Starvation mode is a myth!

LaneB89

Well, for starters, adaptive thermogenesis isn't something you're 'in' - it happens gradually as someone loses weight. The study I read that showed a 30% lower metabolic rate was testing a person who had only lost 50 pounds and was still large. The two subjects compared were a person who was 200 pounds but started at 250, and a person who had always weighed 200.

dmenchac

Well, for starters, adaptive thermogenesis isn't something you're 'in' - it happens gradually as someone loses weight. The study I read that showed a 30% lower metabolic rate was testing a person who had only lost 50 pounds and was still large. The two subjects compared were a person who was 200 pounds but started at 250, and a person who had always weighed 200.

Link your study as you have not provided any time lengths or really any credible information.

Aaron_K123

The point is everyone claims that metabolic adaptation can't neutralize a deficit, while studies are showing that it can do exactly that. The most common weight loss target recommended is TDEE - 20%, and metabolic adaptation can cause you to burn 20-30% less calories.

You aren't going to go into adaptive thermogenesis of 20% eating at your TDEE -20%. You are going to go into adaptive thermogenesis of -20% while literally starving on a 400 calorie diet with heavy exercise as in the minnesota starvation experiment.

So I repeat, there is NO point at which adapative thermogenesis compensates for your caloric deficit. Either your caloric deficit is small in which case adapative thermogenesis does not occur or it is huge in which case you get adaptive thermogenesis but adaptive thermogenesis cannot compensate for a huge caloric deficit.

The idea that you can eat so little as to trigger adaptive thermogenesis and have adpative thermogenesis lower your metabolism so much as to completely compensate for your caloric deficit is a myth.

Aaron_K123

You know its actually possible to calculate how much energy it takes to keep your body at 98.6 degrees (37 C) in a room temperature environment and its a lot. No amount of "adaptive thermogenesis" save death is going to compensate for that.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Jestinia

The point is everyone claims that metabolic adaptation can't neutralize a deficit, while studies are showing that it can do exactly that. The most common weight loss target recommended is TDEE - 20%, and metabolic adaptation can cause you to burn 20-30% less calories.

No, the point is 99.999999% of people who claim they are in adapative thermogenesis aren't even close.

Source please.

Jestinia

Whoops, I should post my source, too:

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). Five subjects participated in a supervised program of daily aerobic exercise and three subjects remained sedentary. Total weight loss was not different between exercising and nonexercising subjects but significantly more of the weight loss came from fat and less from fat-free mass in the exercising subjects. 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. In summary, results from this controlled inpatient study indicate that exercise is beneficial when coupled with food restriction because it favors loss of body fat and preserves fat-free mass.

vismal

Vismal, what have you started???

It's about to get really real up in here! lol

Thanks Aaron_K123 for holding down the fort while I was at the gym! Aaron is correct about adaptive thermogenesis. It will not wipe out a deficit because in order to cause it, the deficit must be HUGE to begin with. As I stated in the original post, prolonged VLCD or even regular dieting for that matter can cause slowdown (not shutdown) of your metabolism. There are ways to prevent this minor slowdown if you are worried about it. I always advocate a 2 week diet break for every 8-12 weeks you are in a deficit. By diet break I do not mean go HAM and eat everything in sight. I mean if you are eating -20% tdee then raise calories to your tdee. It gives the body time to rebound. I would also note that I don't feel that is even necessary if you have 50 or more lbs to lose. The diet break will also give you a mental break and something to look forward to while dieting.

martinel2099

Very well thought out post, I never thought about it that way. I've learned something new today.

LaneB89

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/

Jestinia

Vismal, what have you started???

It's about to get really real up in here! lol

Thanks Aaron_K123 for holding down the fort while I was at the gym! Aaron is correct about adaptive thermogenesis. It will not wipe out a deficit because in order to cause it, the deficit must be HUGE to begin with. As I stated in the original post, prolonged VLCD or even regular dieting for that matter can cause slowdown (not shutdown) of your metabolism. There are ways to prevent this minor slowdown if you are worried about it. I always advocate a 2 week diet break for every 8-12 weeks you are in a deficit. By diet break I do not mean go HAM and eat everything in sight. I mean if you are eating -20% tdee then raise calories to your tdee. It gives the body time to rebound. I would also note that I don't feel that is even necessary if you have 50 or more lbs to lose. The diet break will also give you a mental break and something to look forward to while dieting.

It's true the study I posted is VLCD, but do you have studies to show a smaller deficit does not create that %20 in the same amount of time or over a longer time period? If so, I want to see them please!

LaneB89

Your understanding is flawed. Adaptive thermogenesis is brought on by weight loss, NOT level of deficit. I agree with the idea that high deficits do not elicit metabolic slowdown. Weight loss in general, however, does, and it goes far beyond just the lower energy requirement of being a teacher a lower weight. See linked article above

Aaron_K123

Vismal, what have you started???

It's about to get really real up in here! lol

Thanks Aaron_K123 for holding down the fort while I was at the gym! Aaron is correct about adaptive thermogenesis. It will not wipe out a deficit because in order to cause it, the deficit must be HUGE to begin with. As I stated in the original post, prolonged VLCD or even regular dieting for that matter can cause slowdown (not shutdown) of your metabolism. There are ways to prevent this minor slowdown if you are worried about it. I always advocate a 2 week diet break for every 8-12 weeks you are in a deficit. By diet break I do not mean go HAM and eat everything in sight. I mean if you are eating -20% tdee then raise calories to your tdee. It gives the body time to rebound. I would also note that I don't feel that is even necessary if you have 50 or more lbs to lose. The diet break will also give you a mental break and something to look forward to while dieting.

Thanks vismal, I enjoyed your post even if I do think it was the equivalent of using a thimble in an ocean of ignorance. Sorry, the cynic in me.

MagnumBurrito

Well you got me curious, so good ole internet has more thoughts (there's a lot more in the article, the cut and paste was getting too long):

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php

"However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documentedand is not just a metabolic adaptation – it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food-seeking behaviors.

Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:

Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in (total) metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” tostarvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pagesof data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine).

Here’s one of those follow up studies:

“Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journalof clinical nutrition.

Quote:

“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can beaccounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”

“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”

Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.

Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.

There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them – when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women."

vismal

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/

The take home of the entire article is this sentence "while studies of those successful at sustained weight loss indicate that the maintenance of a reduced degree of body fatness will probably require a lifetime of meticulous attention to energy intake and expenditure"
That's why everyone says "It's not a diet, it's lifestyle modification." I fully expect to have to count calories for the rest of my life. Given the choice between counting calories for the rest of my life or being obese for the rest of my life (a shorter life at that), I without the slightest bit of hesitation choose the former! The tedium of weighing food and tracking calories doesn't even begin to compare with the health risks, depression, self esteem issues, etc that accompany obesity.

MagnumBurrito

http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267

and here's a guy who thinks starvation mode is a myth too.

GoPhil04

I believe this post is only relevant for heavily obese individuals.


Starvation mode is a VERY real thing.

You know... People DIE from not eating.

Aaron_K123

I believe this post is only relevant for heavily obese individuals.


Starvation mode is a VERY real thing.

You know... People DIE from not eating.

....

Can't tell if serious or joking.

LaneB89

It's not just calorie counting. It's calorie counting at much lower than any calculator will tell you to. I'm nearing maintenance at 1600 calories a day. You really think it's OK or sustainable for me to drop another 500 off that as a 6 ft male to keep losing? My body will fight back

Unknown

This content has been removed.

vismal

Coming from a formerly obese individual, I do not think my daily energy expenditure is much lower then someone with a similar height and weight who has been that height and weight all their life. I maintain on roughly 3300 calories a day depending on how active (a little less in the winter, a little more in the summer). Now I know there are plenty of people who are my same height and weight that can eat 4k or 5k calories and not gain weight but there are probably just as many that maintain around 2700. A lot has to do with lifestyle. Some people sit behind a desk all day, I'm moderately active at work, and some people move for an entire 8 hour + work day.

sullus

It's not just calorie counting. It's calorie counting at much lower than any calculator will tell you to. I'm nearing maintenance at 1600 calories a day. You really think it's OK or sustainable for me to drop another 500 off that as a 6 ft male to keep losing? My body will fight back

Fight back by making you feel hungry. It will continue to lose weight, though.

vismal

Wow A great post by the OP now flooded with people with excuses for failure and lack of understanding how things work.

Deja vu....what other forum does the exact same phenomenon occur....lol

eric_sg61

Wow A great post by the OP now flooded with people with excuses for failure and lack of understanding how things work.

This is why I hardly post any advice or help anyone out on here anymore.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lthames0810

In to read later.

Aaron_K123

Wow A great post by the OP now flooded with people with excuses for failure and lack of understanding how things work.

Deja vu....what other forum does the exact same phenomenon occur....lol

Yes but unfortunately over here there are so many more spreading around those feels.

Yes...the amount of emotion that often goes on in these forums is...off-putting. Much prefer math and cold realities to anecdotes and how one particular person feels about it.

BraidedKitteness

The orriginal post actually makes me feel a bit better. My Doctor put me on a 1000cal diet and I was concerned because of all of the hype I read about 1200 minimum. It is difficult and I try to keep it around 1000-1200 a day, but I've actually started to lose a little bit of weight. I was previously trying to eat 14-1600 and that was maintenance for me. I didn't lose, and I didn't gain. I'm on the 1000 for three more months so we shall see how much progress I make! Thanks for the info OP!

LaneB89

Well then you'll be happy to read the study I linked (actual study, not broscience) that corroborated all my claims. Or you can continue to pretend I'm speaking out of emotion or being willfully ignorant.

Yagisama

I understand that the term "Starvation mode" is largely used incorrectly here and elsewhere.

It's been a long time since I took biochemistry and nutrition classes, but I remember that metabolic pathway efficiencies would differ based on nutrient availability. For example, hexokinase/glucokinas affinity would differ.

Basically, it's not that the body would stop losing fat, but that the body would be extremely efficient at storing fat and turning glucose into glycogen.

That is what I've always assumed "Starvation mode" to be. Conversely if your intake is above a certain level, then there is a point that the enzymes are saturated and you will not absorb all of what you eat.

OK you fitness gurus, am I completely wrong in my understanding of "starvation mode" then? Is the contention that with an sufficient caloric deficit and sufficient activity, such mode would not occur in the majority of people?