What is starvation mode exactly?
missylectro
Posts: 448 Member
Can you eat over 1200 calories a day at regular intervals and still be in starvation mode?
0
Replies
-
a myth.0
-
Can you eat over 1200 calories a day at regular intervals and still be in starvation mode?
I think you can if you have no extra fat reserves available to burn and you are taking in less calories than you are using every day. Even if you have some fat reserves, if you are doing a lot of physical labor or exercise you could be setting up too high of a calorie deficit which can cause issues like moodiness and fatigue, among other things.
I'm assuming you would also be in deep trouble if you weren't getting proper nutrition from your diet, but I guess that would be called malnutrition, not starvation mode.0 -
"Starvation Mode' comes from this experiment--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
As I recall, a group of men was starved for a prolonged period of time. They lost weight, as you would expect whenever calories in is less than calories out. However, they became really adept at resting and conserving energy. Thus, they didn't burn calories as quickly as you might expect. They also developed unhealthy eating habits that caused many of them to become overweight years later, and one had a psychotic break.
Key take-aways:
* Don't starve yourself!
* Starving does result in weight loss.
* Starving doesn't result in weight loss as fast as you might expect.0 -
Malnutrition that's right... I think that's what I was thinking of... People here seem to confuse the two lots.Can you eat over 1200 calories a day at regular intervals and still be in starvation mode?
I think you can if you have no extra fat reserves available to burn and you are taking in less calories than you are using every day. Even if you have some fat reserves, if you are doing a lot of physical labor or exercise you could be setting up too high of a calorie deficit which can cause issues like moodiness and fatigue, among other things.
I'm assuming you would also be in deep trouble if you weren't getting proper nutrition from your diet, but I guess that would be called malnutrition, not starvation mode.0 -
a myth.
QFT0 -
Malnutrition that's right... I think that's what I was thinking of... People here seem to confuse the two lots.
You can certainly eat 1,200 calories/day, or even 2,400 calories/day, and be malnourished. This most often happens to people who skip entire food groups (meats, dairy, grains, fruits/vegetables). E.g., it can be a challenge to get enough calcium without eating dairy, or to get enough protein without eating meats.0 -
Malnutrition that's right... I think that's what I was thinking of... People here seem to confuse the two lots.Can you eat over 1200 calories a day at regular intervals and still be in starvation mode?
I think you can if you have no extra fat reserves available to burn and you are taking in less calories than you are using every day. Even if you have some fat reserves, if you are doing a lot of physical labor or exercise you could be setting up too high of a calorie deficit which can cause issues like moodiness and fatigue, among other things.
I'm assuming you would also be in deep trouble if you weren't getting proper nutrition from your diet, but I guess that would be called malnutrition, not starvation mode.
What kills a lot of hunger strikers is electrolyte imbalances that can happen before they've burned all their body fat off, if I remember what I read correctly. So nutrition is worth considering regardless of how many calories one eats.
In the starvation experiment done on conscientious objector victims, they obsessed about food,and there were signs of mental disturbances, including one poor guy who cut some of his fingers off.
But according to the all knowing wiki: "Starvation response in animals is a set of adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that reduce metabolism in response to a lack of food." And there is endless argument on this forum about whether this happens to people and what calorie threshold causes it and how long it lasts or doesn't and on and on eternally.
Which brings me to ask myself, why did I jump in this thread?0 -
Starvation mode is when you see pizza but don't eat any.0
-
This is one of the guys from the much touted Minnesota Experiment:
Look at all that fat his body held on to while he was in "starvation mode"!!!0 -
People think that starvation is mode is when your body tries to hold on to fat so you stop losing weight. This isn't true as seen in people who have disordered eating. They keep losing weight until they're bodies can no longer function. Eating 1200 or even 3000 can be bad for your body and no one is the same. So it really depends on what is happening in your body. By losing weight your metabolic rate will slow, because your body is smaller, but you can help it rise again by lifting weights and building muscle.0
-
1200 is the bare minimum a person can eat....in fact to eat tat low is pretty much staravation mode.
If you know what your BMR (Body Metabolic Rate) then you are half way there.
BMR is the calories yoou burn just for being alive e.g If you were to sleep for an enitre 24 hours then your body would burn 1200 calories just to keep your brain, organs and breathing functioning properly).
Basically its the amount your body needs to survive
The actual number you need to know is your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure)
TDEE = BMR + Activit Level. (this is where most people get stuck on mfp as they eat under their BMR)
Eating your TDEE is maintaining weight
Eating 15%-20% under TDEE to lose weight
Eating 30% above TDEE to gain weight
When you go too close to your BMR your body will automatically start to look at ways to save itself (STARVATION MODE)...First your body will start by slowing the metabolism down so you start storing a little fat and then it will start using your muscles as energy. This is why so many people lose a lot of weight and then when theyve reached their goal they eeat somethhing bbad and their body immediately wants to hold on to incase you starve yourself again.
www.iifym.com is a good place to find your TDEE and then you just eat according to youur aactivity level.
HOpe this helps0 -
Steve Troutman talks about it here
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage0 -
An example of starvation mode in humans:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/46/4/622.short
"Obese women (140-180% of ideal body weight) were studied on a metabolic ward during 1 wk of maintenance feeding, followed by 5 wk of 800 kcal/d (liquid formula diet).
....
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) declined similarly in both groups (approximately 20%), even though exercising subjects were in greater negative energy balance due to the added energy cost of exercise."
Let the nitpicking begin. Complain about the size of the study and the fact that it was only women, and only obese women. Then ask what if they'd been fed 1200 calories, or 2000? What if they had been merely overweight? Or normal weight?
And most important as far as I'm concerned: was the resting metabolic rate decline permanent and if not, how long before they went back to normal and did they go all the way back to normal or did they continue to suffer some slowdown for the rest of their lives?0 -
Why don't we all just eat lots and lots of nutritious, healthy food and exercise and never have to worry about gaining weight, eh?
0 -
Found an even more interesting one, because it talks about the brain's role in attempting to regain lost weight.
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581
The biological response is persistent, saturated with redundancies, and well focused on the objective of restoring the body's depleted energy reserves. Any weight loss strategy that fails to acknowledge and plan for this emerging metabolic influence is likely to have little success in facilitating long-term weight reduction.
And this one: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/287/6/R12970 -
When you go too close to your BMR your body will automatically start to look at ways to save itself (STARVATION MODE).
1200 is the bare minimum a person can eat....in fact to eat tat low is pretty much staravation mode.
Anorexics. How do they work???0 -
When you go too close to your BMR your body will automatically start to look at ways to save itself (STARVATION MODE).
1200 is the bare minimum a person can eat....in fact to eat tat low is pretty much staravation mode.
Anorexics. How do they work???
By losing weight slower than they did at the beginning as they continue to severely restrict and attain an unhealthily-low body-weight. Or by continuing to lower calories to maintain the same speed of weight loss.0 -
When you go too close to your BMR your body will automatically start to look at ways to save itself (STARVATION MODE).
1200 is the bare minimum a person can eat....in fact to eat tat low is pretty much staravation mode.
Anorexics. How do they work???
Not very well after organ failure.0 -
a myth.
QFT
You spelled gift wrong; but yes myth works....0 -
a myth.
Yup, its a myth.
If the idea that not eating enough will result in your body "holding on" to fat sounds suspiciously like bullsh*t to you its because it is.0 -
An example of starvation mode in humans:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/46/4/622.short
"Obese women (140-180% of ideal body weight) were studied on a metabolic ward during 1 wk of maintenance feeding, followed by 5 wk of 800 kcal/d (liquid formula diet).
....
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) declined similarly in both groups (approximately 20%), even though exercising subjects were in greater negative energy balance due to the added energy cost of exercise."
Let the nitpicking begin. Complain about the size of the study and the fact that it was only women, and only obese women. Then ask what if they'd been fed 1200 calories, or 2000? What if they had been merely overweight? Or normal weight?
And most important as far as I'm concerned: was the resting metabolic rate decline permanent and if not, how long before they went back to normal and did they go all the way back to normal or did they continue to suffer some slowdown for the rest of their lives?
That is thermogenic adaptation which is true versus "starvation mode" which is bullsh*t. People who tout "starvation mode" are assuming that if they don't eat enough they will literally retain all of their fat instead of losing it. The truth is if you don't eat enough your body will attempt to compensate by slowing your metabolism and lowering your BMR but NEVER to the point where you will stop losing weight. During the Minnesota starvation experiment I think they got a thermogenic adaptation of close to 40% which is the highest recorded but still this is not going to result in you just holding onto your fat while being at deficit. That lowering is not permanent and can be reversed by returning to a normal diet over time.
If you truly are eating enough calories to sustain your body then you are, by definition, not starving...your in maintenance.0 -
An example of starvation mode in humans:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/46/4/622.short
"Obese women (140-180% of ideal body weight) were studied on a metabolic ward during 1 wk of maintenance feeding, followed by 5 wk of 800 kcal/d (liquid formula diet).
....
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) declined similarly in both groups (approximately 20%), even though exercising subjects were in greater negative energy balance due to the added energy cost of exercise."
Let the nitpicking begin. Complain about the size of the study and the fact that it was only women, and only obese women. Then ask what if they'd been fed 1200 calories, or 2000? What if they had been merely overweight? Or normal weight?
And most important as far as I'm concerned: was the resting metabolic rate decline permanent and if not, how long before they went back to normal and did they go all the way back to normal or did they continue to suffer some slowdown for the rest of their lives?
That is thermogenic adaptation which is true versus "starvation mode" which is bullsh*t. People who tout "starvation mode" are assuming that if they don't eat enough they will literally retain all of their fat instead of losing it. The truth is if you don't eat enough your body will attempt to compensate by slowing your metabolism and lowering your BMR but NEVER to the point where you will stop losing weight. During the Minnesota starvation experiment I think they got a thermogenic adaptation of close to 40% which is the highest recorded but still this is not going to result in you just holding onto your fat while being at deficit. That lowering is not permanent and can be reversed by returning to a normal diet over time.
If you truly are eating enough calories to sustain your body then you are, by definition, not starving...your in maintenance.
The people who assume that if they don't eat enough they will lose no weight whatsoever are indeed wrong. But that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist, it simply means it's being defined in a rather silly and extreme way.
Meanwhile, I still want to know whether those women had a return to normal function. Or in fact, since they started out obese, were they indeed normal to begin with? Either way, more research needed. It's a great topic, just really misunderstood.0 -
0 -
An example of starvation mode in humans:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/46/4/622.short
"Obese women (140-180% of ideal body weight) were studied on a metabolic ward during 1 wk of maintenance feeding, followed by 5 wk of 800 kcal/d (liquid formula diet).
....
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) declined similarly in both groups (approximately 20%), even though exercising subjects were in greater negative energy balance due to the added energy cost of exercise."
Let the nitpicking begin. Complain about the size of the study and the fact that it was only women, and only obese women. Then ask what if they'd been fed 1200 calories, or 2000? What if they had been merely overweight? Or normal weight?
And most important as far as I'm concerned: was the resting metabolic rate decline permanent and if not, how long before they went back to normal and did they go all the way back to normal or did they continue to suffer some slowdown for the rest of their lives?
That is thermogenic adaptation which is true versus "starvation mode" which is bullsh*t. People who tout "starvation mode" are assuming that if they don't eat enough they will literally retain all of their fat instead of losing it. The truth is if you don't eat enough your body will attempt to compensate by slowing your metabolism and lowering your BMR but NEVER to the point where you will stop losing weight. During the Minnesota starvation experiment I think they got a thermogenic adaptation of close to 40% which is the highest recorded but still this is not going to result in you just holding onto your fat while being at deficit. That lowering is not permanent and can be reversed by returning to a normal diet over time.
If you truly are eating enough calories to sustain your body then you are, by definition, not starving...your in maintenance.
The people who assume that if they don't eat enough they will lose no weight whatsoever are indeed wrong. But that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist, it simply means it's being defined in a rather silly and extreme way.
Meanwhile, I still want to know whether those women had a return to normal function. Or in fact, since they started out obese, were they indeed normal to begin with? Either way, more research needed. It's a great topic, just really misunderstood.
Well its ill-defined then but the context I always see "Starvation mode" coming up in on this forum is the irrational fear that someone isn't losing weight because they aren't eating enough which of course makes absolutely no sense yet they say it seriously because they read it somewhere on the interwebs and didn't bother to think about it for 1 minute. Sorry, a bit bitter from previous discussions of "starvation mode".0 -
An example of starvation mode in humans:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/46/4/622.short
"Obese women (140-180% of ideal body weight) were studied on a metabolic ward during 1 wk of maintenance feeding, followed by 5 wk of 800 kcal/d (liquid formula diet).
....
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) declined similarly in both groups (approximately 20%), even though exercising subjects were in greater negative energy balance due to the added energy cost of exercise."
Let the nitpicking begin. Complain about the size of the study and the fact that it was only women, and only obese women. Then ask what if they'd been fed 1200 calories, or 2000? What if they had been merely overweight? Or normal weight?
And most important as far as I'm concerned: was the resting metabolic rate decline permanent and if not, how long before they went back to normal and did they go all the way back to normal or did they continue to suffer some slowdown for the rest of their lives?
That is thermogenic adaptation which is true versus "starvation mode" which is bullsh*t. People who tout "starvation mode" are assuming that if they don't eat enough they will literally retain all of their fat instead of losing it. The truth is if you don't eat enough your body will attempt to compensate by slowing your metabolism and lowering your BMR but NEVER to the point where you will stop losing weight. During the Minnesota starvation experiment I think they got a thermogenic adaptation of close to 40% which is the highest recorded but still this is not going to result in you just holding onto your fat while being at deficit. That lowering is not permanent and can be reversed by returning to a normal diet over time.
If you truly are eating enough calories to sustain your body then you are, by definition, not starving...your in maintenance.
The people who assume that if they don't eat enough they will lose no weight whatsoever are indeed wrong. But that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist, it simply means it's being defined in a rather silly and extreme way.
Meanwhile, I still want to know whether those women had a return to normal function. Or in fact, since they started out obese, were they indeed normal to begin with? Either way, more research needed. It's a great topic, just really misunderstood.
Well its ill-defined then but the context I always see "Starvation mode" coming up in on this forum is the irrational fear that someone isn't losing weight because they aren't eating enough which of course makes absolutely no sense yet they say it seriously because they read it somewhere on the interwebs and didn't bother to think about it for 1 minute. Sorry, a bit bitter from previous discussions of "starvation mode".
It's okay. I don't even know what I'm doing in this thread. I know how they usually end up! But I did find some interesting studies I haven't seen before. Thank you, Google Scholar, allowing the slothful to move beyond Wikipedia one search at a time. :laugh:0 -
An example of starvation mode in humans:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/46/4/622.short
"Obese women (140-180% of ideal body weight) were studied on a metabolic ward during 1 wk of maintenance feeding, followed by 5 wk of 800 kcal/d (liquid formula diet).
....
Resting metabolic rate (RMR) declined similarly in both groups (approximately 20%), even though exercising subjects were in greater negative energy balance due to the added energy cost of exercise."
Let the nitpicking begin. Complain about the size of the study and the fact that it was only women, and only obese women. Then ask what if they'd been fed 1200 calories, or 2000? What if they had been merely overweight? Or normal weight?
And most important as far as I'm concerned: was the resting metabolic rate decline permanent and if not, how long before they went back to normal and did they go all the way back to normal or did they continue to suffer some slowdown for the rest of their lives?
That is thermogenic adaptation which is true versus "starvation mode" which is bullsh*t. People who tout "starvation mode" are assuming that if they don't eat enough they will literally retain all of their fat instead of losing it. The truth is if you don't eat enough your body will attempt to compensate by slowing your metabolism and lowering your BMR but NEVER to the point where you will stop losing weight. During the Minnesota starvation experiment I think they got a thermogenic adaptation of close to 40% which is the highest recorded but still this is not going to result in you just holding onto your fat while being at deficit. That lowering is not permanent and can be reversed by returning to a normal diet over time.
If you truly are eating enough calories to sustain your body then you are, by definition, not starving...your in maintenance.
The people who assume that if they don't eat enough they will lose no weight whatsoever are indeed wrong. But that doesn't mean starvation mode doesn't exist, it simply means it's being defined in a rather silly and extreme way.
Meanwhile, I still want to know whether those women had a return to normal function. Or in fact, since they started out obese, were they indeed normal to begin with? Either way, more research needed. It's a great topic, just really misunderstood.
Well its ill-defined then but the context I always see "Starvation mode" coming up in on this forum is the irrational fear that someone isn't losing weight because they aren't eating enough which of course makes absolutely no sense yet they say it seriously because they read it somewhere on the interwebs and didn't bother to think about it for 1 minute. Sorry, a bit bitter from previous discussions of "starvation mode".
It's okay. I don't even know what I'm doing in this thread. I know how they usually end up! But I did find some interesting studies I haven't seen before. Thank you, Google Scholar, allowing the slothful to move beyond Wikipedia one search at a time. :laugh:
Heh fair enough. I probably shouldn't let past baggage weigh me down on topics like this anyways. Just had some really irritating conversations with people who insisted that starvation mode was real. One person even gave how pictures of starving African children have engorged bellies as indication that "see, they are fat because they don't eat enough" said completely seriously.0 -
a myth.
Yup, its a myth.
If the idea that not eating enough will result in your body "holding on" to fat sounds suspiciously like bullsh*t to you its because it is.
I was only netting about 500 calories for 3 weeks and I didn't lose any weight. Once I bumped up my calories I lost 4 pounds in 2 weeks.0 -
a myth.
Yup, its a myth.
If the idea that not eating enough will result in your body "holding on" to fat sounds suspiciously like bullsh*t to you its because it is.
I was only netting about 500 calories for 3 weeks and I didn't lose any weight. Once I bumped up my calories I lost 4 pounds in 2 weeks.
Doesn't mean you weren't losing fat, you very well could have been retaining water due to elevated cortisol because your body was under stress. Once you actually fed your body and the cortisol dropped you shed the water and revealed the fact that you had lost fat. Still, better that you eat more than starve yourself like that...please do not take what I said as some sort of justification for eating that little.
But logically it makes no sense that your bodies response to starvation would be to not utilize its energy stores.0 -
I was only netting about 500 calories for 3 weeks and I didn't lose any weight. Once I bumped up my calories I lost 4 pounds in 2 weeks
Everything Aaron said and/or you could have been overestimating caloric burns and underestimating calories. These scenarios are far, far more likely than "starvation mode"Steve Troutman talks about it here
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage
Very good read from a reliable source.Anorexics. How do they work???
----
By losing weight slower than they did at the beginning as they continue to severely restrict and attain an unhealthily-low body-weight. Or by continuing to lower calories to maintain the same speed of weight loss.
The decrease in RMR is more attributable to the actual weight loss itself rather than the machinations of starvation mode, as explained by post linked above. Of course as you get smaller, as do your energy needs.The truth is if you don't eat enough your body will attempt to compensate by slowing your metabolism and lowering your BMR but NEVER to the point where you will stop losing weight.
This so much.0 -
Good point. But what about the theory of your metabolism slowing drastically? I was pretty flabby as well during the time i was essentially starving myself (unknowingly since i wasn't educated about eating back exercise calories) so I felt I still retained the fat . Once I started eating more I firmed up.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions