is starvation mode real
Tjs8819
Posts: 33 Member
.....or a myth??
2
Replies
-
Myth5
-
In the context of dieting it is a myth.3
-
Myth1
-
Myth1
-
hmm, that's interesting they all think that. I wonder why they think that.1
-
Weird, huh.1
-
hmm, that's interesting they all think that. I wonder why they think that.
"They" :laugh: (who ever "they" are) think that because it was what was commonly taught not so long ago... I'm guessing those of you that are so mystified were lucky enough not to have learned that and then had to unlearn it. I'm being serious... to learn all that junk and then have to unlearn it... what a waste of time.
Not too many years ago on MFP it was widely believed & taught... same as other weight loss sites, bodybuilding sites etc. Then it was debunked... no different than eggs once being evil because of the fats etc. etc.
EDIT: I did want to clarify my post was not intended to be snarky or rude. That was not my intention and I do hope it didn't come across that way.
Merely insight on why ppl may come on here and asked this particular question or others similar. 3 -
Starvation mode is a myth, but there are other complications that come with chronic under-eating.14
-
What's your opinion OP?
2 -
There is really such a thing as starvation. However, the idea well fed people will somehow quit losing weight because they are starving is utter nonsense.13
-
Watch out op "starvation mode" triggers a lot of passion here lol
Starvation mode is a myth. Fantasy. There is something called adaptive thermogenesis which is a much better explanation. When we starve, after using all our fat sources (because we lose weight when we starve we do not hold onto it) and our muscle store for energy, our bodies use stores from internal organs to fuel energy and then... there is nothing. A dismal ending (obviously in the extreme cases where people have died from anorexia)
Starvation mode is a psychological excuse and a way into our pockets through the diet industry to sell miricle weight loss cures.
I too thought starvation mode real, but there is NO scientific evidence supporting this. It simply does not exist.3 -
Depends what you mean. Is there a special switch in your brain that makes you gain weight on less food (the 'eat more to lose' idea)? Nope. Absolutely not.
Does your body have physiological responses to maximise your survival chances during a famine? Yep!
This is an easy, clear read on the subject:
https://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
2 -
It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.1
-
It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.6 -
It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
But if you're eating at a deficit, you are not going to stay fat, or get more fat.3 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Oh please.
Rude. Some ppl ask questions because they really want to know the truth and have been informed or misinformed. Treating htem like they are stupid for not knowing something is flat out RUDE. Ignorance is NOT stupidity.
However there exists a search function for information--"starvation mode" has been asked over and over for years. If you do a search you'll quickly see what I mean. Newbies should lurk for awhile and learn, in my opinion.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
I feel that logically doesn't follow. Eating disorders would only debunk that post, if @kaizaku had said something like 'metabolic damage stops you losing weight beyond x amount', which Kaizaku didn't. It was "can slow down weight loss' not 'entirely prevents' and "reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance". Didn't say 100% successful or people couldn't become underweight with long-term effort.It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.
2 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I feel that logically doesn't follow. Eating disorders would only debunk that post, if @kaizaku had said something like 'metabolic damage stops you losing weight beyond x amount', which Kaizaku didn't. It was "can slow down weight loss' not 'entirely prevents' and "reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance". Didn't say 100% successful or people couldn't become underweight with long-term effort.It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.
Ya along these lines - isn't it true that people who have eaten at a severe (and unhealthy) deficit for a long time do damage their metabolism? In that later, when they switch to maintenance, their body requires fewer calories to maintain then another person of their same weight (who didn't have the unhealthy deficit). Is that the 'adaptive' change that people are referring to? I've just read of this phenomenon on another thread and am trying to keep this all straight. (I know that "starvation mode" as people use it generally in weight loss isn't a thing)1 -
It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.
Actually, there is scientific evidence that a 500 calorie deficit for 8 weeks causes an additional 10% reduction in NEAT. That is, the subjects NEAT is 10% lower than it would be naturally as a consequence of the weight loss. The same study demonstrated that this 10% additional decline in NEAT was reversed by feeding the subjects at maintenance for a week.
Since most of us lose weight this way, going through days and weeks of calorie deficits interrupted by days or weeks of calorie maintenance or surplus, we demonstrate that we lose weight without any demonstrably permanent reduction in our NEAT. We accidentally avoid the damage with our refeeds, cheats, IDGAFs, and 'life happens'.5 -
It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.
Plenty of overweight people who have eating disorders but still haven't lost any weight.1 -
It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.
Plenty of overweight people who have eating disorders but still haven't lost any weight.
Undereating eating disorders?3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.
There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.
Actually, there is scientific evidence that a 500 calorie deficit for 8 weeks causes an additional 10% reduction in NEAT. That is, the subjects NEAT is 10% lower than it would be naturally as a consequence of the weight loss. The same study demonstrated that this 10% additional decline in NEAT was reversed by feeding the subjects at maintenance for a week.
Since most of us lose weight this way, going through days and weeks of calorie deficits interrupted by days or weeks of calorie maintenance or surplus, we demonstrate that we lose weight without any demonstrably permanent reduction in our NEAT. We accidentally avoid the damage with our refeeds, cheats, IDGAFs, and 'life happens'.
I think 'starvation mode' is just a misleading name and often abused to criticize other people health lifestyles. Similarly, calling everything that doesn't fit in ones lifestyle a "fad diet".1 -
.....or a myth??
Depends what you mean by "starvation mode." Usually people mean "you eat so little your body starts hording fat or won't burn it off -- and gets energy from somewhere else without explanation -- and so you actually don't lose at all or even gain." That's not a thing.
Others, like Leigh Peele, use it to refer to what happens when you eat low over an extended period of time (perhaps lower than you should be), especially when you have less fat to lose, such that your BMR/TDEE is lower than it otherwise could or should be -- metabolic adaptation, mainly, plus maybe some additional hormonal things. I have read some good stuff from Lyle McDonald on it too, and it's commonly addressed through things like reverse dieting. I wouldn't call that starvation mode, however, as it's so commonly used for the other thing, and also it's not like flicking a switch so that you are in it or not.
There's typically some decline in TDEE beyond what it would normally be, all else equal, with weight loss of more than 10% or so, but it seems like it varies and can be mitigated through how you lose it, as well as by intentionally increasing activity (especially low intensity activity that you don't perceive as exercise).1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: ».....or a myth??
Depends what you mean by "starvation mode." Usually people mean "you eat so little your body starts hording fat or won't burn it off -- and gets energy from somewhere else without explanation -- and so you actually don't lose at all or even gain." That's not a thing.
Others, like Leigh Peele, use it to refer to what happens when you eat low over an extended period of time (perhaps lower than you should be), especially when you have less fat to lose, such that your BMR/TDEE is lower than it otherwise could or should be -- metabolic adaptation, mainly, plus maybe some additional hormonal things. I have read some good stuff from Lyle McDonald on it too, and it's commonly addressed through things like reverse dieting. I wouldn't call that starvation mode, however, as it's so commonly used for the other thing, and also it's not like flicking a switch so that you are in it or not.
There's typically some decline in TDEE beyond what it would normally be, all else equal, with weight loss of more than 10% or so, but it seems like it varies and can be mitigated through how you lose it, as well as by intentionally increasing activity (especially low intensity activity that you don't perceive as exercise).
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: ».....or a myth??
Depends what you mean by "starvation mode." Usually people mean "you eat so little your body starts hording fat or won't burn it off -- and gets energy from somewhere else without explanation -- and so you actually don't lose at all or even gain." That's not a thing.
Others, like Leigh Peele, use it to refer to what happens when you eat low over an extended period of time (perhaps lower than you should be), especially when you have less fat to lose, such that your BMR/TDEE is lower than it otherwise could or should be -- metabolic adaptation, mainly, plus maybe some additional hormonal things. I have read some good stuff from Lyle McDonald on it too, and it's commonly addressed through things like reverse dieting. I wouldn't call that starvation mode, however, as it's so commonly used for the other thing, and also it's not like flicking a switch so that you are in it or not.
There's typically some decline in TDEE beyond what it would normally be, all else equal, with weight loss of more than 10% or so, but it seems like it varies and can be mitigated through how you lose it, as well as by intentionally increasing activity (especially low intensity activity that you don't perceive as exercise).
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
There's a really good interview with him on Sigma Nutrition too: https://sigmanutrition.com/episode65/2 -
Of course.0
-
I re-read this thread and I have just had a penny drop about how misunderstandings arise and are perpetuated and why threads about starvation mode mostly turn into people yelling past each other.
Person A says: Too aggressive a deficit will trigger physiological responses to conserve energy in order to slow down the rate at which you lose.
Person B hears: if you diet drastically for six weeks by eating too little, you will lose less weight over that time than you would if you ate at a moderate deficit.
Person B accepts this and tells everyone else. This becomes 'you have to eat more to lose weight'.
Person C reads the same as person B ... and thinks "LOLOLOL. You're saying that you will lose less weight if you eat less? So what? If two identical twins go on diets and one is on a 1300 calorie diet and the other is on 1800, the one who eats more will weigh less? Can you even science?" Then they post something curt about concentration camps, asking how come people can die of starvation if starvation mode exists.
Both B and C are misinterpreting. When poster A says 'slows weight loss', A doesn't mean that you will lose weight more quickly on a 500 calories deficit than a 750 calorie deficit. That would be absurd. A is in fact talking about diminishing returns.
Let me expand on that. Basic arithmetic will tell you that if I want to save 100 dollars/pounds/Simoleans for something, and I save one a week, it will take me 100 weeks. If I save two a week, it'll halve the time until I can afford it. So far, so bleedin' obvious, yes?
The bleedin' obvious, applied to weight loss, says if you have a deficit of 100 calories a day (caution: made up numbers for ease of example!) and lose 0.5lbs a week, then a deficit of 200 calories per day will mean you lose 1lb.
I expect this is true. However, the body is not a simple machine. It is an immensely complex living organism, with more emergency protocols than the emergency services, so if you consistently eat at too large a deficit, this will trigger physiological responses to attempt to compensate, and our made-up(!) simple arithmetical relationship of 100 calories per day equalling 0.5lbs after a week will no longer hold true above a certain ceiling.
It's a bit like the money analogy- if I want to save a lot each week, I will have to cut back on luxury spending. In this case, the body, responding to the drop in income (i.e. calories), will cut back on unnecessary movement, such as fidgeting.
For the purposes of this example, if you want to lose 3lbs a week, a deficit of 600 cals a day (an extrapolation from our purported 100 cals per 0.5lb) is no longer enough due to compensation measures, and it needs to be 850 a day. 3.5lbs might be 1115 calories a day. And thus, diminishing returns. You need to work far harder, i.e. eat less, to lose each additional 0.5 lbs if you want to lose it fast, and the impact of the deficit has been slowed beyond your projected calculation.
So if you are losing weight for your health or personal goals, staying up within the range that maximises the effect of every 100 calorie drop seems most productive.
Let me reiterate something at the end of all this. Yes, people do die of starvation. It is a slow and horrific way to die and all of the above is why . Referencing Bergen-Belsen or the liberation of Auschwitz or the death rates of people with untreated anorexia does not disprove the existence of these processes: it illustrates how effective they are.
If it were not for these processes, fewer people would survive prolonged starvation and the victims would have died far more quickly without the months of suffering they endured.
6 -
. I'm guessing those of you that are so mystified were lucky enough not to have learned that and then had to unlearn it. I'm being serious... to learn all that junk and then have to unlearn it... what a waste of time.
the forums on bodybuilding dot com poisoned me when I was younger. Starvation mode, eating every 2-3 hours, fasted cardio, etc. I call it broscience, and I credit the people on that forum for keeping me from my fitness goals when I was younger.
"YOU'RE NOT EATING ENOUGH BRO" .... "YOU GOTTA BULK BRO" .....
I was eating 2400 calories a day and wondering why I could never get lean.
MFP was a little hard to swallow at first, telling me I need to only eat 1500 cals+exercise, sounded so low, but turns out it is accurate and for the first time I am almost completely lean.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
Actually, there is scientific evidence that a 500 calorie deficit for 8 weeks causes an additional 10% reduction in NEAT. That is, the subjects NEAT is 10% lower than it would be naturally as a consequence of the weight loss. The same study demonstrated that this 10% additional decline in NEAT was reversed by feeding the subjects at maintenance for a week.
That's metabolic changes, not weight gain as a result of eating fewer calories.JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Since most of us lose weight this way, going through days and weeks of calorie deficits interrupted by days or weeks of calorie maintenance or surplus, we demonstrate that we lose weight without any demonstrably permanent reduction in our NEAT. We accidentally avoid the damage with our refeeds, cheats, IDGAFs, and 'life happens'.
That's anecadata, not science.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions