Starvation mode with too much exercise?
Replies
-
Starvation mode is a myth.
However if you are engaging in a lot of exercise, I personally recommend eating half your calories back to properly fuel your workouts and not risk increased loss of lean muscle. It's also going to combat some exercise and diet fatigue with the additional calories.
I typically eat all my calories back and I've already dropped over five pounds in less than three weeks.
0 -
@TimothyFish do not PM me again. I don't do conversations via PM and especially the not when it's a topic that is being spoken about at the moment in a thread. If you want to reply to my post do it here not via PM, ever. And the PM you sent didn't even address my point.
Oh-so I'm not the only one he did that to?0 -
Even that is debatable...
My BF% is in the single digits I am quite certain.....and keep it there for a while over the course of the summer.....
So metabolic damage is highly suggestive.
Your body responds properly to what it is given.
It's possible. I just remember the last time I followed one of these threads there was mention of a study done many years ago, as I recall, of men that they intentionally ran into very low body fat percentages. I don't remember the details anymore.Interesting study.
I would love to see them do a similar study where they had the subjects (a portion of the people) partake in resistance training over the course of their weight loss.
I have wondered the same thing. I wonder if it possible to negate the metabolic slowdown of skeletal muscles by forcing them to work.
But the study was about what happens when you simply lose fat.With this study it just seems that they had the subjects diet and not do anything to maintain muscle during the process....so of course their energy requirements would also go down, and as such their likeliness to put back on weight would be great. As well as it getting harder for them to lose weight......
Because when they put back on the weight, it would be fat and not muscle.....so as I stated earlier, there is no energy demand to maintain fat stores like there is to maintain muscle.
The energy requirements go down not just due to loss of body mass, but beyond that. In other words it's not just because you got smaller (obviously the smaller you are the less calories you need). They found that your metabolism will be 10%-15% less than someone of similar body composition who had never been obese.Please find me a study where Leibel didn't draw his data from patients who had lost weight on DRASTICALLY low calorie intakes.
I'm not aware of any. But as I understand the study the conclusion is that it is the loss of Leptin that triggers the response, not the caloric intake (obviously the caloric intake is what is causing the reduction in fat, though). They know this because they were able to mitigate the symptoms using Leptin replacement therapy.
0 -
maillemaker wrote: »
The energy requirements go down not just due to loss of body mass, but beyond that. In other words it's not just because you got smaller (obviously the smaller you are the less calories you need). They found that your metabolism will be 10%-15% less than someone of similar body composition who had never been obese.
Right I get that.
That is why I was wondering what the impact would be if the person had done something to maintain or increase muscle mass during the process vs. simply losing fat.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If you look in the paper, that's misquoting. They said 85-90% of the change in calories is NREE (Non Resting Energy Expenditure). That isn't metabolic damage or adaptation, that's losing weight and feeling like moving less.maillemaker wrote: »
The energy requirements go down not just due to loss of body mass, but beyond that. In other words it's not just because you got smaller (obviously the smaller you are the less calories you need). They found that your metabolism will be 10%-15% less than someone of similar body composition who had never been obese.
Right I get that.
That is why I was wondering what the impact would be if the person had done something to maintain or increase muscle mass during the process vs. simply losing fat.
0 -
If you look in the paper, that's misquoting. They said 85-90% of the change in calories is NREE (Non Resting Energy Expenditure). That isn't metabolic damage or adaptation, that's losing weight and feeling like moving less.maillemaker wrote: »
The energy requirements go down not just due to loss of body mass, but beyond that. In other words it's not just because you got smaller (obviously the smaller you are the less calories you need). They found that your metabolism will be 10%-15% less than someone of similar body composition who had never been obese.
Right I get that.
That is why I was wondering what the impact would be if the person had done something to maintain or increase muscle mass during the process vs. simply losing fat.
Roger that0 -
The claims you're making from that study go against the actual experimental results of the Minnesota starvation study. The participants in that study all recovered their metabolic rate within a short window of returning to maintenance.
I assume by "returning to maintenance" you mean at the end of the rehabilitation period? I have not read the entirety of the Minnesota study, but presumably the participants ended up back at their starting weights at the end of the rehabilitation period.
Once your fat levels return to their previous levels, Leptin levels return to their previous baseline and the metabolic slowdown goes away.You're also misquoting what the study says:
"The pre-eminence of NREE - accounting for as much of 85–90% of the decline in TEE below predicted values in weight-reduced subjects 20, 22". That means most of the change in calories isn't your body turning on some hidden efficiency switch - it means your body is turning on a "hey, let's not do so much stuff" switch.
See the next paragraph after that one:
"Studies of skeletal muscle chemomechanical efficiency (calories expended above resting per unit of power generated) in weight-reduced subjects indicate that maintenance of a reduced body weight is associated with an approximate 20% increase in skeletal muscle work efficiency at low levels of exercise, whether measured by bicycle ergometry or 31P-NMR muscle spectroscopy 20.
...
Both of these methods demonstrate that the maintenance of a 10% reduced body weight is associated with an approximate 20% increase in skeletal muscle chemomechanical efficiency and an approximate 18% relative increase in the fractional use of free fatty acids as fuel during low level exercise 20, 27 (see Table 2)."
Basically your skeletal muscles get about 20% more efficient and this results in about a 10%-15% overall reduction in metabolism.0 -
With the Minnesota study I believe they allowed them a refeed day during the study, then back to their diet.
Been a while since I read the study.
But even still, their "diet" calories weren't all that low, I think 1500.0 -
Right I get that.
That is why I was wondering what the impact would be if the person had done something to maintain or increase muscle mass during the process vs. simply losing fat.
I just caught this part:
"Studies of skeletal muscle chemomechanical efficiency (calories expended above resting per unit of power generated) in weight-reduced subjects indicate that maintenance of a reduced body weight is associated with an approximate 20% increase in skeletal muscle work efficiency at low levels of exercise, whether measured by bicycle ergometry or 31P-NMR muscle spectroscopy 20."
I don't know what would happen with high levels of exercise.0 -
So that would be next to no exercise/resistance training?
0 -
If you look in the paper, that's misquoting. They said 85-90% of the change in calories is NREE (Non Resting Energy Expenditure). That isn't metabolic damage or adaptation, that's losing weight and feeling like moving less.
Yes, 85-90% of the change in calories is just due to getting smaller.
It's the 10%-15% that is due to the body's response to fat loss. That is the thrust of the study.
That's why when an obese person loses body fat to end up with the same body composition as someone who was never obese, their metabolism will be 10%-15% less than the person who was never obese.
They are both the same size, but the formerly-fat person will have a lower metabolism. It's the body's response to lowered Leptin levels.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »The claims you're making from that study go against the actual experimental results of the Minnesota starvation study. The participants in that study all recovered their metabolic rate within a short window of returning to maintenance.
I assume by "returning to maintenance" you mean at the end of the rehabilitation period? I have not read the entirety of the Minnesota study, but presumably the participants ended up back at their starting weights at the end of the rehabilitation period.
Once your fat levels return to their previous levels, Leptin levels return to their previous baseline and the metabolic slowdown goes away.You're also misquoting what the study says:
"The pre-eminence of NREE - accounting for as much of 85–90% of the decline in TEE below predicted values in weight-reduced subjects 20, 22". That means most of the change in calories isn't your body turning on some hidden efficiency switch - it means your body is turning on a "hey, let's not do so much stuff" switch.
See the next paragraph after that one:
"Studies of skeletal muscle chemomechanical efficiency (calories expended above resting per unit of power generated) in weight-reduced subjects indicate that maintenance of a reduced body weight is associated with an approximate 20% increase in skeletal muscle work efficiency at low levels of exercise, whether measured by bicycle ergometry or 31P-NMR muscle spectroscopy 20.
...
Both of these methods demonstrate that the maintenance of a 10% reduced body weight is associated with an approximate 20% increase in skeletal muscle chemomechanical efficiency and an approximate 18% relative increase in the fractional use of free fatty acids as fuel during low level exercise 20, 27 (see Table 2)."
Basically your skeletal muscles get about 20% more efficient and this results in about a 10%-15% overall reduction in metabolism.
Muscles being 20% more effective wouldn't result in a 10-15% total reduction though. Because most of your metabolism has absolutely nothing to do with your muscles.0 -
So that would be next to no exercise/resistance training?
That's what I'm gathering, but I could be wrong.Muscles being 20% more effective wouldn't result in a 10-15% total reduction though. Because most of your metabolism has absolutely nothing to do with your muscles.
I'll have to go find the quote again, but that's what they said. They said that most of the 10-15% total reduction was due to the increased efficiency of the skeletal muscles.
0 -
Starvation mode is a myth.
However if you are engaging in a lot of exercise, I personally recommend eating half your calories back to properly fuel your workouts and not risk increased loss of lean muscle. It's also going to combat some exercise and diet fatigue with the additional calories.
I typically eat all my calories back and I've already dropped over five pounds in less than three weeks.
People suggest half of the exercise calories because machines and databases usually overestimate burns, and even HR monitors aren't accurate. If you could know how much you actually burn with 100% accuracy and log your food with 100% accuracy, then it'd be okay to eat back all of the exercise calories. Most people aren't even close to being that accurate, so eating back half is safe. When you get closer to your goal weight and your deficit decreases the margin for error decreases as well, and eating what you think is all of your exercise calories back may lead to overeating.0 -
If you let your calories drop beyond a certain point for a certain amount of time, your metabolism shuts down. I was wondering, if I keep my calories at a healthy level but do a lot of cardio and weight training, burning enough calories to put me at a low net calorie count for the day, will my body enter its starvation mode and slow my metabolism?
personally, i'd worry more about whether I was getting adequate nutrition for exercise recovery and performance. you have to be particularly careful in a cut not to underfeed if you're doing a lot fitness wise...underfeeding will seriously lead to some recovery issues and ultimately injuries.
0 -
So that would be next to no exercise/resistance training?
Oh here it is:
"The pre-eminence of NREE - accounting for as much of 85–90% of the decline in TEE below predicted values in weight-reduced subjects 20, 22 could be due to declines in the actual amount of physical activity performed. In rodents, maintenance of a reduced body weight is associated with an increase, rather than decrease, in the amount of time spent in physical activity 23, probably reflecting food-seeking behavior. In-patient and out-patient studies of humans following weight loss have reported, respectively, no change or as much as a 30% increase in the amount of time that subjects spend moving each day, 11, 18 supporting the view that skeletal muscle work efficiency is increased 20 (as opposed to decreased amount of motion per se) following weight loss. Since these effects are most evident at low levels of work, i.e., those commensurate with activities of daily living, it is reasonable to infer that some of the opposition to reduced weight maintenance can be diminished by exercising at higher levels of power output 20, 24."0 -
So again, they did no exercise.
Where had they, it would have benefited them.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Muscles being 20% more effective wouldn't result in a 10-15% total reduction though. Because most of your metabolism has absolutely nothing to do with your muscles.
Found it:
http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=2993&bhcp=20
Pertinent info is from 35:15 - 39:30. The statement about skeletal muscle efficiency driving the metabolic slowdown is at
The exact mention is at 38:38.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »So that would be next to no exercise/resistance training?
That's what I'm gathering, but I could be wrong.Muscles being 20% more effective wouldn't result in a 10-15% total reduction though. Because most of your metabolism has absolutely nothing to do with your muscles.
I'll have to go find the quote again, but that's what they said. They said that most of the 10-15% total reduction was due to the increased efficiency of the skeletal muscles.
"Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass"
So metabolism reduces by 20-25%, but 10-15% of those are further than predicted.
"Some studies 16–18 report no change in REE following weight loss, while in others the maintenance of a reduced body weight is associated with modest reductions in REE accounting for about 10–15% of the decline in TEE beyond that predicted on the basis of body composition changes 11, 12, 19. "
10-15% of those 10-15% are from REE, that's your respiratory system and actually something you can't really do anything about.
Now here's the kicker:
"The pre-eminence of NREE - accounting for as much of 85–90% of the decline in TEE below predicted values in weight-reduced subjects 20, 22 could be due to declines in the actual amount of physical activity performed."
85-90% of the decline below predicted values(so that extra lower than expected amount) is from the NREE and that it could be because of reduced physical activity performed.
After that it talks about the more efficient muscles during exercise.
No matter how I calculate it though, 20% more efficient muscles during moving around do not equate to 85-90% of a metabolism reduction of 15%. Especially not if you barely exercise to begin with.0 -
It's been at least a month since you've been harping on this issue, maybe 6 weeks. Can I ask how much weight you've lost in that time?
0 -
No matter how I calculate it though, 20% more efficient muscles during moving around do not equate to 85-90% of a metabolism reduction of 15%. Especially not if you barely exercise to begin with.
See the 38:38 point of this video:
http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=2993&bhcp=20
By the way, this is a co-author of the study cited above.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tough crowd...0
-
I'm sorry but that just doesn't seem to fit with the numbers.
Let's take me as an example. If I was sedentary, BMR around 1750 my calorie expenditure should be around 2100 calories per day according to calculators.
Now if we take that 15% number for a fact that would be 1785 instead, or a reduction of 315 calories below what it should be. 10% of that reduction now are changes in BMR as stated. So 31.5 calories, let's say 32. My BMR is now 1722. The rest are changes to my NREE which is part of the calories between BMR and TDEE. So of the 350 calories I burn from moving around on any given day, I have lost 283, or 80% of them which doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Either my calculation is wrong, the guy is wrong, or both of us misunderstood some significant part of this whole thing.0 -
Another relevant study:
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/285/1/R183
"Effects of Weight Change on Skeletal Muscle Work Efficiency
Maintenance of a body weight 10% below Wtinitial was associated with significant increases in skeletal muscle GME to generate 10 and 25 W, but not 50 W, of power. The percent increase in GME at Wt-10% compared with Wtinitial steadily diminished as exercise intensity increased. Mean (SD) %change in efficiency at Wt-10% compared with Wtinitial were +26.5 (26.7)% (P < 0.001) to generate 10 W of power, +23.2 (25.8)% (P = 0.027) to generate 25 W of power, and +9.0 (19.4)% (P = 0.062.) to generate 50 W of power (see Table 2). Maintenance of a body weight 10% above Wtinitial was associated with significant decreases in skeletal muscle GME to generate 10 but not 50 W of power. Mean (SD) %change in efficiency at Wt+10% compared with Wtinitial were -17.8 (20.5)% (P = 0.043) to generate 10 W of power and -3.2 (12.1)% (NS) to generate 50 W of power (see Table 2). No significant effects of gender or initial somatotype on changes in skeletal muscle work efficiency were noted."
GME = Gross Mechanical Efficiency.
The way I am reading the above is that for reduced body weight, with moderate exercise, GME remains increased. But with increased exercise (50 watts) the effect was mitigated.
I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly though.
0 -
So the answer is you've gained weight? Do you think you would have had more success if you tried to figure out how to lose weight as opposed to looking for the reasons why you are destined to not lose weight?
Are we looking at the same graph?
I have lost weight.0 -
Actually, looked up the study cited for the remark 10-20% increase in efficiency:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12609816
There are confounding factors I can't clear from just the summary though - it would be nice to get the whole paper.
From what I can tell, they had the people pedal on a bike an record their efficiency before weight loss, and after. The problem with this is, those aren't completely apples to apples. During the testing at 10% weight loss, they haven't just lost weight - they've practiced the motor patterns for efficiently pedaling a bike.
They're measuring entire energy expenditure versus 10 or 25 W output to a bike. If you've lost weight, including in your legs, pedaling a 10 or 25 W output requires less power to move legs. While they claim the in efficiency can't be accounted for purely by weight, I don't see how much they say can be attributed.
Finally, nothing in the study says that this efficiency is related to being heavy and then thin. Nothing shows that the new efficiency is different for a person who was once heavier versus someone who has always been at their ideal weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions