in clothes but fat loss will make you look good naked.
And if you want our recommendations, post your height, weight age and current workout routine. We can provide you a solid plan to achieve your goals, whatever they are.0 -
heyhey2015 wrote: »Doc wants me to stay around 1000 calories, 40 p, 30f, 30c nutrition scale just for a couple months. It is working, with light exercise. I feel great but I am
wondering about all the talk of starvation mode
As it is discussed on MFP, it's myth.
That said, dieting in general is a stresser on the body and raises cortisol levels and jacks with your hormones in general...the larger the energy deficit is, the more stress is put on the body. Jacking with your hormones can have a negative impact on your metabolism...basically things just aren't working like they should be. You also are going to have some level of adaptation and larger energy deficits also result in more muscle loss than smaller deficits. To boot, people tend to just move less...even fidget less when they're not eating enough and this further slows your metabolism.
0 -
Once again: How tall are you? What's your current weight?heatherdeb2015 wrote:Doc wants me to stay around 1000 calories, 40 p, 30f, 30c nutrition scale just for a couple months. It is working, with light exercise. I feel great but I am wondering about all the talk of starvation mode
Your profile page is almost completely blank, no info available.
Here's a post I did with a bunch of links to things new people would find useful, including sexypants, accurate logging, and goal setting.
1 - Unless you're short enough that 100 lb is a healthy weight (4'5" to 5'1"), eating 1000 cal / day isn't good.
Here's a BMI calculator which will show you what a healthy weight for your height is. http://www.eatright.org/bmi/
Normally I'd say "do what your doctor recommends", but it seems s/he doesn't even know healthy macro levels, and with only 50 lb to lose going on such low calories doesn't make sense. Doing a small deficit, consistently, will work out better; you're less likely to regain because you're learning healthy eating habits.
With 50 lb to lose, yes, you could do 1 lb per week in a healthy way. (Figure out what you need to maintain your current weight & cut 500 cal / day.) But as you get closer to a healthy weight that will slow, and you should make your deficit less. I've averaged 1.5 per week over the last year, starting with 110 lb to lose. Now I'm down to about 35 to go, and am expecting 0.5 lb per week... sometimes that's a struggle.
2 - The macro levels s/he recommended aren't healthy. Protein is too high, carbs are too low. Here's a table which explains the healthy ranges:
http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/C5CD2DD7840544979A549EC47E56A02B.ashx
page 1, carbs, 45 - 65% of calories (4 cal per gram)
page 2, fat, 20 - 35% of calories (9 cal per gram)
page 4, protein, 10 - 35% of calories (4 cal per gram)
Eating lower carbs & higher protein has been shown to lead to more weight loss, but stay within the healthy ranges: 45% carbs, 20% fat, 35% protein.
BTW, yes, there is such a thing as "starvation mode", but it's not what most people think & it's hard to get there, takes a long time of abusing your body.
The body needs energy to run.
It prefers to get that energy from carbohydrates (glucose [blood sugar], then glycogen [storage carbs in muscle & liver]).
If that's low, it will burn fat.
If that's low, it will burn protein (muscle). This is an inefficient conversion, and is risking death (when the heart & diaphragm stop functioning) in hopes of finding food first. THAT is starvation mode.
0 -
Nope. (Well, not when comparing equal mass. There is more muscle overall so overall it burns more calories.)santemulberry wrote:skeletal muscle burns far more calories than other types of tissue in the body
http://www.ncsf.org/enew/articles/articles-poundofmuscle.aspx
"Sedentary muscle mass burns about 6 kcals per pound/day ...
Fat about 2 kcals per pound [per day]...
brain (109 kcal/lb), [about 3 lb, so 327 kcal/day]
liver (91 kcal/lb), [about 3 lb, so 273 kcal/day]
kidneys (200 kcal/lb), [about .5 lb total, so 100 kcal/day]
heart (200 kcal/lb)" [8-10 oz, so about 100-125 kcal/day]
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/16/health/la-he-fitness-muscle-myth-20110516
"muscle, it turns out, makes a fairly small contribution to RMR.
... muscle contributes only 20-25% of total resting metabolism.
... intense aerobic activity like running burns twice as many calories per hour as hard weightlifting, and the metabolic boost from added muscle is not nearly enough to compensate for this difference... "
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions