Leigh Peele on Starvation Mode [Must See]

ritchiedrama

http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode

I have never seen it laid out so simple, this applies to so many of you.. and it's about time you woke up.



“Starvation mode means your body stops burning fat and starts storing fat.”

My favorite is the last; as if the body is going to transition from being a pitcher to a catcher. It doesn’t work that way, but late night infomercials have been spewing these lies for decades. And who gets the raw end of the deal? You do.


Just a little exert from it; hope you guys are done with your excuses now.

jdm_taco

you awesome, bud!

walleymama

From the article "The higher your baseline metabolic rate, the more you can eat while in a deficit. That is a pretty significant reason [to have an optimal and peak metabolic rate]. Otherwise your only option is to keep eating lower and lower and moving further away from a healthy and optimized metabolic rate."

So how do you increase your BMR while you are losing weight?

ritchiedrama

From the article "The higher your baseline metabolic rate, the more you can eat while in a deficit. That is a pretty significant reason [to have an optimal and peak metabolic rate]. Otherwise your only option is to keep eating lower and lower and moving further away from a healthy and optimized metabolic rate."

So how do you increase your BMR while you are losing weight?

Well increasing muscle mass increases your TDEE, BMR is going to control itself (as far as I am aware).

So increasing muscle mass, or increasing activity raises TDEE, which in turn I guess raises your BMR anyway because you have more LBM.

But you can't gain muscle after a period of time whilst losing weight, so you have to reverse what you're doing and bulk, or take a diet break (maintenance or just higher) to level your metabolism back out again to accelerate fat loss.

So basically yeah, it's that - re-feeds are very useful.

eazy_

Nice post. Great read and video.

neandermagnon

It's a great article, just as everything else I've read from Leigh Peele is.

However, like most good articles on this subject, I feel there's an under-emphasis on the psychological adaptations to eating too little. The physiological adaptations are important to understand of course, but what seems to screw a lot of people's diets is the fact that after a time of succeeding on their diet, they rebound and end up eating way too much, particularly of very high calorie density food...... this is so often blamed on a lack of willpower, lack of persistance, lack of all various things that come down to someone's character........... the reality is that it's as much a survival response to a food shortage as the slowing of metabolic processes that are discussed in the article.

Our evolutionary ancestors didn't know how much food they should eat, they weren't counting calories (they had no idea what a calorie was!), if they weren't getting enough to eat then that would trigger them to be really hungry, obsess about food (i.e. spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to get it), which led them to spend more time trying to find food, and to eat as much as they can when they finally get their hands on food... that's what enabled them to survive food shortages, and that's exactly the same behaviour as people who are stuck in a cycle of bingeing and excessive food restriction. Excessive hunger, obsessing about food and bingeing. *some* bingeing may be purely psychological, but a lot of the time it's a survival response, that's as much a response to insufficient food as any metabolic adaptation that's going on. It also tends to kick in a lot sooner than actual physiological adaptation, so it's often the first sign that you're not eating enough, but frequently taken to be due to a deficiency in character, rather than what it is... i.e. a survival response to eating too little.

jodi41086

Bump this post up :O)

scottaworley

Layne Norton has been talking about this kind of thing recently.
Suggested watching - Biolayne video logs

ritchiedrama

Layne Norton has been talking about this kind of thing recently.
Suggested watching - Biolayne video logs

Indeed & I agree, they're great watches, but I think Layne's videos are catered more at bodyfat level competitors. He would confuse a normal dieter, as half his stuff confuses me.

ritchiedrama

It's a great article, just as everything else I've read from Leigh Peele is.

However, like most good articles on this subject, I feel there's an under-emphasis on the psychological adaptations to eating too little. The physiological adaptations are important to understand of course, but what seems to screw a lot of people's diets is the fact that after a time of succeeding on their diet, they rebound and end up eating way too much, particularly of very high calorie density food...... this is so often blamed on a lack of willpower, lack of persistance, lack of all various things that come down to someone's character........... the reality is that it's as much a survival response to a food shortage as the slowing of metabolic processes that are discussed in the article.

Our evolutionary ancestors didn't know how much food they should eat, they weren't counting calories (they had no idea what a calorie was!), if they weren't getting enough to eat then that would trigger them to be really hungry, obsess about food (i.e. spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to get it), which led them to spend more time trying to find food, and to eat as much as they can when they finally get their hands on food... that's what enabled them to survive food shortages, and that's exactly the same behaviour as people who are stuck in a cycle of bingeing and excessive food restriction. Excessive hunger, obsessing about food and bingeing. *some* bingeing may be purely psychological, but a lot of the time it's a survival response, that's as much a response to insufficient food as any metabolic adaptation that's going on. It also tends to kick in a lot sooner than actual physiological adaptation, so it's often the first sign that you're not eating enough, but frequently taken to be due to a deficiency in character, rather than what it is... i.e. a survival response to eating too little.

I can comment on this out of good experience, I lost a lot of weight in 2009 (roughly 2 stone) in 5 weeks, I trained really hard, limited food intake really low. Kept it off for a few months then bam I just went wild eating all sorts of crap. But more to the point,, that was due to the fact I was eating "clean" whilst dieting.

This time around, I've not limited any food choice and I've turned out to be in the best shape of my life. I feel people who stop dieting expect to "diet" for a short period of time and then be free again once the weight has gone, and when they limit food choices, they create cravings.

Another thing I experienced this time around, I dropped to around 10% bodyfat and the cravings instantly amplified (a few people over at bodybuilding.com mentioned this to me after I'd stopped at 10% and gone back to maintenance) - When I say the cravings I mean.. Just the craving to eat so much more due to extended dieting. I think at that kinda level of bodyfat you have to prepare to be hungry and just accept it - where as with the average joe here who just wants to improve their lifestyle and lose a bit of weight I disagree with what you're saying, purely because the issue people have here and I blame MFP for it too - their calories are set too low and they are told to eat back exercise calories, it's the most twisted backwards way of doing things.

Everyone seems to have their caloric intake set to 1200 calories - this leaves NO room for metabolic adaptation because you can't lower your calories anymore.. obviously you can, but no-one should be starting their fat loss at 1200 calories.

scottaworley

Layne Norton has been talking about this kind of thing recently.
Suggested watching - Biolayne video logs

Indeed & I agree, they're great watches, but I think Layne's videos are catered more at bodyfat level competitors. He would confuse a normal dieter, as half his stuff confuses me.

I was about to disagree and then I remembered some of the posts I've seen.

Still good information for someone who is a bit more of an "advanced" dieter.

KReduced

Ok, so this is what I don't get. (My diary is open) Sometimes, I feel full on what I eat and other days I want to eat everything. But if I'm losing by eating how I am, then shouldn't that be good enough? I usually eat above 1200 but I also don't worry about my net. Should I?

GoMizzou99

Nice post. Clear video and good read. Thanks.

ritchiedrama

Ok, so this is what I don't get. (My diary is open) Sometimes, I feel full on what I eat and other days I want to eat everything. But if I'm losing by eating how I am, then shouldn't that be good enough? I usually eat above 1200 but I also don't worry about my net. Should I?

If you are losing weight consistently, it's fine - the issue arises when it stalls and you should not ever have to lower calories below 1200. Even 1200 itself is quite low, but for females it's more common.

My issue is women who start dieting at 1200 calories instantly, no matter their weight, because then you can't taper the calories down as your body changes. Understand?

The days you feel more hungry, do you know which they are? I'm GUESSING, when you eat more carbs, and your protein is lower, you are hungry? (if you can remember the days by looking at your diary, let me know)

strongmindstrongbody

bumping to read later


“Starvation mode means your body stops burning fat and starts storing fat.”

I thought the fat storage was only a concern if you're not in a calorie deficit. Doesn't dieting, regardless of calorie intake, reduce your metabolic rate at about the same rates? Can't wait to read the article and learn more.

ritchiedrama

bumping to read later


“Starvation mode means your body stops burning fat and starts storing fat.”

I thought the fat storage was only a concern if you're not in a calorie deficit. Doesn't dieting, regardless of calorie intake, reduce your metabolic rate at about the same rates? Can't wait to read the article and learn more.

Fat storage is not a concern in a deficit, she was laughing at the fact people think that.

KReduced

Ok, so this is what I don't get. (My diary is open) Sometimes, I feel full on what I eat and other days I want to eat everything. But if I'm losing by eating how I am, then shouldn't that be good enough? I usually eat above 1200 but I also don't worry about my net. Should I?

If you are losing weight consistently, it's fine - the issue arises when it stalls and you should not ever have to lower calories below 1200. Even 1200 itself is quite low, but for females it's more common.

My issue is women who start dieting at 1200 calories instantly, no matter their weight, because then you can't taper the calories down as your body changes. Understand?

The days you feel more hungry, do you know which they are? I'm GUESSING, when you eat more carbs, and your protein is lower, you are hungry? (if you can remember the days by looking at your diary, let me know)

Thanks for being so darn helpful! : DD I am trying to get more protein in also!

spirit05

Bump for reference!

mpf1

tagging, interesting article, thank you

SRHelicity

From the article "The higher your baseline metabolic rate, the more you can eat while in a deficit. That is a pretty significant reason [to have an optimal and peak metabolic rate]. Otherwise your only option is to keep eating lower and lower and moving further away from a healthy and optimized metabolic rate."

So how do you increase your BMR while you are losing weight?

Well increasing muscle mass increases your TDEE, BMR is going to control itself (as far as I am aware).

So increasing muscle mass, or increasing activity raises TDEE, which in turn I guess raises your BMR anyway because you have more LBM.

But you can't gain muscle after a period of time whilst losing weight, so you have to reverse what you're doing and bulk, or take a diet break (maintenance or just higher) to level your metabolism back out again to accelerate fat loss.

So basically yeah, it's that - re-feeds are very useful.

BMR, according to the Katch-McArdle formula, is a function of LBM (lean body mass). Since muscle is metabolically active and fat is not, it makes sense that your BMR would be a function of the amount of muscle mass one has. As such, a bodybuilder who has an extensive amount of muscle mass has a higher BMR than a skinny, muscularly-immature person even if both people weight the same (i.e., if both are lying in a hospital bed comatose, the person with the higher LBM will have a higher BMR). This need not mean that TDEE is higher for the muscular person, however -- imagine that the skinny guy is a marathon runner who has an extremely higher TDEE. It just so happens that most people tend to see their body fat increase with age, which means that LBM tends to be negatively correlated with age (lower LBM with increasing age), which is why one can use other BMR formulas that include age. I'm not a nutritionist, but the above is my understanding of the situation (e.g., Katch-McArdle vs. Harris-Benedict, etc.).

ritchiedrama

From the article "The higher your baseline metabolic rate, the more you can eat while in a deficit. That is a pretty significant reason [to have an optimal and peak metabolic rate]. Otherwise your only option is to keep eating lower and lower and moving further away from a healthy and optimized metabolic rate."

So how do you increase your BMR while you are losing weight?

Well increasing muscle mass increases your TDEE, BMR is going to control itself (as far as I am aware).

So increasing muscle mass, or increasing activity raises TDEE, which in turn I guess raises your BMR anyway because you have more LBM.

But you can't gain muscle after a period of time whilst losing weight, so you have to reverse what you're doing and bulk, or take a diet break (maintenance or just higher) to level your metabolism back out again to accelerate fat loss.

So basically yeah, it's that - re-feeds are very useful.

BMR, according to the Katch-McArdle formula, is a function of LBM (lean body mass). Since muscle is metabolically active and fat is not, it makes sense that your BMR would be a function of the amount of muscle mass one has. As such, a bodybuilder who has an extensive amount of muscle mass has a higher BMR than a skinny, muscularly-immature person even if both people weight the same (i.e., if both are lying in a hospital bed comatose, the person with the higher LBM will have a higher BMR). This need not mean that TDEE is higher for the muscular person, however -- imagine that the skinny guy is a marathon runner who has an extremely higher TDEE. It just so happens that most people tend to see their body fat increase with age, which means that LBM tends to be negatively correlated with age (lower LBM with increasing age), which is why one can use other BMR formulas that include age. I'm not a nutritionist, but the above is my understanding of the situation (e.g., Katch-McArdle vs. Harris-Benedict, etc.).

Isn't that basically what I said? (don't take that as rude, just genuinely, isn't that what I said haha)

But the only thing I disagree with that you did say it doesn't mean TDEE is higher for a muscular person, well it does, slightly - because if you are more muscular you need more food, so your TDEE will be higher (i'm assuming a muscular and non muscular people are sedentary at this time) - maybe I've confused myself a bit with this paragraph, but it sounds right when I re-read it haha!