MFP/Starvation Mode

thanos5

from the MFP blog:



why do they believe in starvation mode?

ETA: changed my wording from 'promote' to 'believe in'.

LyndaBSS

Who's promoting it?

thanos5

i worded that poorly, edited it to reflect.

LyndaBSS

It's interesting. If you google starvation mode, it tends to reflect the phrase as referred to in extreme dieting.

If you google starvation state, it seems to reflect actual starvation.

If you noted, in the blog article, they were referring to long-term calorie deprivation.

missysippy930

A lot of things show up up in the blog that are controversial. Don’t know their actual stand, perhaps just putting it out there. You can find things to back anything up on the internet. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily factual.

LyndaBSS

Trust me, I'm not one of those people who trust everything they read on the Internet.

kimny72

They believe in starvation mode because it's one of the myths that keeps people running around in circles and blaming the wrong things, therefore making them more likely to extend their Premium membership and buy more and more products from their advertising partners.

ctyolene

I'm taking part in a clinical trial of a new weight loss drug and according to the doctors there, 1200 is the lowest they recommend you drop your calories while dieting - unless you are under medical supervision (as I am on the trial) and then they have no problems with cals dropping to 500 or 600 a day. Just keep your protein high so as not to lose muscle.

missysippy930

ctyolene wrote: »

I'm taking part in a clinical trial of a new weight loss drug and according to the doctors there, 1200 is the lowest they recommend you drop your calories while dieting - unless you are under medical supervision (as I am on the trial) and then they have no problems with cals dropping to 500 or 600 a day. Just keep your protein high so as not to lose muscle.

That’s very low calories, even with medical supervision. I hope they’re monitoring your test group very closely.

nutmegoreo

More evidence that the blog is fluff and drivel.

MikePTY

It's a good time to talk about "starvation mode" now that the woo button is disabled

The blog is not representative of the views of the MFP forum community. It's basically, to put it mildly, a giant woo pit that exists solely to drive clicks and shares. I would not use it as a reliable source of information on anything diet related.

Regarding "starvation mode" - the issue is that both people who are pro the idea and against the idea tend to misrepresent what it is, and what your body actually does and doesn't do when you deprive it of calories. I don't think anyone believes that if you actually starve your body enough, you will stop losing weight. This is sometimes made as an argument against starvation mode, but it's a little bit of a strawman, focusing on a literal interpretation of phrase rather than how people are actually intending it. People who believe in starvation mode tend to believe that if you eat a low but not literal starvation level calorie amount, your body will slow your metabolism enough to sustain itself on the limited calories you provide it.

This belief about "starvation mode", is still predominately false. There doesn't exist a mechanism where by if your calories are too low, your body stops losing weight. Your body isn't capable of making a conscious decision to "hold on to the fat stores" as is claimed in the article. However a person who is over-restricting for a long time can see a reduction in amount of calories they burn over time, slowing down the weight loss process. This is from a handful of factors that are generally logical, without requiring any made up explanation. Basically as you lose weight, your body requires less calories to sustain itself, so your BMR is lower. This affects everyone, regardless of how they lose weight. The second aspect is the one that could be closest tied to "hey if you restrict too much, it has negative consequences" is that there is some evidence showing that if people restrict too much they can slow down their NEAT by moving less and being less active, such as fidgeting less, etc, and that can reduce the number of calories burned each day. It's certainly not enough to offset eating at a very low calorie rate, but it can slow down the process vs. what one would expect.

MikePTY

ctyolene wrote: »

I'm taking part in a clinical trial of a new weight loss drug and according to the doctors there, 1200 is the lowest they recommend you drop your calories while dieting - unless you are under medical supervision (as I am on the trial) and then they have no problems with cals dropping to 500 or 600 a day. Just keep your protein high so as not to lose muscle.

"Medical supervision" does not necessarily make something safer. You will still likely lose muscle, even with your protein intake being okay. They likely have you under close supervision to see how the trial affects you, and to see if you have any negative health effects. After all, that's the purpose of trials, to test whether or not something is safe to do.

robertw486

Though I'm not a fan of the term(s) "starvation mode" or "starvation state" I think it's often used as a term that just about everyone would understand. And as such it becomes controversial and debated to the end of the world.

But there are loads of studies showing that adaptive thermogenesis is a real and proven fact, and that larger calorie deficits can influence it. If we keep reading below the screen shot portion in the original post, good advice is given that would sway people away from those larger deficits.

---

"Plus, it’s hard to maintain a severe caloric deficit. When your body doesn’t get the energy it needs to function, it spikes your hunger hormones, causing you to seek food. “You could end up gaining weight in the end, ironically,” Hultin says.

It’s not uncommon for nutrition experts to recommend cutting 500 calories per day if your goal is fat loss. According to this line of thinking, cutting 500 calories per day equals a 1-pound loss per week, which is considered a safe, healthy and realistic amount.

However, Hultin recommends taking a more individual approach: Get an idea of how many calories you’re currently eating, and how many calories you actually need. A registered dietitian can help you here, but you can also experiment on your own using an app like MyFitnessPal.

First, track your food for a week or two with the MyFitnessPal calorie counter to see how much you’re really eating. This helps you identify areas where you might be able to cut excess foods and drinks or sources of sneaky calories.

Calorie-tracking apps also give you an idea of how many calories you should be eating for fat loss so you can see how your actual intake measures against your target intake."

---

Personally if not for the use of the term "starvation state" I'd have no issue with anything she posted. In a quick bloq paragraph or two, they simply don't have the space to go into all the causes, details, and impacts of metabolic adaptation that is proven to exist. And in this case she didn't say the body is in a starvation state, she said the body believes it is in a starvation state. And that is essentially true, and proven to cause the hormonal changes that start the ball rolling.

Maybe if she had the space she could tell people about specifics of reasonable deficits, hormonal influences and how refeeds might help, cite studies, etc.

For me, I'm just glad it's not some whack blog suggesting that if we don't eat 6 times a day we will wreck our metabolism. Short of nit picking the terms used, it seems to me to be statements that have a strong backing in science.

lemurcat2

I think adaptive thermogenesis is real, although commonly misunderstood. IMO, the bigger issue with the quote is that it will "cause your body to not want to let go of fat stores." This sounds like the incorrect idea -- or at least likely to lead readers to come to the incorrect idea -- that if calories are too low you can't lose and can even gain from eating too little.

I also have as a pet peeve language that has the body "wanting" to do something in that way.

kimny72

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I think adaptive thermogenesis is real, although commonly misunderstood. IMO, the bigger issue with the quote is that it will "cause your body to not want to let go of fat stores." This sounds like the incorrect idea -- or at least likely to lead readers to come to the incorrect idea -- that if calories are too low you can't lose and can even gain from eating too little.

I also have as a pet peeve language that has the body "wanting" to do something in that way.

I'm also a firm believer that "simplifying" something so the the common folk can understand it just leads to people not really understanding, and under estimates people.

IMHO for every woman who is undereating and doesn't realize the possible consequences who will read that post, there will be 10 women who aren't consistently logging, think they're eating 1200 cals but really aren't, and will chalk up their lack of progress too "I wasn't eating enough". Why? Because I've known dozens of women who have never really logged correctly, clearly aren't eating too little, and give up calorie counting because "starvation mode and hormones".

By all means educate people on the dangers of under eating. But don't start off your post with the same lazy interpretation of adaptive thermogenesis that has led countless women to think calorie counting is bogus because they're afraid of their body holding onto fat and causing them to gain weight from eating too little.

kshama2001

My favorite article on starvation mode: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/