Starvation mode with too much exercise?
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »I googled Gross Mechanical Efficiency and it seems to me that doesn't factor in that reduced weight makes the movement inherently easier for the person doing it, i.e. someone pedaling pedals to generate 10/25/50 watts who weighs more is going to burn more calories doing it already because their legs are heavier than someone who weighs less.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/549465-what-is-mechanical-efficiency-during-exercise/ (not the best source, I know. I was just looking for the definition.)Gross efficiency is the percentage ratio of external work achieved compared to the total energy expenditure.
If the study your quote comes from thought about that I can't say without the source. They should have though.
I read some of the study from the full link. I was surprised - they actually account for this. They added weights as best they could to replicate the weight of the calf when having the weight loss group do the exercise.0 -
Firstly, you know that starvation mode only occurs after your body has burned all of your fat reserves, right? The level of starvation where your body starts burning muscle doesn't happen until your body gets to less than 5% body fat (for men; I'm not sure of the number for women). As we lose weight, our bodies require less muscle to haul us around, and it naturally decreases our muscle amount. Basic common sense tells you that you need far less muscle to carry around 180 pounds than you do to carry around 360.
Here is a good article, not overly scientific, but just lays out the basic facts of why we should not be overly worried about starvation mode. It's not a myth, but it's more for people living in famine-stricken countries than something that happens to dieters or athletes. Starvation Mode: Myth or Fact0 -
The big problem is, even if 100% correct, the study doesn't say the people lose 10 to 20% of their calories.
The 10 to 20% is the reduction ONLY, ONLY in energy burned for low level activity, such as pedaling a bike at low speed. The study found that at high speed, the necessary output of energy meant that even the weight loss group HAD to spend just as many calories.
The bulk of most people's calories already come from their BMR, which is fairly consistent with a person's LBM.
The biggest take away I'm getting from this and the Resistance + Very Low Calorie Diet is, do some weight lifting, and your body is going to have no room to lower calorie expenditure.0 -
"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health. Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."
http://www.livestrong.com/article/244490-do-low-calorie-diets-slow-down-metabolism/
ahem...excuse me...but um...maybe it's worth pointing out that if you are eating at a caloric deficit sufficient to cause a metabolic slowdown then there are no extra calories there for your body to store as fat. You can't be in an extreme caloric deficit and a caloric surplus simultaneously.
The theory put forward in this livestrong article is based on faulty logic based on false conclusions based on a misunderstanding of a single study done around 70 years ago.0 -
astralpictures wrote: »AshLittle1 wrote: »So, if my BMR is 2600 a day and myfitnesspal wants me to consume 2000 calories a day with 600 calories of exercise, I do not need to worry about my metabolism slowing down over time correct?
Your metabolism WILL slow down over time if you lose weight, but you don't need to worry about it. It's natural and not preventable since there will be less of you to carry out your normal functions, your body will need less energy.
However I also believe that people's TDEE does suffer if they eat too little, which can lower their calorie maintenance level. If you are severely under-eating, your body will respond by feeling both physically and mentally sluggish. You won't have adequate energy intake or nutrition, which could result in medical issues. Therefore, your body's defense will to make you feel exhausted, and you won't move around as much. This lack of fuel will then lower your TDEE as you just won't feel up to doing physical activities with the same strength you once did. This is not "starvation mode," because your metabolism won't suddenly quit (except for death), and you will still lose weight because no magical internal process will decide to store fat instead of burn it while in deficit. But you will feel crappy. That's why people generally tell others to eat more if they're eating a low amount of calories.
I realize this is N=1, but I can certainly attest to the fact that this does happen in my experience. When I restrict calories to cut weight for a fight I find my general activity level plummets. I train or sit on the couch. No walking, no light activity: just training or resting.
The good news is that as soon as the cut is over, my activity level goes back to normal, so it really isn't an issue. And of course, it doesn't stop me from dropping the weight, just makes it a bit slower than the numbers would suggest based on pre-cut activity level.
0 -
Going by that, every single person here who has lost at least 10% of their body weight would now have to be reducing their calorie intake 10%-15% more than what the calculators say in order to get the same result. Maybe I'm a special snowflake, but that certainly hasn't happened to me.
According to the study, that is what they demonstrated in the laboratory, with people who evidently did not exercise to offset the effect.
0 -
Thanks @Pu_239. So what I'm wondering is what happens if he then drops another 10% off his weight? Does the metabolic decrease happen only once (i.e. when he exceeds 10% weight loss) or does it decrease a further 10% (in addition to his reduced TDEE) every time he loses 10% of his weight?
This was already answered, but I suspect that there is a limit to how much conservation the body can do regardless of how much you weigh. And as was answered, the Starvation Experiment seems to corroborate that idea.I have a migraine right now, so I'm not following the numbers in this too well, but... yeah... I sort of follow this... why aren't people on here complaining en masse about this effect if it's such a sure thing? I've lost 19% of my bodyweight. No need to reduce my calorie intake further than expected to get results.
I suspect most people probably chalk up the discrepancy to inaccurate logging. I've never hit the 2-pounds-per-week computed result. It could be because my reduced metabolism requires actually an even further deficit to achieve that. Or it could be that I am just not accurately logging. I tend to blame the latter rather than the former, but there is no way to know without getting very diligent about logging and staying under the calorie limit.
The Advanced Scooby Calculator does have provision, however, for a "Compensation Factor" or some such to account for discrepancies between calculated performance and actual weight loss. Again those discrepancies could be due to poor logging or it could be due to the metabolism issue. When I went through the process of figuring out my own compensation factor, it worked out to about 250 calories or so - right in the range of what would be expected for the stated metabolic loss. Coincidence? It's possible. I still suspect incorrect logging as many of the things I eat, particularly for dinner, are a bother to measure.The biggest take away I'm getting from this and the Resistance + Very Low Calorie Diet is, do some weight lifting, and your body is going to have no room to lower calorie expenditure.
This is my take-away also. It appears that resistance training can force the body to not shut down the muscles. Unfortunately what this means is not only do you have to suffer the discomfort of caloric restriction, you also have to suffer the discomfort of exercise. In terms of willpower sapping, it's a double-whammy.And you're 40-something right? I was thinking earlier that Steven's results might be because he's younger, but your story is different.
I'm 44.Just get in the pool and MOVE. You'll warm up soon enough. Our swim club pool is freezing, but moving right away takes care of that. I've been water jogging this past week since it opened.
Yes, that is what I am doing. I have no choice - my kids pester me non-stop to take them swimming.
I guess I must be a special snowflake because I have been consistently eating at a pretty aggressive deficit since March 1st and I have more energy than I did before and my activity is through the roof. I'm basically a fat burning machine.
From your photos it appears that you run? If exercise counters the metabolic slowdown, then that may be doing the trick.
For my part, I experience many of the symptoms described. Sensitivity to cold. Hunger. Fatigue. But I don't exercise, at least at the start of a diet. It takes all I have to focus on the caloric deficit. Last year I focused on diet for about 3 months, then after I felt like I had a handle on controlling that I joined a gym. I lasted about 3 more months and then everything fell apart on Halloween. I'm contemplating joining Planet Fitness (it's only $10 a month) but I don't really have the time for it now that my wife and I are both working. I'll probably focus on swimming over the summer.0 -
I wouldike to join this conversation but please realize I am a noob. When I used the "starvation mode" term in another discussion everybody freaked. I am trying to figure out how this all works and there is no place where noobs can find out what not to say. I am trying to find out what happened to me over the last three years. I started out having to lose 65 lbs and completely change my diet for health reasons. I did that and I lost about 30 lbs and then nothing. I am a creature habit and kept eating at the same level for the next two years but no more weight loss. I was always complaining about how hungry I was. Doc said I was probably eating more than I thought. I already new that wasn't true but he said to use MFP to chart my eating. Besides being a creature of habit I am very precise when I do something. My wife is the cook and I didn't tell her what I was doing so she would continue to cook my vegetarian diet same as usual. Immediately the program pointed out every day that I was eating less than 1,100 calories. Figuring that MFP's calorie requirements were bona-fide, I began eating at the recommended level. All of a sudden, now that I am eating more, I am losing about a pound a week. I don't get it. Ideas why?0
-
Thanks. That makes more sense than the people freaking out.0
-
I think you misunderstood about starvation mode.Yeah Lemurcat12 gave the best answer. Of course your metabolism will slow down if you don't get a certain amount of calories and this is "starvation mode". The problem is, it won't be a sudden starvation mode. It takes years of a drastic caloric deficit before you see it, but it's still possible. I know many woman (overweight) who eat around 1200 calories a day but are very active. Yet, their calorie maintenance is 2800, yet they won't gain or lose a pound. People will then say they are lying, but those people Don't understand not everyone is fat from overeating. It's not as simple as just eat less or exercise more. If it was everyone would be perfect.
Also, anytime you eat at a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If someone says they are eating 1200 and not losing weight then they are eating more than they realize.
0 -
I think you misunderstood about starvation mode.Yeah Lemurcat12 gave the best answer. Of course your metabolism will slow down if you don't get a certain amount of calories and this is "starvation mode". The problem is, it won't be a sudden starvation mode. It takes years of a drastic caloric deficit before you see it, but it's still possible. I know many woman (overweight) who eat around 1200 calories a day but are very active. Yet, their calorie maintenance is 2800, yet they won't gain or lose a pound. People will then say they are lying, but those people Don't understand not everyone is fat from overeating. It's not as simple as just eat less or exercise more. If it was everyone would be perfect.
Also, anytime you eat at a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If someone says they are eating 1200 and not losing weight then they are eating more than they realize.
This answer contradicts what Pu_239 said above about the person in the stall out who was eating 1,100 calories and not losing any weight. Can anyone tell me which answer is correct?
p.s. i think there should be a sticky post about this. reading through the previous conversations so many people ask about this!0 -
I think you misunderstood about starvation mode.Yeah Lemurcat12 gave the best answer. Of course your metabolism will slow down if you don't get a certain amount of calories and this is "starvation mode". The problem is, it won't be a sudden starvation mode. It takes years of a drastic caloric deficit before you see it, but it's still possible. I know many woman (overweight) who eat around 1200 calories a day but are very active. Yet, their calorie maintenance is 2800, yet they won't gain or lose a pound. People will then say they are lying, but those people Don't understand not everyone is fat from overeating. It's not as simple as just eat less or exercise more. If it was everyone would be perfect.
Also, anytime you eat at a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If someone says they are eating 1200 and not losing weight then they are eating more than they realize.
This answer contradicts what Pu_239 said above about the person in the stall out who was eating 1,100 calories and not losing any weight. Can anyone tell me which answer is correct?
p.s. i think there should be a sticky post about this. reading through the previous conversations so many people ask about this!
Eating less than you need, you will lose weight.
If that ain't happening, see a doctor.
0 -
Eating less than you need, you will lose weight.
If that ain't happening, see a doctor.
Yup, and that's the bottom line. Regardless of whether your metabolism is slowing down or not, if you aren't losing, you are going to have to cut down on the calories even more. Or exercise more.
If you're fat, you really don't have to worry about any kind of "starvation mode".0 -
Given the context, I think a reasonably astute reader with average or better intelligence could infer that "need" means "need to maintain your current weight."
How much does a person need? I am not sure if i am understanding you correctly. If you eat less than you need, it will happen. Youd be in a calorie deficit. The word "need" is also kind of fishy. For me, i have 171lbs of LBM. 1g of protein (I don't have my calculator ) but i'll just round up to 200g protein. 800 calories, you can get your EFA in 10g or so, that's 90 calories. Micros you can get them from the protein sources, but just to be fair, lets add 50g of carbs, 200cals.
I think you misunderstood about starvation mode.Yeah Lemurcat12 gave the best answer. Of course your metabolism will slow down if you don't get a certain amount of calories and this is "starvation mode". The problem is, it won't be a sudden starvation mode. It takes years of a drastic caloric deficit before you see it, but it's still possible. I know many woman (overweight) who eat around 1200 calories a day but are very active. Yet, their calorie maintenance is 2800, yet they won't gain or lose a pound. People will then say they are lying, but those people Don't understand not everyone is fat from overeating. It's not as simple as just eat less or exercise more. If it was everyone would be perfect.
Also, anytime you eat at a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If someone says they are eating 1200 and not losing weight then they are eating more than they realize.
This answer contradicts what Pu_239 said above about the person in the stall out who was eating 1,100 calories and not losing any weight. Can anyone tell me which answer is correct?
p.s. i think there should be a sticky post about this. reading through the previous conversations so many people ask about this!
Eating less than you need, you will lose weight.
If that ain't happening, see a doctor.
we have 800 + 200 + 90 = 1090 calories. Keep in mind these numbers are inflated. This is "more" than what I "Need".
ETA: i can just take 1g away from protein giving me 170g * 4 = 680cals plus the 4 i took away earlier which gives me 684calories protein
684+ 200 + 90 = 974 cals total.
0 -
Someone can't. Presumably, that's why the post in question suggested getting a doctor involved if an apparent deficit wasn't resulting in lost weight.
Yes i understand that, due to my "below average" intelligence if a person eats less than what they "NEED" to maintain they weight, they will lose weight, that is a calorie deficit after all...so since this is false, I would greatly appreciate it if you can explain to me how someone can eat less than what they need to maintain thier weight and not lose weight,I am pretty slow at this, so can you please explain it..DeguelloTex wrote: »
Given the context, I think a reasonably astute reader with average or better intelligence could infer that "need" means "need to maintain your current weight."
How much does a person need? I am not sure if i am understanding you correctly. If you eat less than you need, it will happen. Youd be in a calorie deficit. The word "need" is also kind of fishy. For me, i have 171lbs of LBM. 1g of protein (I don't have my calculator ) but i'll just round up to 200g protein. 800 calories, you can get your EFA in 10g or so, that's 90 calories. Micros you can get them from the protein sources, but just to be fair, lets add 50g of carbs, 200cals.
I think you misunderstood about starvation mode.Yeah Lemurcat12 gave the best answer. Of course your metabolism will slow down if you don't get a certain amount of calories and this is "starvation mode". The problem is, it won't be a sudden starvation mode. It takes years of a drastic caloric deficit before you see it, but it's still possible. I know many woman (overweight) who eat around 1200 calories a day but are very active. Yet, their calorie maintenance is 2800, yet they won't gain or lose a pound. People will then say they are lying, but those people Don't understand not everyone is fat from overeating. It's not as simple as just eat less or exercise more. If it was everyone would be perfect.
Also, anytime you eat at a calorie deficit you will lose weight. If someone says they are eating 1200 and not losing weight then they are eating more than they realize.
This answer contradicts what Pu_239 said above about the person in the stall out who was eating 1,100 calories and not losing any weight. Can anyone tell me which answer is correct?
p.s. i think there should be a sticky post about this. reading through the previous conversations so many people ask about this!
Eating less than you need, you will lose weight.
If that ain't happening, see a doctor.
we have 800 + 200 + 90 = 1090 calories. Keep in mind these numbers are inflated. This is "more" than what I "Need".
ETA: i can just take 1g away from protein giving me 170g * 4 = 680cals plus the 4 i took away earlier which gives me 684calories protein
684+ 200 + 90 = 974 cals total.0 -
You'll notice -- or, apparently, you won't -- that I said "apparent." A 6'9" 250 pound guy eating 1200 calories and not losing weight probably has a medical issue, hence the need for a doctor. The deficit could be "apparent" because a medical issue is altering expected CO in CICO.
The "if that's not happening" clearly refers to the losing weight part of the statement, not the eating at a deficit part.
I'm not even sure if you even have a point to make here.0 -
Which is what the post you're trying to critique said. Basically verbatim. Then you go off on what "need" means, but use the exact same language to explain your "point." It's loony.DeguelloTex wrote: »You'll notice -- or, apparently, you won't -- that I said "apparent." A 6'9" 250 pound guy eating 1200 calories and not losing weight probably has a medical issue, hence the need for a doctor. The deficit could be "apparent" because a medical issue is altering expected CO in CICO.
The "if that's not happening" clearly refers to the losing weight part of the statement, not the eating at a deficit part.
I'm not even sure if you even have a point to make here.
My point is if you're eating less than you need, you will lose weight...
0 -
I'd agree innacurate logging is far more likely to be the culprit. The study shows that only LOW level exercise loses metabolism of 10-20%, which is a rather small amount of calories burned. The study also doesn't seem to establish the idea that this reduction is below what thin people burn - in fact, they had some people intentionally gain weight, and calculated their expenditures went UP. So the implication is, if anything, the energy use is going from high towards normal, rather than dropping below normal.maillemaker wrote: »I suspect most people probably chalk up the discrepancy to inaccurate logging. I've never hit the 2-pounds-per-week computed result. It could be because my reduced metabolism requires actually an even further deficit to achieve that. Or it could be that I am just not accurately logging. I tend to blame the latter rather than the former, but there is no way to know without getting very diligent about logging and staying under the calorie limit.
Anything using a blanket TDEE calculator is going to suffer. As pointed out, the biggest change that happens in weight loss is actually a reduction in NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). If you want to actually counter that, get an activity tracker and force yourself to keep it in the same range.maillemaker wrote: »The Advanced Scooby Calculator does have provision, however, for a "Compensation Factor" or some such to account for discrepancies between calculated performance and actual weight loss. Again those discrepancies could be due to poor logging or it could be due to the metabolism issue. When I went through the process of figuring out my own compensation factor, it worked out to about 250 calories or so - right in the range of what would be expected for the stated metabolic loss. Coincidence? It's possible. I still suspect incorrect logging as many of the things I eat, particularly for dinner, are a bother to measure.
My experience is, if you ever make diet about willpower, you're setting yourself up for a failure. Even though it can be built up and increased, willpower will always be a finite resource. Instead, one needs to look at making losing weight be the LESS mentally costly thing to do. For example, I batch cook and freeze meals on weekends that are already measured out. Then, reheating one of them in a microwave is less effort than even ordering something, doubly so when I think about the fact that ordering something is going to have a much larger cash cost.maillemaker wrote: »This is my take-away also. It appears that resistance training can force the body to not shut down the muscles. Unfortunately what this means is not only do you have to suffer the discomfort of caloric restriction, you also have to suffer the discomfort of exercise. In terms of willpower sapping, it's a double-whammy.
I had my sensitivity to cold go up a lot post losing weight, and for a while, being bothered by it was stalling my weight loss. In hindsight, I'd say resistance training seems to really reduce this, although it might just be that as I work out in my cooler basement, I was just fiddling with what temperature my body expects to be in.maillemaker wrote: »From your photos it appears that you run? If exercise counters the metabolic slowdown, then that may be doing the trick.
For my part, I experience many of the symptoms described. Sensitivity to cold. Hunger. Fatigue. But I don't exercise, at least at the start of a diet. It takes all I have to focus on the caloric deficit. Last year I focused on diet for about 3 months, then after I felt like I had a handle on controlling that I joined a gym. I lasted about 3 more months and then everything fell apart on Halloween. I'm contemplating joining Planet Fitness (it's only $10 a month) but I don't really have the time for it now that my wife and I are both working. I'll probably focus on swimming over the summer.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions