Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

Kany

:drinker: bump for later.

PinkNinjaLaura

Great read - including the 7 pages of comments. Thanks for all the effort put in by the OP & friends.

rjmudlax13

Bump

Nette_54

Looks like great info thank you, just haven't the time to read it all now

As far as " starvation mode " is concerned I am a believer in it as I tried to lose weight for years but never succeeded in fact I gained more weight. A few years ago I had an accident so had to have physio and also a dietitian came to visit me at my home, she asked what I ate in a day and was told I wasn't eating anywhere near enough food so she gave me a list of what to eat in a day. I tried for 2 days to follow her diet but trying to eat all this food made me sick as I just couldn't fit it all in ! ! ! I used to eat a healthy breakfast then I wouldn't eat again until I got hungry around 3 or 4 in the afternoon so would have a sandwich and then a healthy dinner at night. I was also not having carbs a dinner thinking that was the best way to go but the dietitian said that was the worse thing I could do as by breakfast time my body was starving again, she said everything I ate was being stored as fat because my body didn't know when it would get food again. I gave up trying to eat all the food she told me to have but then tried again and it took me about 2 years to finally be able to eat what I needed to have. I have now lost 20 kilos of weight and it is still coming off.

janinab75

Bump. Thank you!

joshdann

Looks like great info thank you, just haven't the time to read it all now

As far as " starvation mode " is concerned I am a believer in it as ...

belief does not equate to fact.

It's great that you have found a diet that works for you. Keep using that! Just don't attribute it to a myth

Hildy_J

Bump. Fab work, many thanks.

Luuvy

Great info! Thanks for sharing.

sophiemama

bump for later

jayjay12345654321

Best explanation I've seen on MFP. And nobody was called an idiot or mocked, go figure!

bttrthanevr

bump for safe keeping

adnamalegna

*Bump*

bubaluboo

bumpity bump

kmash32

bump for later as I can't read it all at work...lol

ssaraj43

Bump- Thanks OP

Quieau

This is fascinating, and just exactly the information I have been seeking. I wonder, in light of the findings, what you think about 'carb cycling' and 'calorie cycling' diets where the body is put through wildly variant intake levels over the course of the week (from extremely low to "cheat days" and low-to-moderate intake in between).

People who post about it (esp in bariatric surgery circles) rave about how it keeps them losing and keeps them maintained at weights often 50% or more below their starting weight (which, would theoretically be the group with most at risk of this dynamic after a yr or two of 600-800 calorie intake days from a very large weight). Some started at weights in the 400 and 500 ranges, and are still able to maintain "at goal" weights but with caloric restrictions that are downright frightening (600-800 cal/day)!

To me, it sounds like it would damage the body's systems (much like driving a car by alternating between very high and very low speeds, with lots of sudden changes in between). What our bodies are trying to do is basically shift into 'cruise control' to save fuel, right? So while it's great to reserve fuel on a survival level, while we're trying to lose and maintain weight, it seems that giving the body the MAXIMUM nutrition we can while still maintaining just enough of a deficit to realize loss is the message in this string, right?

So is there long-term damage being done with carb and calorie cycling that would be be mitigated by a more "slow and steady wins the race" approach to calorie/carb intake/maintenance? Thanks for this incredibly informative research, analysis and feedback!

55in13

This is fascinating, and just exactly the information I have been seeking. I wonder, in light of the findings, what you think about 'carb cycling' and 'calorie cycling' diets where the body is put through wildly variant intake levels over the course of the week (from extremely low to "cheat days" and low-to-moderate intake in between).

People who post about it (esp in bariatric surgery circles) rave about how it keeps them losing and keeps them maintained at weights often 50% or more below their starting weight (which, would theoretically be the group with most at risk of this dynamic after a yr or two of 600-800 calorie intake days from a very large weight). Some started at weights in the 400 and 500 ranges, and are still able to maintain "at goal" weights but with caloric restrictions that are downright frightening (600-800 cal/day)!

To me, it sounds like it would damage the body's systems (much like driving a car by alternating between very high and very low speeds, with lots of sudden changes in between). What our bodies are trying to do is basically shift into 'cruise control' to save fuel, right? So while it's great to reserve fuel on a survival level, while we're trying to lose and maintain weight, it seems that giving the body the MAXIMUM nutrition we can while still maintaining just enough of a deficit to realize loss is the message in this string, right?

So is there long-term damage being done with carb and calorie cycling that would be be mitigated by a more "slow and steady wins the race" approach to calorie/carb intake/maintenance? Thanks for this incredibly informative research, analysis and feedback!

What you are suggesting is conjecture. I don't know whether it happens or not, but I don't think it is a logical extrapolation of the information. I am not trying to give you a hard time or start yet another debate, just pointing this out for others who use this thread as a reference point.

One point I keep trying to make is that what this study found was a drop in metabolic rate of up to 15%. I bolded up to because that is the top of the range not the expected amount. Most people will have less of an impact. So for someone like me, who did eat at a large deficit for several months to lose over 50 pounds, my sedentary TDEE might be between 1700 and 1800 instead of 2000, which is roughly what calculators give me. I ate around 1200 during the rapid loss stage and around 1600 when I got close to goal. I eat around 1800 now and am trending slightly lower in weight, but I don't log most days so my data isn't completely valid. But my weight loss method worked for me. I never had a plateau. The study does nothing to legitimize the idea that MR will drop enough to cause a plateau. Quite the contrary; it found a drop that is less than even the conservative 20% that people subtract from TDEE to lose weight slowly.

We are all running in different races and slow and steady will win some of them. Others, like myself, get too easily frustrated with slow loss when there is seemingly too much to lose and backslide. A year ago, if you told me I could take the weigh off quickly but I would have a slightly lower MR as a consequence, I would have done it anyway. Especially since it appears that it will eventually rebound.

Quieau

What you are suggesting is conjecture. I don't know whether it happens or not, but I don't think it is a logical extrapolation of the information. I am not trying to give you a hard time or start yet another debate, just pointing this out for others who use this thread as a reference point.

that's why i used question marks and the word "seems" ... yes, purely conjecture.

One point I keep trying to make is that what this study found was a drop in metabolic rate of up to 15%. I bolded up to because that is the top of the range not the expected amount. Most people will have less of an impact. So for someone like me, who did eat at a large deficit for several months to lose over 50 pounds, my sedentary TDEE might be between 1700 and 1800 instead of 2000, which is roughly what calculators give me. I ate around 1200 during the rapid loss stage and around 1600 when I got close to goal. I eat around 1800 now and am trending slightly lower in weight, but I don't log most days so my data isn't completely valid. But my weight loss method worked for me. I never had a plateau. The study does nothing to legitimize the idea that MR will drop enough to cause a plateau. Quite the contrary; it found a drop that is less than even the conservative 20% that people subtract from TDEE to lose weight slowly.

The people to whom I am referring are eating below 1000 calories a day during weight loss AND during maintenance. And many say, "And I don't exercise." So I don't think we're comparing apples to apples in our discussions. Also, I think for the heaviest/most obese weight losers, there are other things at play besides metabolism and fat burning and muscle building. There is also the storage, accumulation and disposal of water retained due to various types of edema. A pound is a pound, whether water or fat, and there are those approaches which may or may not address water retention for various health reasons (some related, some not).

We are all running in different races and slow and steady will win some of them. Others, like myself, get too easily frustrated with slow loss when there is seemingly too much to lose and backslide. A year ago, if you told me I could take the weigh off quickly but I would have a slightly lower MR as a consequence, I would have done it anyway. Especially since it appears that it will eventually rebound.

Agreed! Wholeheartedly! While my race needs to be a persistent one, speed won't necessarily win me the long run, as I have to carefully balance known metabolic issues (heme synthesis/porphyria and hyperoxaluria/kidneys) and think long term. While going into a more severe deprivation might get me there faster (and my surgeon would want that), it could be at a great cost to my kidneys or nerves, and my other docs would disapprove and encourage me to think long term and minimize any damage.

In terms of the average, otherwise healthy weight loser, I think it's also a matter of degrees. Big difference between losing 50 lbs. and say, a few hundred. The damages done to the body after years (or decades) of severe stress caused by obesity can't be undone be losing the weight itself alone, at least not for me. Where you need the quick response of your body to keep you on track, I need the steady, consistent high functioning of all my internal organs and my metabolism to keep me on track, lest I fall by the wayside and feel that it can't be done (which is what derailed me so many times before). I'm an expert at dieting, I can get myself down to 200 calories and 100 lbs but the problem is the illness and dysfunction that I create along the way that keeps my goals unsustainable in the long run. As you said, we all are different.

I am glad to hear that it CAN be done ... whether it SHOULD be done, I leave to the individuals to determine within their own complex health profiles. For me, 1500 calories a day net is sustainable and feels good to my energy level, looks good on my skin and eyes, and on my blood and urine labwork. I'm here to survive, and if I can be a size 8 or 10 while doing it, great, but if it means i'm a 14 or an 18 for longer, that's okay too.

joshdann

I think it's also important to note that "TDEE", when calculated using a form on a website somewhere, is inherently inaccurate. Far too often people use it as their gospel. Some people have taken to justifying slower fat loss by misquoting the old wisdom of "1-2 lbs per week is the only healthy way". While it's true that 1-2 lbs per week will ensure that *most* people get the nutrients they need, a larger deficit is absolutely sustainable as long as you watch your macros, supplement properly, etc. Of course many people buy into the mass hysteria, and refuse to believe that's possible regardless of the science that fully supports it. Such is group psychology.

We are all running in different races and slow and steady will win some of them. Others, like myself, get too easily frustrated with slow loss when there is seemingly too much to lose and backslide. A year ago, if you told me I could take the weigh off quickly but I would have a slightly lower MR as a consequence, I would have done it anyway. Especially since it appears that it will eventually rebound.

I quoted this because I wholeheartedly agree. I'd add that many of the same studies that contribute to the findings in the original post have shown that a proper exercise regiment, when used in conjunction with the calorie deficit, will minimize the effect of adaptive thermogenesis. Sure, it will still affect most of us, but not to such an extent to make a quick recovery impossible. Many steps can be taken to combat these effects, and I'm trying my best to use all of them. Reaching my goal weight in the timeframe I've set out for myself means that I need to *average* 2 pounds of fat lost per week, with some muscle being added at the same time. Getting 3 or 4 pounds in one week has to happen often, or the weeks where I plateau will throw off my pace. I'm perfectly fine with doing the work required to recover whatever loss in metabolic rate I might experience.

Losing weight quickly is so often frowned upon... though there's no rational reason for that to be the case.

CoderGal

I think it's also important to note that "TDEE", when calculated using a form on a website somewhere, is inherently inaccurate. Far too often people use it as their gospel. Some people have taken to justifying slower fat loss by misquoting the old wisdom of "1-2 lbs per week is the only healthy way". While it's true that 1-2 lbs per week will ensure that *most* people get the nutrients they need, a larger deficit is absolutely sustainable as long as you watch your macros, supplement properly, etc. Of course many people buy into the mass hysteria, and refuse to believe that's possible regardless of the science that fully supports it. Such is group psychology.

We are all running in different races and slow and steady will win some of them. Others, like myself, get too easily frustrated with slow loss when there is seemingly too much to lose and backslide. A year ago, if you told me I could take the weigh off quickly but I would have a slightly lower MR as a consequence, I would have done it anyway. Especially since it appears that it will eventually rebound.

I quoted this because I wholeheartedly agree. I'd add that many of the same studies that contribute to the findings in the original post have shown that a proper exercise regiment, when used in conjunction with the calorie deficit, will minimize the effect of adaptive thermogenesis. Sure, it will still affect most of us, but not to such an extent to make a quick recovery impossible. Many steps can be taken to combat these effects, and I'm trying my best to use all of them. Reaching my goal weight in the timeframe I've set out for myself means that I need to *average* 2 pounds of fat lost per week, with some muscle being added at the same time. Getting 3 or 4 pounds in one week has to happen often, or the weeks where I plateau will throw off my pace. I'm perfectly fine with doing the work required to recover whatever loss in metabolic rate I might experience.

Losing weight quickly is so often frowned upon... though there's no rational reason for that to be the case.

No rational reason? 2 lbs a week for me a while ago would have been 700 calories a day. I'd hardly think that would work because my body would not be loving that. Also, I hardly think watching my macros would have been sustainable like you said. Optimally, I'd want 96g of protein a day...That would leave me with about 35 calories of fat, a lot lower then I'd like to optimally absorb nutrients. And 0 carbs...gluck on that diet.

Also, no, you will not be continuously gaining muscles on a calorie deficit. There's no "muscle being added at the same time". You're losing weight. That means losing muscle and fat. To grow muscle, you need a calorie surplus. Even if you were morbidly obese the 'newbie gains' would be minimal. If you think you're losing over 2lbs a week and that's coming souly from fat and you're growing muscle, that makes no sense.