Starvation mode is a myth.

Showcase_Brodown

While I believe that "starvation mode" is a largely missunderstood and an overused term used by many here on MFP...I would like to know OPs opinon on adaptive thermogenesis...also metabolic damage caused by chronic undereating as evidenced by anorexics and people with other eating disorders.

While I do not believe in the term "starvation mode" as it is often used here on MFP, I generally find these threads to be somewhat disconcerting due to the fact that you usually see the "amens" and "preach it" posts coming from individuals who are participating in some kind of VLCD which, at minimum cannot provide them with requisite nutrition...which in and of itself is "starving" the body of nutrition.

Adaptive Thermogenesis is covered in the article linked in the original post.

Usually when I hear the phrase "metabolic damage" I become very skeptical.

Also, in the article, the author is very clear on the stance that VLCDs are a terrible idea.

You've apparently never had to personally deal with an anorexic then if you become skeptical at the idea of metabolic damage. It is very real and incredibly difficult to fix given that the individual suffering usually puts on a ton of weight when they begin to eat at a normal level of calories. If that isn't metabolic damage, I don't know what is.

You're right, I've never had to, so I can't speak from personal experience.

I think there is something to adaptive thermogenesis that can take a while to spring back to normal after switching from a deficit, and I think it could be reasonable to say (just my speculation) that for a very prolonged and severe deficit, the effect would be more pronounced and take longer to recover from.

However, the idea that an anorexic gains weight when returning to "normal calories" sounds perfectly logical to me. With or without adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic damage or other shenanigans, I would expect them to gain lots of weight.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just feel like "metabolic damage" is another one of those phrases that is thrown around much like "starvation mode." My natural reaction to it is skepticism.

gr8xpectationz

I'm unimpressed with any arguments that say "I did XYZ, and I lost weight", because MOST people who lose weight...gain it back, plus a little extra.

I have no doubt than many people can lose weight on 1500 calories a day. And I have no doubt that many people can lose weight on 1100 calories a day.

But I would LOVE to see a study on which group gains it back, and which group keeps it off. I'd put my money on the 1500 calories a day people. Slow and steady and stable is more sustainable over the long term than more drastic deficits that mess with your metabolism.

WendyTerry420

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.

ETA:
^^^ (This is why I eat at 2000 calories instead of 1200ish or whatever. I *never* want my metabolism to adapt to eating a tiny bit of food.)

2aycocks

While I believe that "starvation mode" is a largely missunderstood and an overused term used by many here on MFP...I would like to know OPs opinon on adaptive thermogenesis...also metabolic damage caused by chronic undereating as evidenced by anorexics and people with other eating disorders.

While I do not believe in the term "starvation mode" as it is often used here on MFP, I generally find these threads to be somewhat disconcerting due to the fact that you usually see the "amens" and "preach it" posts coming from individuals who are participating in some kind of VLCD which, at minimum cannot provide them with requisite nutrition...which in and of itself is "starving" the body of nutrition.

Sorry, but I have to Amen this post! Studied what some call "starvation mode" in grad school. It's real.

maillemaker

The amount of times I've seen "Eating 800 calories, I'm not losing weight" your advice would be to eat less?

No, as the article says, if you are only eating 800 calories a day you must lose weight, unless you are down to like 5% body fat. If you aren't, you probably are not accurately tracking your true caloric intake.

Just kind of curious, but what's your suggestion if it turns they aren't under-counting? It's not a lot of help if someone is eating 800 calories, and logging accurately, and the only response is "Well that sucks." What do you tell them then?

I like to speak in absolutes, because there is almost always an exception to the rule. But I think the article is pretty clear - if you eat a calorie deficit you must lose weight, unless you get down to like 5% body fat in which case there is simply no more weight to lose.

If you are not losing weight, it's almost virtually guaranteed that the reason is that you are not accurately counting your caloric intake.

toutmonpossible

Great article showed up in my friend feed:

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

The TL;DR is this: For virtually all people, if you aren't losing weight, it is for one reason only: You aren't really maintaining a calorie deficit.

Starvation mode only happens once you have lost so much body fat that you can't lose anymore without dying. If you are overweight, and you eat a calorie deficit, you will lose weight no matter what.

If you think you are dieting and you are not losing weight the most likely explanation is you aren't accurately tracking your calories.

Good luck. Every expert and person who has successfully, lost, maintained, or never gotten overweight has said the same thing.

rml_16

The amount of times I've seen "Eating 800 calories, I'm not losing weight" your advice would be to eat less?

Already been covered in this thread.

The advise would be to ensure you are accurately tracking calories, because in all probability, they are under counting.

Just kind of curious, but what's your suggestion if it turns they aren't under-counting? It's not a lot of help if someone is eating 800 calories, and logging accurately, and the only response is "Well that sucks." What do you tell them then?

I'd say head to the doctor. Something doesn't sound right.

Pretty much. Sometimes there just isn't any advice that can come from the forums.

I have had a bear of a time with my weight the last few years. It started when I got Mirena, which I had out a year ago, yet I'm still having issues.

I track accurately (use a food scale and everything) and exercise regularly. I am not eating nearly enough to gain or maintain my weight and all my blood work has come back normal, so even the docs can't figure it out. Certainly no one here will be able to.

My theory is my hormones are still settling and when they finally get back to normal (if they ever do), I'll start to see losses.

2aycocks

While I believe that "starvation mode" is a largely missunderstood and an overused term used by many here on MFP...I would like to know OPs opinon on adaptive thermogenesis...also metabolic damage caused by chronic undereating as evidenced by anorexics and people with other eating disorders.

While I do not believe in the term "starvation mode" as it is often used here on MFP, I generally find these threads to be somewhat disconcerting due to the fact that you usually see the "amens" and "preach it" posts coming from individuals who are participating in some kind of VLCD which, at minimum cannot provide them with requisite nutrition...which in and of itself is "starving" the body of nutrition.

Adaptive Thermogenesis is covered in the article linked in the original post.

Usually when I hear the phrase "metabolic damage" I become very skeptical.

Also, in the article, the author is very clear on the stance that VLCDs are a terrible idea.

You've apparently never had to personally deal with an anorexic then if you become skeptical at the idea of metabolic damage. It is very real and incredibly difficult to fix given that the individual suffering usually puts on a ton of weight when they begin to eat at a normal level of calories. If that isn't metabolic damage, I don't know what is.

You're right, I've never had to, so I can't speak from personal experience.

I think there is something to adaptive thermogenesis that can take a while to spring back to normal after switching from a deficit, and I think it could be reasonable to say (just my speculation) that for a very prolonged and severe deficit, the effect would be more pronounced and take longer to recover from.

However, the idea that an anorexic gains weight when returning to "normal calories" sounds perfectly logical to me. With or without adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic damage or other shenanigans, I would expect them to gain lots of weight.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just feel like "metabolic damage" is another one of those phrases that is thrown around much like "starvation mode." My natural reaction to it is skepticism.

You can call it whatever you want to call it. But there is damage in this kind of instance that goes beyond the metabolism. Kidneys and other body functions are damaged even when normal weight returns. Sometimes it can be reversed and sometimes not. But it is a very LONG and difficult process that takes medical intervention and continued medical care.

maillemaker

The article says starvation mode isn't a myth.

Don't believe what OP says, he probably didn't even read the article.

I most certainly did read the article.

Starvation mode is a myth for most people trying to lose weight. Unless you get down to like 5% body fat where there is nothing more to lose, if you are not losing weight it is because you are not maintaining a calorie deficit.

In other words, if you are overweight, you cannot get into starvation mode to the point where you cannot lose weight.

BeachIron

The amount of times I've seen "Eating 800 calories, I'm not losing weight" your advice would be to eat less?

No, as the article says, if you are only eating 800 calories a day you must lose weight, unless you are down to like 5% body fat. If you aren't, you probably are not accurately tracking your true caloric intake.

Just kind of curious, but what's your suggestion if it turns they aren't under-counting? It's not a lot of help if someone is eating 800 calories, and logging accurately, and the only response is "Well that sucks." What do you tell them then?

I like to speak in absolutes, because there is almost always an exception to the rule. But I think the article is pretty clear - if you eat a calorie deficit you must lose weight, unless you get down to like 5% body fat in which case there is simply no more weight to lose.

If you are not losing weight, it's almost virtually guaranteed that the reason is that you are not accurately counting your caloric intake.

If you're only eaingt 800 calories a day and you're at 5% BF, then, depending on how big you are, then guess where you are going to lose the weight? That is what real starvation looks like. Loss of muscle and bone mass and and potential heart and other organ damage.

Showcase_Brodown

While I believe that "starvation mode" is a largely missunderstood and an overused term used by many here on MFP...I would like to know OPs opinon on adaptive thermogenesis...also metabolic damage caused by chronic undereating as evidenced by anorexics and people with other eating disorders.

While I do not believe in the term "starvation mode" as it is often used here on MFP, I generally find these threads to be somewhat disconcerting due to the fact that you usually see the "amens" and "preach it" posts coming from individuals who are participating in some kind of VLCD which, at minimum cannot provide them with requisite nutrition...which in and of itself is "starving" the body of nutrition.

Adaptive Thermogenesis is covered in the article linked in the original post.

Usually when I hear the phrase "metabolic damage" I become very skeptical.

Also, in the article, the author is very clear on the stance that VLCDs are a terrible idea.

You've apparently never had to personally deal with an anorexic then if you become skeptical at the idea of metabolic damage. It is very real and incredibly difficult to fix given that the individual suffering usually puts on a ton of weight when they begin to eat at a normal level of calories. If that isn't metabolic damage, I don't know what is.

You're right, I've never had to, so I can't speak from personal experience.

I think there is something to adaptive thermogenesis that can take a while to spring back to normal after switching from a deficit, and I think it could be reasonable to say (just my speculation) that for a very prolonged and severe deficit, the effect would be more pronounced and take longer to recover from.

However, the idea that an anorexic gains weight when returning to "normal calories" sounds perfectly logical to me. With or without adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic damage or other shenanigans, I would expect them to gain lots of weight.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just feel like "metabolic damage" is another one of those phrases that is thrown around much like "starvation mode." My natural reaction to it is skepticism.

You can call it whatever you want to call it. But there is damage in this kind of instance that goes beyond the metabolism. Kidneys and other body functions are damaged even when normal weight returns. Sometimes it can be reversed and sometimes not. But it is a very LONG and difficult process that takes medical intervention and continued medical care.

I wouldn't doubt that at all. I'm sure lots of stuff in the body gets messed up in the process, I was only thinking of it in the context of metabolic rate.

Otterluv

I'm just going to drop this in here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

MDancy89

Love this post. The biggest issue I've seen when people count calories is that they count everything they eat, but never count what they are drinking. I've seen people eat 1300 cals of healthy and clean food then go drink powerade, gatorade, and juice cocktails without realizing the serving sizes, calories, and the amount of sugar. Can't lose weight if you at 1300 cals of food and drink 3 gatorades at "Gatorade G2 - 28 oz Bottle - Fruit Punch, 1 container (28.8 fl oz. ea.) 192 cals 50 carbs 384 sodium 50 sugar" . By doing that you're now around 1900 with 576 calories 150 sugar and 150 carbs coming from drinks alone.

cparter

This has to be one of the worst pieces of advice known to man! Just because you research something online does not make it factual. That is just like the hCG people always trolling for someone who agrees with them and willing to give advice saying all is good regardless of all the facts pointing to the dangers of it.

For those who take the shortcuts although it was a life time that got them to where they are will find themselves yoyoing throughout life unless the train of common sense and self-awareness hits them head on!

astralpictures

Thanks for the article. It drives me nuts how so many uninformed people regurgitate what they read about "starvation mode" to others who complain about not losing weight by eating x amount of calories.

The common thing I read is something like: You're only eating (usually a number 1500 or less) calories a day. You're in starvation mode and your body is holding onto (or gaining) fat to preserve itself. You need to eat more in order to lose more.

That's complete bull. It's also dangerous to tell people who are overweight that they need to eat more in order to lose, because I'm betting they aren't losing because they aren't accurately tracking their calories and are actually eating over maintenance.

If you're overweight or not dangerously thin, you could eat 0 calories a day for quite some time and not experience starvation. Why? Your body gets its energy from your fat store. Is it recommended? No. People get fixated on calories and ignore what else food provides us - nutrients that are essential for bodily functions. VLCDs will make you lose weight and not go into starvation mode until you have no fat to burn, but they also make you malnourished and unhealthy.

Quilled

When people first start really trying to lose weight, we tend to take everything to an extreme. Whatever theory we are following we go EXTREME about it because we want to be totally serious and perfect and lose the weight. So for some they freak out if they set their cals to 1400 then go 50 over, for some reason they expect to wake up the next morning having gained a lb even though they still are in a deficit. Some people just get their ideas so deeply ingrained in their minds it gets out of control.

Starvation mode is another one of those. I have seen posts were people claim that if you dont eat at least 3 meals a day, you will go into starvation mode, and that if you eat 6 a day it significantly boosts your metabolism because its the opposite of starvation mode. People just take the idea of starvation mode and run with it, they freak out if someone mentions fasting for a day or two and tell the person they are going to mess up their metabolism and go into starvation mode. If any of that was true, we would all be obese.

I think its entirely possible that starvation mode exists, but not anywhere near the extremes everyone takes it to.

adiostrasero

I have been stuck at a plateau for weeks now and I am definitely logging calories accurately. I measure/weigh EVERYTHING I eat, I don't drink any calories (water only), I overestimate calories when in doubt, and I don't eat back my exercise calories.

I don't believe I'm in starvation mode - my only point is, when you say things like, "If you're not losing weight, you're eating too many calories", when the truth could be that you're retaining water or losing fat but gaining muscle.

There are some of us who have legit issues with losing despite being very accurate at counting ... it's frustrating/annoying to bring it up only to have everyone tell you "You're obviously underestimating what you're eating."

maillemaker

I don't believe I'm in starvation mode - my only point is, when you say things like, "If you're not losing weight, you're eating too many calories", when the truth could be that you're retaining water or losing fat but gaining muscle.

The article also covers the "muscle gain is masking fat loss" issue and points out that if you maintain a calorie deficit there is almost no way to build enough muscle to outpace fat loss. Especially for women who build muscle slower than men.

SezxyStef

I have been stuck at a plateau for weeks now and I am definitely logging calories accurately. I measure/weigh EVERYTHING I eat, I don't drink any calories (water only), I overestimate calories when in doubt, and I don't eat back my exercise calories.

I don't believe I'm in starvation mode - my only point is, when you say things like, "If you're not losing weight, you're eating too many calories", when the truth could be that you're retaining water or losing fat but gaining muscle.

There are some of us who have legit issues with losing despite being very accurate at counting ... it's frustrating/annoying to bring it up only to have everyone tell you "You're obviously underestimating what you're eating."

My understanding is that if you are in a calorie deficet you will loose weight. Even weight training and maintaining or even building muscle will not offset the lost of fat to that extent. As for water weight that wouldn't be significant enough or long term enough to even count I wouldn't think.

I read the article as well and it made sense to me. I have often heard that phrase and use it myself prior to learning more...it was a good article and informative...

bwcetc

OP - I appreciated the article. The author never denied the existence of "starvation mode" ... just most people's understanding of when that actually applies. For myself, if I'm not losing, it has nothing to do with starvation mode. Thanks for posting.