"Starvation Mode" and How to Fix
beatyfamily1
Posts: 257 Member
Apparently starvation mode is a real thing. It's just usually not referred to as "starvation mode". It offers ways on how to fix it. I thought this was an interesting and informative article by Dr. Jade Teta.
https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/truth-about-metabolic-damage?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article3624
https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/truth-about-metabolic-damage?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article3624
0
Replies
-
I've been on a low calorie diet for almost six weeks and have lost on average just over 2 pounds a week and I have an under treated underactive thyroid. I don't believe in starvation mode.27
-
Anorexia negates the "starvation" myth...25
-
There is no starvation mode. So Nothing to fix.14
-
beatyfamily1 wrote: »Apparently starvation mode is a real thing.
No, it isn't.
http://www.fattyfightsback.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
Furthermore, here are the main reasons people don't lose weight.
http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
12 -
I suggest reading the article before commenting.2
-
Of course he's going to say that....he's got a book to sell.8
-
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I suggest reading the article before commenting.
Are you an advanced lifter?8 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I suggest reading the article before commenting.
Nobody denies that metabolic damage is real (let alone conditions like hypothyroid or Hashimoto's). What you need to think about, though, is whether or not "starvation mode" is real in the way many people will tell you it is -- it's not something that will prevent weight loss for the average dieter and it certainly doesn't justify the many comments you will see on this (and other forums) telling someone who isn't losing weight that they should eat more to solve the problem.21 -
sonyadilworth wrote: »I've been on a low calorie diet for almost six weeks and have lost on average just over 2 pounds a week and I have an under treated underactive thyroid. I don't believe in starvation mode.
Yep, when I was still losing weight (about 40 lbs from 165 to 125) my thyroid was not treated at all while I had Hashimotos. CICO still holds true. I'm not in starvation mode either as my daily calorie needs went down pretty much as predicted by calorie calculators. Only difference is that my starting expenditure, and my current one are both about 200kcal higher than predicted. But I do have a good set of muscles
5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »beatyfamily1 wrote: »I suggest reading the article before commenting.
Are you an advanced lifter?
Shhhhh...this applies to everyone. You must not have read.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »beatyfamily1 wrote: »I suggest reading the article before commenting.
Nobody denies that metabolic damage is real (let alone conditions like hypothyroid or Hashimoto's). What you need to think about, though, is whether or not "starvation mode" is real in the way many people will tell you it is -- it's not something that will prevent weight loss for the average dieter and it certainly doesn't justify the many comments you will see on this (and other forums) telling someone who isn't losing weight that they should eat more to solve the problem.
Correct. No one is going to NOT lose weight by NOT eating enough.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
...Adaptive Thermogenesis
The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this.21 -
suzyjane1972 wrote: »Of course he's going to say that....he's got a book to sell.
He's also not even a Doctor of Medicine, he's a Doctor of Naturopathy...12 -
He also believes in adrenal fatigue7
-
MichelleLei1 wrote: »suzyjane1972 wrote: »Of course he's going to say that....he's got a book to sell.
He's also not even a Doctor of Medicine, he's a Doctor of Naturopathy...
1 -
My understanding is the only time starvation mode is real is when you're ACTUALLY starving, think holocaust survivors.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.2 -
I lost a lot on 500 calories a day plus 2 hours of cardio.3
-
Jade Teta isn't a source I would trust, even aside from the fact that the article is aimed at serious lifters.
It is true, of course, that metabolic adaptation is real, but that's not the same thing as the "starvation mode" that people talk about (your body is holding on to fat; you are eating too little to lose). Starving people lose weight, period, and eventually die if it goes on too long. They aren't "holding on to fat." Our bodies are well developed to withstand periods of famine, and holding on to fat when you lack food and need energy would not make sense (lowering metabolism does, but there are limits as to how much is possible).
Bigger issue is that he's going on about adrenal fatigue, which is not real: http://www.hormone.org/hormones-and-health/myth-vs-fact/adrenal-fatigue
All this aside, of course there are numerous reasons to have a deficit that is not overly aggressive, especially if you are exercising hard, and to do other things that are kind to yourself and reduce stress, like sleeping adequately (although I lost 95 lbs sleeping far too little most of the time). Also to the extent he talks about things like lack of energy and low motivation, those are signs of overtraining (among many others) and going to interview with fat loss success in many cases, and are among the good reasons not to cut too low. But that's not starvation mode as normally discussed, again.5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »beatyfamily1 wrote: »I suggest reading the article before commenting.
Are you an advanced lifter?
Shhhhh...this applies to everyone. You must not have read.
Sorry. I should not be so flippant about it. But as other mentioned, no one argues that there is in fact starvation mode. What is argued is that it in anyway applies to 99.9% of people trying to lose weight - it doesn't. It seems to have been inserted in the "diet community" as nothing more than science marketing at its' finest. And it has become an excuse for other tracking issues.
I have worked with clients while training, elite athletes, and the whole ranges of people, and I have seen some extreme examples of caloric deficit issues such as fatigue, lack of muscle build or even muscle diminishing, and even just last month a friend who does hardcore crossfit competitions was in the hospital for Marasmus. Those are all effects of improper/low caloric intake, but none of them had issues with not losing or even gaining weight. Actually, those symptoms and issues are precursors to actual starvation mode type metabolic changes. A system will give some strong feedback as such to let you know you are not getting enough nutrients/calories before actually starving. But you will lose weight.
Again, barring very extreme cases and true medical issues.
All the best.8 -
singingflutelady wrote: »beatyfamily1 wrote: »I suggest reading the article before commenting.
Are you an advanced lifter?
Shhhhh...this applies to everyone. You must not have read.
Sorry. I should not be so flippant about it. But as other mentioned, no one argues that there is in fact starvation mode. What is argued is that it in anyway applies to 99.9% of people trying to lose weight - it doesn't. It seems to have been inserted in the "diet community" as nothing more than science marketing at its' finest. And it has become an excuse for other tracking issues.
I have worked with clients while training, elite athletes, and the whole ranges of people, and I have seen some extreme examples of caloric deficit issues such as fatigue, lack of muscle build or even muscle diminishing, and even just last month a friend who does hardcore crossfit competitions was in the hospital for Marasmus. Those are all effects of improper/low caloric intake, but none of them had issues with not losing or even gaining weight. Actually, those symptoms and issues are precursors to actual starvation mode type metabolic changes. A system will give some strong feedback as such to let you know you are not getting enough nutrients/calories before actually starving. But you will lose weight.
Again, barring very extreme cases and true medical issues.
All the best.
Sorry I only said that because in #3 it mentions advanced lifters
1 -
"The Biology of Human Starvation" is a 1200-page book reporting a starvation study done back in 1940. They took 20+ college-age men of average weight and reduced their calories by 50%. This went on for weeks. The men lost weight - of course - and were reduced to walking skeletons. After the study ended, the men were gradually returned to their previous caloric intake levels. What they found was that the calories previously required to maintain a weight now caused those same people to gain weight.
This study was used to reefed the starving people after WW II: concentration camps, POW camps, and starving people in the countries affected by the war.
Call it what you want (starvation mode, or whatever), but they found that we should not reduce our calories by more than 75%.
Google it if you want: "Biology of Human Starvation".0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Sorry I only said that because in #3 it mentions advanced lifters
Ironically, as you pointed out the website is for the hardest of hardcore lifter and specifically addressed there. I would suspect all the supplements promoted can do some whack things to the body so I would be curious to see if it would apply to clean lifters as well. I just searched and did not see any studies though.
Cheers.
1 -
should be "used to re-feed"0
-
And don't reduce your calories below 75% of what you are eating. Not "by 75%". Sorry1
-
BarbaraJatmfp wrote: »"The Biology of Human Starvation" is a 1200-page book reporting a starvation study done back in 1940. They took 20+ college-age men of average weight and reduced their calories by 50%. This went on for weeks. The men lost weight - of course - and were reduced to walking skeletons. After the study ended, the men were gradually returned to their previous caloric intake levels. What they found was that the calories previously required to maintain a weight now caused those same people to gain weight.
This study was used to reefed the starving people after WW II: concentration camps, POW camps, and starving people in the countries affected by the war.
Call it what you want (starvation mode, or whatever), but they found that we should not reduce our calories by more than 75%.
Google it if you want: "Biology of Human Starvation".
Given that the men in the study lost weight, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you understand how people inaccurately use "starvation mode" in the context of advising people who aren't losing weight?5 -
The point of my post is that after starving, the calories those people ate no longer maintained their weight. The same number of calories caused them to gain weight. Starvation mode is not a good place to go. You will pay for it later.2
-
BarbaraJatmfp wrote: »The point of my post is that after starving, the calories those people ate no longer maintained their weight. The same number of calories caused them to gain weight. Starvation mode is not a good place to go. You will pay for it later.
But that isn't how "starvation mode" is typically used in discussions of weight loss. A common situation would be someone reporting that they have been at x number of calories for a few weeks and haven't lost weight and they receive the advice that they may be in "starvation mode" and they should eat more so they can lose weight.
Can metabolic changes take place if one eats a VLCD for an extended period of time? I don't think anyone in this discussion is denying that.
5 -
BarbaraJatmfp wrote: »"The Biology of Human Starvation" is a 1200-page book reporting a starvation study done back in 1940. They took 20+ college-age men of average weight and reduced their calories by 50%. This went on for weeks. The men lost weight - of course - and were reduced to walking skeletons. After the study ended, the men were gradually returned to their previous caloric intake levels. What they found was that the calories previously required to maintain a weight now caused those same people to gain weight.
This study was used to reefed the starving people after WW II: concentration camps, POW camps, and starving people in the countries affected by the war.
Call it what you want (starvation mode, or whatever), but they found that we should not reduce our calories by more than 75%.
Google it if you want: "Biology of Human Starvation".
Drawing this conclusion (or rather, the conclusion to "not reduce calories below 75% of what you are eating" as you rephrased it later in the thread) from the study you describe is spurious reasoning. Where is the group on 50% calorie reduction for a shorter period of time (i.e., less total weight loss), to be able to distinguish the effects of the %calorie reduction from the effects of becoming walking skeletons? Where is the group on 10% calorie reduction for a longer period time, so that they attain the same total weight loss of 20 men you describe (not a satisfactorily large study, also)?
Also, how can you draw conclusions about the effect of eating at "below 75% of what you are eating" (74%, 70% , 60%) from a study of individuals on a 50% reduction?
Finally, if someone is overeating substantially on their current calories (say, gaining a pound a week--which, for someone who suddenly realizes they've gained 10 or 15 pounds in the last few months is not unrealistic), eating at 75% of their current calories could well leave them at maintenance or even still in a slight surplus, so it's far too vague to be useful as general advice.
1 -
I'm sorry, but one article on t-nation.com by someone with "Dr." before their name doesn't make something real.
Dr. Jade Teta is a naturapath who makes a living selling books, workout programs, and training through his weight loss company whose primary message is "fixing" metabolic problems. In other words, he is far from an unbiased author.
Adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing, but it's not something the average dieter needs to worry about. If you severely restrict calories over a very long period of time, your metabolism will slow down over time. But we are talking about a large deficit over a long period of time with no breaks. That's why if you have a lot of weight to lose that will take years to complete, it is recommended that you take a couple of weeks every 3 or 4 months and eat at maintenance. But even though it's a real thing, it won't stop you from losing weight, it just slows it down a little. Otherwise anorexics, people who go on hunger fasts, starving people in war-torn countries wouldn't get to the point where they were skin and bones, they would just get sluggish wouldn't they?8 -
BarbaraJatmfp wrote: »The point of my post is that after starving, the calories those people ate no longer maintained their weight. The same number of calories caused them to gain weight. Starvation mode is not a good place to go. You will pay for it later.
Do you mean that their previous amount of maintenance calories caused them to gain more than what they weighed before?1 -
BarbaraJatmfp wrote: »"The Biology of Human Starvation" is a 1200-page book reporting a starvation study done back in 1940. They took 20+ college-age men of average weight and reduced their calories by 50%. This went on for weeks. The men lost weight - of course - and were reduced to walking skeletons. After the study ended, the men were gradually returned to their previous caloric intake levels. What they found was that the calories previously required to maintain a weight now caused those same people to gain weight.
This study was used to reefed the starving people after WW II: concentration camps, POW camps, and starving people in the countries affected by the war.
Call it what you want (starvation mode, or whatever), but they found that we should not reduce our calories by more than 75%.
Google it if you want: "Biology of Human Starvation".
Of course they'd gain on the calories they used to maintain at. They're dozens of pounds lighter and lost a bunch of lean mass.14
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
- 96.3K 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