"starvation mode" - myth or basis in fact?
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
My example used fractions of the metabolizable fat. If your fat can cover the deficit, the larger deficit doesn't make much, if any, difference.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).
This would be a percentage deficit, just like I talk about often. You seem to want to argue with me except that you are just rewording what I say. A 20% deficit for someone with low body fat is much smaller in absolute calories than a 20% deficit for a morbidly obese person. Either way that deficit could be appropriate for both. To determine maximum efficiency deficit would require strict monitoring in a way that most members are not willing or capable of doing.0 -
Here's a simple test: do you look like you've been starving? If yes, then you're in starvation mode. Otherwise, you're not in starvation mode.
0 -
Both. The body makes changes based on what it has to work with.
But you do not gain weight because you're starving. This is why people get thinner and eventually die when they starve.0 -
hamptontom wrote: »I just clicked on another thread that I thought might be a discussion of this phenomena, but it turned down another road entirely, so I figured I'd better ask a pointed question:
how many of you have participated in discussions regarding "starvation mode", where there's allegedly instructions written into your DNA that will reprogram your body's consumption of calories if it detects a sudden, significant drop in caloric intake? usually posed in this fashion:
"dude, you gotta eat...if you don't eat enough, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't be able to lose weight because your body will cling to every calorie you eat, and you won't be able to drop pounds because your body stops burning calories the way it's used to."
is that really a thing, or does CICO apply across the board, regardless of ratio or amount of intake?hamptontom wrote: »I just clicked on another thread that I thought might be a discussion of this phenomena, but it turned down another road entirely, so I figured I'd better ask a pointed question:
how many of you have participated in discussions regarding "starvation mode", where there's allegedly instructions written into your DNA that will reprogram your body's consumption of calories if it detects a sudden, significant drop in caloric intake? usually posed in this fashion:
"dude, you gotta eat...if you don't eat enough, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't be able to lose weight because your body will cling to every calorie you eat, and you won't be able to drop pounds because your body stops burning calories the way it's used to."
is that really a thing, or does CICO apply across the board, regardless of ratio or amount of intake?
It is a real thing. For example, you stop eating enough. Firstly your body is going to burn carbs. If starvation continue - you muscle tissue will be the next(because its maintenance requires a lot of energy). Last one will be fat.
No, that's almost entirely, completely wrong.0 -
-
0
-
No, I'm saying that if fat can cover, say, a 900 deficit, then an actual deficit of 700 won't take meaningfully more lean mass than a deficit of 300 in the same person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
My example used fractions of the metabolizable fat. If your fat can cover the deficit, the larger deficit doesn't make much, if any, difference.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).
This would be a percentage deficit, just like I talk about often. You seem to want to argue with me except that you are just rewording what I say. A 20% deficit for someone with low body fat is much smaller in absolute calories than a 20% deficit for a morbidly obese person. Either way that deficit could be appropriate for both. To determine maximum efficiency deficit would require strict monitoring in a way that most members are not willing or capable of doing.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying that if fat can cover, say, a 900 deficit, then an actual deficit of 700 won't take meaningfully more lean mass than a deficit of 300.DeguelloTex wrote: »
My example used fractions of the metabolizable fat. If your fat can cover the deficit, the larger deficit doesn't make much, if any, difference.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).
This would be a percentage deficit, just like I talk about often. You seem to want to argue with me except that you are just rewording what I say. A 20% deficit for someone with low body fat is much smaller in absolute calories than a 20% deficit for a morbidly obese person. Either way that deficit could be appropriate for both. To determine maximum efficiency deficit would require strict monitoring in a way that most members are not willing or capable of doing.
And you know how to calculate the exact amount fat each person can metabolize. Unless you have a definitive answer for that it's irrelevant. The OP was talking about an extreme deficit and my point of lean mass loss is valid.0 -
No, it's still incomplete. But we've gone full circle and you're starting to move goalposts, so that about wraps it up.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying that if fat can cover, say, a 900 deficit, then an actual deficit of 700 won't take meaningfully more lean mass than a deficit of 300.DeguelloTex wrote: »
My example used fractions of the metabolizable fat. If your fat can cover the deficit, the larger deficit doesn't make much, if any, difference.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).
This would be a percentage deficit, just like I talk about often. You seem to want to argue with me except that you are just rewording what I say. A 20% deficit for someone with low body fat is much smaller in absolute calories than a 20% deficit for a morbidly obese person. Either way that deficit could be appropriate for both. To determine maximum efficiency deficit would require strict monitoring in a way that most members are not willing or capable of doing.
And you know how to calculate the exact amount fat each person can metabolize. Unless you have a definitive answer for that it's irrelevant. The OP was talking about an extreme deficit and my point of lean mass loss is valid.
0 -
I was just about to suggest this! These peoples' bodies would definitely have triggered 'starvation mode' if that were a real thing. Yet, every woman on the show loses about 11 pounds and every guy loses about 25Watch Naked and Afraid. There is no way those people are getting the recommended number of calories and at the end they have lost a lot of weight.0 -
The body can metabolize 31kcal per LBS of fat mass. so as long as your deficit does not exceed that number then you should not burn a ton of LBM. Depending on diet of course. So if you carry 30 lbs of fat, that is 31 X 30 = 930 calories from fat can be burned / day0
-
There is some basis in fact here. No, you cannot just not eat one day and gain a ton of weight overnight. It doesn't happen like that. It's a throwback to our caveman ancestors who, in preservation of the species programming, when they might not have enough to eat would, indeed, hold onto weight. NOTE: they don't gain, but they won't lose weight as quickly as one might think. They ate little or nothing for long stretches and, in order to survive, their bodies would shut down a lot of the energy burn. So it's a slow process - not something you would notice overnight or even in a week or more. However, after a month or two of 'starvation dieting' and you find that you are not losing weight... chances are, it is, at least in part, due to the feast and famine 'programming' of our ancient ancestors.
It's not unlike a bear going into hibernation. The bear stokes up on a lot of food/fat to live off of throughout the winter sleep period. So, too, humans can find themselves in that same biological conundrum. The cellular-level human doesn't rationalize and reason the cause for the shortage of self-preservation calories. It only knows it isn't getting as much as it thinks it needs. So? It starts slowing down the metabolism to help preserve the calories and, therefore, the 'host' self.
Bottom line? If you attempt 'starvation dieting' you will not gain weight.
If you attempt 'starvation dieting' you WILL lose weight. It just may take three or four or five times longer to do so than it would had you followed a practical diet and exercise program. And, the result is that, in the end, while you may lose weight, you will not be healthy. The chemicals in your body can become imbalanced. That will affect your organs and how efficiently and effectively your body functions.
Sure, you can lose weight by not eating (Read up on Bobby Sands - Sinn Fein) or by eating minimally. But... The hazards are great, the rewards few. Why risk it?
Also, and on a different aspect of the question, don't fixate on the pound number! You can weigh more than another person of exactly the same size and approximate dimensions. But that other person will be flabby, a little on the 'porky' side, and carrying a lot more heart-killing body fat. If you really want to count your numbers - grab a measuring tape!
Now, that's not to say you should not be aware of your weight. Certainly you should. But that is only one aspect of the overall fitness process. You want to watch your weight. But, despite the fact that some people will aggressively argue against it, it is not the only, nor most important aspect. There is a symbiotic relationship in healthy weight loss between what you eat and how you use that energy from what you eat. Obviously, being overweight is not healthy. But, losing weight without keeping your body fit and conditioned in the process is not healthy, either.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it's still incomplete. But we've gone full circle and you're starting to move goalposts, so that about wraps it up.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying that if fat can cover, say, a 900 deficit, then an actual deficit of 700 won't take meaningfully more lean mass than a deficit of 300.DeguelloTex wrote: »
My example used fractions of the metabolizable fat. If your fat can cover the deficit, the larger deficit doesn't make much, if any, difference.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).
This would be a percentage deficit, just like I talk about often. You seem to want to argue with me except that you are just rewording what I say. A 20% deficit for someone with low body fat is much smaller in absolute calories than a 20% deficit for a morbidly obese person. Either way that deficit could be appropriate for both. To determine maximum efficiency deficit would require strict monitoring in a way that most members are not willing or capable of doing.
And you know how to calculate the exact amount fat each person can metabolize. Unless you have a definitive answer for that it's irrelevant. The OP was talking about an extreme deficit and my point of lean mass loss is valid.
How am I moving goal posts? The OP asked about starvation mode, specifically a significant drop in intake. My response was about that and I am trying to bring this back to the original topic and you are going off on an irrelevant tangent. If he is significantly under eating (which he admitted to eating 1000 calories sometimes, but usually 1200-1400) he will be using lean mass. If he increases his calories closer to maintenance he will lose less lean mass, which impacts BMR (as I stated) and also impacts the metabolic responses our bodies produce when we are in a deficit.0 -
How am I moving goal posts? The OP asked about starvation mode, specifically a significant drop in intake. My response was about that and I am trying to bring this back to the original topic and you are going off on an irrelevant tangent. If he is significantly under eating (which he admitted to eating 1000 calories sometimes, but usually 1200-1400) he will be using lean mass. If he increases his calories closer to maintenance he will lose less lean mass, which impacts BMR (as I stated) and also impacts the metabolic responses our bodies produce when we are in a deficit.
and frankly, that was exactly the information i was looking for when i posted...which, in laymans' terms, was to say that there actually is a degree of science that would indicate that maintaining a healthy caloric intake keeps your body from burning off the wrong firewood and maintains a healthy metabolic rate.
not trying to pile up on anyone or anything, but it's probably something of a newbie question in the first place (and befitting my stature)...wasn't trying to start a theoretical debate or anything like that.0 -
Minnesota starvation experiment. You should read it.0 -
I am honestly not saying this to be funny or sound like a jerk, but if you think about it, people with anorexia do not nearly meet their body's caloric needs and they have low body fat.0
-
How is it relevant to this thread? Those people were in dark ages because DNA wasn't discovered.
Minnesota starvation experiment. You should read it.
Let's be clear. If you are suggesting that 1500kcal diet is a starvation mode - it isn't for me. For example if u cut your kcal intake into a half you metabolism will slowdown for only 10%.
They were eating 1500 while burning a good 3500 or so. That's a starvation diet, as in they would have died of starvation if they had just kept the whole thing going.0 -
The body can metabolize 31kcal per LBS of fat mass. so as long as your deficit does not exceed that number then you should not burn a ton of LBM. Depending on diet of course. So if you carry 30 lbs of fat, that is 31 X 30 = 930 calories from fat can be burned / day
The Author of the study that produced the 31 above subsequently retracted it. There is no One number, and everything from macro ratios to activity level to meal timing affect it.
How is it relevant to this thread? Those people were in dark ages because DNA wasn't discovered.
Minnesota starvation experiment. You should read it.
Let's be clear. If you are suggesting that 1500kcal diet is a starvation mode - it isn't for me. For example if u cut your kcal intake into a half you metabolism will slowdown for only 10%.
I think you need to reread the posts you're responding to.
0 -
wisegeek.com/what-is-starvation-mode.htm
Read the blip under the guy with the red shirt on the lower left side of the screen for a definition that works for me. You have to be under 5-6% body fat to enter true starvation mode perhaps?0 -
Linking to this because it's a good layman's explination.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I was one of those people who used to advocate eating more because ... something something slow down ... etc. I didn't understand what I was talking about, but I'd been through a two-month stall that seemed to be fixed by eating more.
From my perspective at the time, it looked like a two-month stall that was solved by eating more. But eating more let me burn more through activity and it let me cut back on the cheat days. And with my renewed energy I got better about logging, not skipping workouts, etc. My metabolism hadn't slowed down at all. I just wasn't burning as much as I thought and was eating more than I realized.
Eating too little can be a problem. It makes it hard to get in enough nutrients and it can seriously affect your mood and energy levels. But none of that is starvation mode as it's commonly presented around here.
Dianne you describe the process of metabolic slow down known as adaptive thermogenesis... and you then proceed to say that your metabolism hadn't slowed down at all!
Your "metabolism" in the sense of your NEAT (reduced fidgeting, reduced activity, sleeps more, moves less) absolutely HAD slowed down as per your description.
AND your exercise had also slowed down (phoning the exercises in) resulting in a total drop of your TDEE.
If we don't call a reduction in TDEE caused by a reduction in NEAT and a reduction in exercise expenditure a slow down of your metabolism what is your definition of a slowed down metabolism?!!0 -
THIS.rainbowbow wrote: »Adaptive thermogenisis= real
"starvation mode"= myth
CICO always applies.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I was just about to suggest this! These peoples' bodies would definitely have triggered 'starvation mode' if that were a real thing. Yet, every woman on the show loses about 11 pounds and every guy loses about 25Watch Naked and Afraid. There is no way those people are getting the recommended number of calories and at the end they have lost a lot of weight.
Except that "starvation mode"/"adaptive thermogenesis" takes months and months of not eating enough to happen.0 -
80TAURUS80 wrote: »Sure you lose weight if you starve yourself but you will never be able to keep it up and will gain eventually.
^^The fact is, that more than 80% of people who lose weight, regain the weight they lost (often times gaining back even more weight) within 5 years. A very small percent actually keep the loss off for over 5 years. This is across the board, no matter how much(or little) weight is lost, surgery vs strict CICO, however the weight is lost. You will not keep the weight off unless you make a conscious effort to not overeat the number of calories your body needs to maintain a "normal" weight.
One of the main concerns of eating under 1200 calories is the ability of your body to get all the nutrients needed, which may lead to problems or health issues. This is a general guideline. Daily calorie amounts should be determined by each individual and their health care professional, not internet web sites.
Starvation mode is a myth. People can, and do, starve to death.
0 -
Starvation mode doesn't happen quickly. It takes weeks of purposeful low calorie intake. And when I say low, I mean less than 500 net cals all day long with a normal amount of activity and exercise. Weeks of that every single day. It took me a full 3 months of that to get into starvation mode under a doctor's care.
Once you get into starvation mode, you will lose your hair, your fingernails will stop growing, your skin will get dull and will often crack and bleed, your gums will recede and bleed regularly, you'll hold water weight because your kidneys don't function well, you'll constantly be weak, you will often lie on the floor shaking because your muscles are having small seizures due to lack of calories. The shaking passes once your body burns enough fat to get your muscles some energy, but that can take 20 minutes or even an hour.
I know all of this because I'm a bariatric patient post-surgery and my doctor is doing this to me on purpose. Hey, it's this or my heart gives out. Starvation mode as dieters know it is a myth. When you start starving, you'll know it in every fiber of your being.
And my standard disclaimer... This is not an acceptable diet unless directed and supervised by a doctor specializing in weight loss.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions