Debunking starvation mode

damdam96

I was hoping someone could explain starvation mode to me - is it a myth? What causes it?

I am a couple of months into my weight loss journey and I am so proud of my consistency. I'm currently sticking to 1,200 calories a day - I love the food that I am eating so this hasn't been too hard (most of the time). I've also cut out refined carbs e.g. pasta, rice, bread. But I'm often unintentionally about 100 calories under. What effect will this have on my progress?

I'm really wary of unreliable scales so only weigh myself when I can get to a pharmacy (usually every 10 days) so most of the time rely on measurements and how loose my clothes are getting. So far I've lost nearly 8kg this way.

I just want to learn more about this and how to maintain losing weight....

T0M_K

Starvation is typically not a thing for most of the modern world. what will happen is your body will use up your muscle for energy if you don't eat enough and that is never desirable. So weight is a marathon, not a sprint..something that i struggle with.

To have the ultimate long-term success...you need to log your calories intake accurately by selecting "good" entries in the database and you must weigh your food, solids in grams, liquids in ounces. A good friend of mine turned me on to finding the entries using USDA...that seems to be reliable.

when you are ready to maintain, start by adding maybe 100 or 200 calories to your day for a couple weeks or more and see how your body responds. adjust as necessary.

Just remember, your activity level plays a role, so if you've been active during your weightloss period and aren't during maintenance, you have to adjust for that. Calories in vs Calories out.

cmriverside

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

estherdragonbat

Starvation mode is a myth. If it weren't, then people who are actually starving wouldn't be emaciated skin and bones. Starvation response is a thing, though. That's when your body starts to shut down less-essential functions in a desperate effort to stay alive despite minimal fuel.

Check this out: http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

Excerpted:

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.

(Scroll down for an explanation of Starvation Response.)

stanmann571

estherdragonbat wrote: »

Starvation mode is a myth. If it weren't, then people who are actually starving wouldn't be emaciated skin and bones. Starvation response is a thing, though. That's when your body starts to shut down less-essential functions in a desperate effort to stay alive despite minimal fuel.

Check this out: http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

Excerpted:

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.

(Scroll down for an explanation of Starvation Response.)

Another aspect of this is that for chronic yo yoers who have ridden the train more than a few times , using VLCD and for those who have had ED there is potential for permanent adaptation... meaning that.. they will maintain at 200-500 calories lower than someone who has not abused their metabolism.

Finally, It's possible to mix the adaptations for the worst of both worlds... and this is not to be confused with IF(which is deliberate and structured)

BY-- exercising aggressively, having multiple days with VLCD and binge days... End result of this worst of both worlds is gaining weight, losing strength and experiencing the symptoms of prolonged VLCD.

ndj1979

Also, see Minnesota starvation study

kshama2001

damdam96 wrote: »

I was hoping someone could explain starvation mode to me - is it a myth? What causes it?

I am a couple of months into my weight loss journey and I am so proud of my consistency. I'm currently sticking to 1,200 calories a day - I love the food that I am eating so this hasn't been too hard (most of the time). I've also cut out refined carbs e.g. pasta, rice, bread. But I'm often unintentionally about 100 calories under. What effect will this have on my progress?

I'm really wary of unreliable scales so only weigh myself when I can get to a pharmacy (usually every 10 days) so most of the time rely on measurements and how loose my clothes are getting. So far I've lost nearly 8kg this way.

I just want to learn more about this and how to maintain losing weight....

Undereating won't affect your progress, but it could affect your health. How tall are you, how much weight do you want to lose total, and what's your weekly weight loss goal?

Also, if you exercise, do you eat back any portion of the calories you earned from exercise? I'm wondering if your 1100 calories is gross or net.

damdam96

Thanks for the info so far! Of course, I'm trying to keep to my calorie goal - I want a sustainable loss but just wondering what happens when I don't. Some days I get to the end of the day realise I'm a 100 under and I hate eating to fill a goal....

I'm currently at 82 kg, I'm 5ft 5 and have about 50 pounds left to lose until I'm in a healthy bmi. My main form of exercise is currently interval running and zumba, I burn between 500-1000 calories a day doing this and I don't eat back my calories burnt.

AnvilHead

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/

"...Because in no study that i have ever seen or ever been aware of has the drop in metabolic rate (whether due to the drop in weight or adaptive component) EVER exceeded the actual deficit whether in men or women. Fine, yes, it may offset things, it may slow fat loss (i.e. if you set up a 30% caloric deficit and metabolic rate drops by 20%, your deficit is only 10% so fat loss is a lot slower than expected or predicted) but it has never been sufficient to either stop fat loss completely (or, even to address the even stupider claim being made about this, to cause actual fat gain).

But even when the drop in metabolic rate is massive, sufficient to drastically slow fat loss, even when it occurs it’s only when that person’s body has more or less reached the limits of leanness in the first place. So for ‘hundreds of women who are self-reporting this in emails’ to a certain coach to exist, well; just let me call that what it is: *kitten*..."

rsclause

At some point metabolism will slow when "starving" but a person will not only look bad they would feel bad. The myth part is where while in deficit people think your body can outsmart the deficit and maintain or increase weight. This could only be somewhat true if someone dramatically changed their activity level from active to something like bedridden. We all know that if your activity level changes than the math on deficit must also change with it.

stealthq

damdam96 wrote: »

Thanks for the info so far! Of course, I'm trying to keep to my calorie goal - I want a sustainable loss but just wondering what happens when I don't. Some days I get to the end of the day realise I'm a 100 under and I hate eating to fill a goal....

I'm currently at 82 kg, I'm 5ft 5 and have about 50 pounds left to lose until I'm in a healthy bmi. My main form of exercise is currently interval running and zumba, I burn between 500-1000 calories a day doing this and I don't eat back my calories burnt.

That's leaving a lot of energy on the table, unless we assume you're not burning as much as you think you are (many don't) and you're eating more than you think you are (many do).

You're probably at the point where you ought to be concerned about losing more muscle mass than necessary over the long term. Plus, with low calories proper nutrition becomes harder to fit in, so there is a risk there as well although that one you can manage if you plan properly.

Eventually, if you are eating and burning what you think you are I'd expect noticeable effects from adaptive thermogenesis to kick in - fatigue, cold all the time, hungrier than normal, etc.

lemurcat12

damdam96 wrote: »

Thanks for the info so far! Of course, I'm trying to keep to my calorie goal - I want a sustainable loss but just wondering what happens when I don't. Some days I get to the end of the day realise I'm a 100 under and I hate eating to fill a goal....

I'm currently at 82 kg, I'm 5ft 5 and have about 50 pounds left to lose until I'm in a healthy bmi.

Actually, that puts you at about 180, and a healthy BMI starts at around 150 for someone 5'5, so only about 30 lbs away. 130 could be a perfectly reasonable goal weight, of course, but I wanted to point out that you aren't that far above a healthy BMI.

My main form of exercise is currently interval running and zumba, I burn between 500-1000 calories a day doing this and I don't eat back my calories burnt.

That's a really aggressive deficit if you really are eating 1100 and burning 500-1000, although people often miscalculate. I'd recommend eating back some of your exercise calories if your base is so low and you do intense exercise.

That said, how much are you currently losing per week and for how long?

damdam96

lemurcat12 wrote: »

damdam96 wrote: »

Thanks for the info so far! Of course, I'm trying to keep to my calorie goal - I want a sustainable loss but just wondering what happens when I don't. Some days I get to the end of the day realise I'm a 100 under and I hate eating to fill a goal....

I'm currently at 82 kg, I'm 5ft 5 and have about 50 pounds left to lose until I'm in a healthy bmi.

Actually, that puts you at about 180, and a healthy BMI starts at around 150 for someone 5'5, so only about 30 lbs away. 130 could be a perfectly reasonable goal weight, of course, but I wanted to point out that you aren't that far above a healthy BMI.

My main form of exercise is currently interval running and zumba, I burn between 500-1000 calories a day doing this and I don't eat back my calories burnt.

That's a really aggressive deficit if you really are eating 1100 and burning 500-1000, although people often miscalculate. I'd recommend eating back some of your exercise calories if your base is so low and you do intense exercise.

That said, how much are you currently losing per week and for how long?

I always get the bmi calculations wrong, didn't realise I was only 30 pounds away from healthy! Of course, I'm just using that baseline - I'll keep going until I'm feeling 100% fit and healthy.

I only really exercise 5 out of the 7 days a week and standard calorie burn is 600 which I think is reasonable. My exercising is never usually that intense either, I just do it for longer e.g. jog slowly for a couple of hours rather than a 30 minute run. I only get up about twice a week 1000 when I really push myself.

I also eat pretty healthily - lots of proteins and veg which I think is why I have more energy now than I have had in the past and I'm also less hungry.

AllisonS79

Do you think gaining muscle by doing strength training with weights or body weight workouts , can counter any effects of the slowing metabolism? So if your body adjusts to fewer calories by slightly slowing your metabolism, do you think you could speed it back up by gaining muscle?

CSARdiver

AllisonS79 wrote: »

Do you think gaining muscle by doing strength training with weights or body weight workouts , can counter any effects of the slowing metabolism? So if your body adjusts to fewer calories by slightly slowing your metabolism, do you think you could speed it back up by gaining muscle?

The "slowing down" of metabolism is largely due to diminishing muscle mass. This is the primary driver of metabolism, e.g. the gender metabolic gap.

kimny72

OP, if I'm doing my conversion correctly, you are losing around 2 lbs per week. Considering you have less than 50 lbs to go, that is a pretty aggressive pace. While I don't think you need to worry about your metabolism, you do need to worry about unnecessary muscle loss. I would suggest pre-planning/ pre-logging at least some of your meals to ensure you at least hit 1200, and eat back a portion of your exercise calories. Even if your exercise burns are inflated, it sounds like you are netting under 1,000 cals per day, which is not healthy. Your body needs fuel, and you can undereat for a short time and not feel it, but it doesn't mean it isn't doing damage, plus you are way more likely to hit a wall and end up rebounding. I would be aiming for a loss of 1 lb per week if I were you, just my 2 cents :drinker:

psuLemon

AllisonS79 wrote: »

Do you think gaining muscle by doing strength training with weights or body weight workouts , can counter any effects of the slowing metabolism? So if your body adjusts to fewer calories by slightly slowing your metabolism, do you think you could speed it back up by gaining muscle?

The amount of calories burned by muscle is not as much as people want to believe; in fact, it's roughly 4-6 calories a day. The only people I know who have seen significant increase in Energy Expenditure (EE), are ones that have gained 30lb+.

But weight training can prevent reductions to metabolism, but there are also other components to consider (because you burn calories outside of metabolism).

Having said that, I have maintained my TDEE of ~3K my entire weight loss (from 220 down to 173 currently). But I correlate that to transient increase in NEAT and TEA.

lemurcat12

I do think people often don't realize what a difference daily activity can make. I haven't noticed any reduction of TDEE from where it should be for someone of my size, but remembering that just being regularly active -- walking when possible instead of driving/cabbing, making an effort to get up off and on, walk around when possible, pacing at the L stop rather than sitting there, can end up giving me a non exercise TDEE of about 1800-1900, vs the 1550 I'd have if truly sedentary. That outweighs any decline, and isn't the sort of activity that makes me feel more hungry.

I also wonder if I'm weird, but one thing I noticed when I started losing weight was that I seemed to have more energy and was moving around more, bouncing, more likely to be moving my legs or tapping my fingers or the like. That's supposed to reduce with a reduction of calories, but I almost think I was eating myself into being more still and when I took control a more natural restlessness came back.

acorsaut89

damdam96 wrote: »

Thanks for the info so far! Of course, I'm trying to keep to my calorie goal - I want a sustainable loss but just wondering what happens when I don't. Some days I get to the end of the day realise I'm a 100 under and I hate eating to fill a goal....

I'm currently at 82 kg, I'm 5ft 5 and have about 50 pounds left to lose until I'm in a healthy bmi. My main form of exercise is currently interval running and zumba, I burn between 500-1000 calories a day doing this and I don't eat back my calories burnt.

So, wait . . . are you eating 1,200 net? Or 1,200 total? That is a huge difference.

Also, from what you're saying it sounds kind of aggressive . . . how long have you been doing this? Sorry if you posted that originally, or since, I just didn't catch it.

mph323

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I do think people often don't realize what a difference daily activity can make. I haven't noticed any reduction of TDEE from where it should be for someone of my size, but remembering that just being regularly active -- walking when possible instead of driving/cabbing, making an effort to get up off and on, walk around when possible, pacing at the L stop rather than sitting there, can end up giving me a non exercise TDEE of about 1800-1900, vs the 1550 I'd have if truly sedentary. That outweighs any decline, and isn't the sort of activity that makes me feel more hungry.

I also wonder if I'm weird, but one thing I noticed when I started losing weight was that I seemed to have more energy and was moving around more, bouncing, more likely to be moving my legs or tapping my fingers or the like. That's supposed to reduce with a reduction of calories, but I almost think I was eating myself into being more still and when I took control a more natural restlessness came back.

This has been my experience too. As a child I was very thin and in constant motion. As an overweight adult I tended to do more quiet sitting and less general movement. Now that I'm back to a healthy weight I find myself fidgeting when I sit, wandering around when talking on the phone, tapping my feet when I'm standing in line, that sort of thing. I don't think it's weird at all