Starvation mode is a myth!
Replies
-
I'm with you. I'm a science mother effer to the highest degree. The main reason I shifted my attention from the bb.com forums to here is that I feel like the people bb.com finally get the science and there are enough good people there to help newbies. I feel like there will be a much bigger challenge trying to spread the truth around over here.
Yes but unfortunately over here there are so many more spreading around those feels.
Deja vu....what other forum does the exact same phenomenon occur....lolWow A great post by the OP now flooded with people with excuses for failure and lack of understanding how things work.
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.0 -
I though this thread would promote real discussion, perhaps with a flurry of linked studies from those who believe it exists, those who don't, and those who believe it exists but define it very differently from how it is generally defined on this forum.
I should have known better. I'm out.0 -
I'm happy for you, genuinely. But not everybody has that same experience. I maintain at around 1800 calories at a weight of 185 after 55 pounds of weight loss. I want to lose at least 20 more but I can't because the caloric requirements for it have become basically undoable. I feel sick and weak at 1400.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.0 -
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.
Your link was good, I read it. Sadly the people on the 'starvation mode is a myth' side of things don't really seem to want to discuss so much as take pot shots at people.0 -
Of course you can starve. Not eating enough can eventually kill you. No one is arguing that. The point I'm after is letting people know that eating 1200 calories won't automatically cause fat loss to cease. Honestly most people who think they are eating 1200 calories are simply miscounting. That's the greater point behind all this. If weight loss stalls the number one thing anyone can do is take a look at the accuracy of their counting and see if they can improve it.I though this thread would promote real discussion, perhaps with a flurry of linked studies from those who believe it exists, those who don't, and those who believe it exists but define it very differently from how it is generally defined on this forum.
I should have known better. I'm out.
Do you lift? Have you ever taken a diet break? Have you ever done a muscle building period? I didn't lose all my weight in one big chuck. Alternate periods of muscle building and fat loss is how I managed to get lean but still be able to eat.
I'm happy for you, genuinely. But not everybody has that same experience. I maintain at around 1800 calories at a weight of 185 after 55 pounds of weight loss. I want to lose at least 20 more but I can't because the caloric requirements for it have become basically undoable. I feel sick and weak at 1400.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.0 -
I'm happy for you, genuinely. But not everybody has that same experience. I maintain at around 1800 calories at a weight of 185 after 55 pounds of weight loss. I want to lose at least 20 more but I can't because the caloric requirements for it have become basically undoable. I feel sick and weak at 1400.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.
Really? You maintain at 1800?0 -
I'm with you. I'm a science mother effer to the highest degree. The main reason I shifted my attention from the bb.com forums to here is that I feel like the people bb.com finally get the science and there are enough good people there to help newbies. I feel like there will be a much bigger challenge trying to spread the truth around over here.
Yes but unfortunately over here there are so many more spreading around those feels.
Deja vu....what other forum does the exact same phenomenon occur....lolWow A great post by the OP now flooded with people with excuses for failure and lack of understanding how things work.
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.
Well I am a literal scientist, in that "Scientist" is my job title. I don't tend to doc drop though because its a poor substitute for actual argument or debate. Still, I mention it now and again to explain why I am such a hard-*kitten* for evidence and so dismissive of personal anecdote.0 -
Of course you can starve. Not eating enough can eventually kill you. No one is arguing that. The point I'm after is letting people know that eating 1200 calories won't automatically cause fat loss to cease. Honestly most people who think they are eating 1200 calories are simply miscounting. That's the greater point behind all this. If weight loss stalls the number one thing anyone can do is take a look at the accuracy of their counting and see if they can improve it.I though this thread would promote real discussion, perhaps with a flurry of linked studies from those who believe it exists, those who don't, and those who believe it exists but define it very differently from how it is generally defined on this forum.
I should have known better. I'm out.
Do you lift? Have you ever taken a diet break? Have you ever done a muscle building period? I didn't lose all my weight in one big chuck. Alternate periods of muscle building and fat loss is how I managed to get lean but still be able to eat.
I'm happy for you, genuinely. But not everybody has that same experience. I maintain at around 1800 calories at a weight of 185 after 55 pounds of weight loss. I want to lose at least 20 more but I can't because the caloric requirements for it have become basically undoable. I feel sick and weak at 1400.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.
Sorry, I was hasty. Not everyone is incapable of discussion not centered around calling others lazy, weak, and stupid. You're okay, others not so much, but that is what ignore is for.
Didn't we go over this one recently in another thread? I acknowledge that a person certainly will starve to death if they don't eat. But that %20 decrease is still a pain in the neck. I also acknowledge (although I don't like it because I can't work out very often at the moment!) that exercise, according to the abstract I linked, might be the key to helping a lot of people with any decrease in resting metabolic rate.
Again, sorry for being snitty. Just had my feathers ruffled by some people today.0 -
Can't tell if serious or joking.
Serious. Im about doing whats optimal.
In the purest form if "starvation mode" wasnt real people, wouldnt need to eat food. We would be able to get our energy from the sun or wind. However, we arent plants and we dont engage in photosynthesis...
VLCD is certainly sub optimal. People need to start differentiating between weight loss, and fat loss. One is optimal, and one could reduce your metabolism.
A quick way to lose 30 pounds would be to cut off your leg, right? Not very optimal though.0 -
LaneB89 I'm not sure how your linked article on adaptive thermogenesis published in the International Journal of Obesity runs counter to anything stated by Visal (the OP). I'm reading through it and honestly it seems to be in agreement with what the OP stated.
Where in this paper do you see a discrepancy between the claims of the OP and this published study?0 -
There is obviously some metabolic changes during times of nutrient deficiency. My point of view is that this is what leads to "Starvation mode."
Section 30.3 Food Intake and Starvation Induce Metabolic Changes
Section 30.3.1. Metabolic Adaptations in Prolonged Starvation Minimize Protein Degradation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22414/
TFEB controls cellular lipid metabolism through a starvation-induced autoregulatory loop.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/236043210 -
If starvation mode IS real, then why do physicians perform bariatric surgeries, leaving their patients consuming less than 1,000 calories per day?
Starvation mode occurred in conentration camps where people were in fact starved to death.
Period. My unsolicited opinion is that some individuals just need an excuse! If they can use the excuse that starvation mode is real and therefore MUST consume more calories - well then, maybe they feel better about themselves.0 -
Is this what you are referring to?
"Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass 11, 12. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition. "0 -
I lift heavy and run 5k 4 days a week. No strength gains because I'm in a deficit or at maintenance but I hit all the major compound lifts. I do an occasional carb refeed while trying to not exceed maintenance. No extended diet breaks, and no bulking periods because at 23% body fat I'm very prone to putting on too much fat with the muscle. I don't want to have a 50:50 or 60:40 bulk ratio and create all that extra fat to work through. Seems to make more sense to keep trying to cut to a more reasonable body fat.
Of course you can starve. Not eating enough can eventually kill you. No one is arguing that. The point I'm after is letting people know that eating 1200 calories won't automatically cause fat loss to cease. Honestly most people who think they are eating 1200 calories are simply miscounting. That's the greater point behind all this. If weight loss stalls the number one thing anyone can do is take a look at the accuracy of their counting and see if they can improve it.I though this thread would promote real discussion, perhaps with a flurry of linked studies from those who believe it exists, those who don't, and those who believe it exists but define it very differently from how it is generally defined on this forum.
I should have known better. I'm out.
Do you lift? Have you ever taken a diet break? Have you ever done a muscle building period? I didn't lose all my weight in one big chuck. Alternate periods of muscle building and fat loss is how I managed to get lean but still be able to eat.
I'm happy for you, genuinely. But not everybody has that same experience. I maintain at around 1800 calories at a weight of 185 after 55 pounds of weight loss. I want to lose at least 20 more but I can't because the caloric requirements for it have become basically undoable. I feel sick and weak at 1400.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.0 -
Can't tell if serious or joking.
Serious. Im about doing whats optimal.
In the purest form if "starvation mode" wasnt real people, wouldnt need to eat food. We would be able to get our energy from the sun or wind. However, we arent plants and we dont engage in photosynthesis...
VLCD is certainly sub optimal. People need to start differentiating between weight loss, and fat loss. One is optimal, and one could reduce your metabolism.
A quick way to lose 30 pounds would be to cut off your leg, right? Not very optimal though.
You are describing malnutrition and starvation. "Starvation mode" refers to the believe that if you diet too aggressively (in a first world sort of way) that you will somehow retain fat because your calories are too low.
I think everyone would agree that actual starvation is bad. They would also agree that VLCD's are not very healthy although may be required in the case of someone who is morbidly obese and under doctor supervision.0 -
I lift heavy and run 5k 4 days a week. No strength gains because I'm in a deficit or at maintenance but I hit all the major compound lifts. I do an occasional carb refeed while trying to not exceed maintenance. No extended diet breaks, and no bulking periods because at 23% body fat I'm very prone to putting on too much fat with the muscle. I don't want to have a 50:50 or 60:40 bulk ratio and create all that extra fat to work through. Seems to make more sense to keep trying to cut to a more reasonable body fat.
Sounds totally logical and well reasoned to me.0 -
You are describing malnutrition and starvation. "Starvation mode" refers to the believe that if you diet too aggressively (in a first world sort of way) that you will somehow retain fat because your calories are too low.
I think everyone would agree that actual starvation is bad. They would also agree that VLCD's are not very healthy although may be required in the case of someone who is morbidly obese and under doctor supervision.
So where in my post can you not tell if im joking? You literally reiterated everything I said.
This info is only relevant to obese individuals.0 -
You are describing malnutrition and starvation. "Starvation mode" refers to the believe that if you diet too aggressively (in a first world sort of way) that you will somehow retain fat because your calories are too low.
I think everyone would agree that actual starvation is bad. They would also agree that VLCD's are not very healthy although may be required in the case of someone who is morbidly obese and under doctor supervision.
So where in my post can you not tell if im joking? You literally reiterated everything I said.
This info is only relevant to obese individuals.
Your original post stated that starvation was bad. I couldn't tell if you were serious or joking because that is, frankly, a very obvious thing and I wasn't sure if you were saying it just tongue in cheek or if you thought that people were unaware that starvation was bad.
Starvation MODE however refers to a myth often perpetuated on these forums that if you undereat you will gain fat. Starvation mode is a myth, and that is what the OP was refering to. Of course actual starvation is a real thing.0 -
I think the risk with cutting calories that low is that it might be harder to get the nutrients you need. It also depends on the person too. If I eat too little, I get horrible headaches (probably thanks to my insulin issues).
Plus, in my experience, when people cut calories that low, they aren't doing it right. My boyfriend decided his one fried egg sandwich a day diet was the best thing and was "recommended by doctors". If you don't have any health effects from the low calorie diets and eat the right foods, I don't see the problem.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Which part of the forum was this on? I would be interested to read about it. Thanks :-).esp considering I saw a thread today that had 2 pages of starvation mode and gaining muscle at a deficet...
Fitness I believe but I just couldn't keep my snark at bay so I didn't comment...0 -
I lift heavy and run 5k 4 days a week. No strength gains because I'm in a deficit or at maintenance but I hit all the major compound lifts. I do an occasional carb refeed while trying to not exceed maintenance. No extended diet breaks, and no bulking periods because at 23% body fat I'm very prone to putting on too much fat with the muscle. I don't want to have a 50:50 or 60:40 bulk ratio and create all that extra fat to work through. Seems to make more sense to keep trying to cut to a more reasonable body fat.
Of course you can starve. Not eating enough can eventually kill you. No one is arguing that. The point I'm after is letting people know that eating 1200 calories won't automatically cause fat loss to cease. Honestly most people who think they are eating 1200 calories are simply miscounting. That's the greater point behind all this. If weight loss stalls the number one thing anyone can do is take a look at the accuracy of their counting and see if they can improve it.I though this thread would promote real discussion, perhaps with a flurry of linked studies from those who believe it exists, those who don't, and those who believe it exists but define it very differently from how it is generally defined on this forum.
I should have known better. I'm out.
Do you lift? Have you ever taken a diet break? Have you ever done a muscle building period? I didn't lose all my weight in one big chuck. Alternate periods of muscle building and fat loss is how I managed to get lean but still be able to eat.
I'm happy for you, genuinely. But not everybody has that same experience. I maintain at around 1800 calories at a weight of 185 after 55 pounds of weight loss. I want to lose at least 20 more but I can't because the caloric requirements for it have become basically undoable. I feel sick and weak at 1400.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.
This confuses me personally how is it that TDEE/BMR could go down to this point with all this exercise????
After losing about 35lbs with diet alone...I calculated my TDEE @ 1995 at that point (no online calculator my own data)
I have since then been lifting using a progressive load lifting program SL 5x5, lost another 20lbs, added in HIIT in the new year, now walking/biking..and my TDEE has gone up to about 2150...and my strength has increased significantly...
So yah I am confused by this...0 -
Confused me as well. I maintain at nearly double. Granted, I do a bit more cardio, but still... I don't get it.
And for the record, I lost a lot of my weight the wrong way by eating way to few of calories.0 -
My calculated TDEE is 2500, and that's with conservative estimates of height, exercise, etc. If that were remotely accurate, I'd be losing nearly 2 pounds a week. Based on my diet and actual weight, my calculated TDEE is off by at LEAST 500 calories. I did see initial strength gains, but now 6 months into my exercise routine, my newbie gains have been more or less exhausted. Some days I find I can't even lift as much as the previous week.0
-
My calculated TDEE is 2500, and that's with conservative estimates of height, exercise, etc. If that were remotely accurate, I'd be losing nearly 2 pounds a week. Based on my diet and actual weight, my calculated TDEE is off by at LEAST 500 calories. I did see initial strength gains, but now 6 months into my exercise routine, my newbie gains have been more or less exhausted. Some days I find I can't even lift as much as the previous week.
TDEE calculators aren't 100% accurate they are mearly guesstimates based on population averages and assumptions. The fact that you maintain at a level that is calorically lower than what an online calculator tells you just means that the online calculator is wrong, it does not mean that you have been metabolically "damaged" by losing weight.0 -
Starvation MODE however refers to a myth often perpetuated on these forums that if you undereat you will gain fat. Starvation mode is a myth, and that is what the OP was refering to. Of course actual starvation is a real thing.
Im not sure anyone believes you will GAIN, but rather, your body will ineffectively metabolize adipose.
There is a pecking order of importance that your body preferentially uses for fuel sources. There was never an evolutionary advantage of gaining muscle, so your body doesnt recognize a need for excess. Adipose has an evolutionary advantage for predisposition for creation since it cushions organs and provides thermal protection in colder climates.
One's body will very effectively break down muscle for fuel during a VLCD, which ultimately decreases metabolic activity within the body. Maintaining and creating the need for muscle should be the major goal for ANYONE with a desire to improve their body composition0 -
Im not sure anyone believes you will GAIN, but rather, your body will ineffectively metabolize adipose.
Oh no, those people are out there I assure you. I once had an interesting discussion with a forum poster who insisted in full seriousness that the reason starving african children have large distended abdomens is because they were putting on fat from starvation mode. No, they were not kidding...yes, they tried to back up their claim with references to online blogs describing starvation mode as if you don't eat enough your body will try to "put on" fat.0 -
Much of what you say is incorrect. If calories are low but you lift weights and get in adequate protein the body will not attack muscle first. Especially if you have lots of fat present. Doctors don't put people on vlcd because the likelihood they'll stick to it is nill.People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.
The problem is that they are not getting the protein needed at 500 calories a day.0 -
To the people who keep saying eating low calorie makes it hard to get in needed nutrients, it most certainly does not! You can get in 2 servings of fruit and 4 servings of vegetables in for under 400 calories. Less then that if you pick the right ones. If you are going to eat low calorie, chances are you will need to eat micro nutrient rich food anyways simply to maintain satiety.0
-
in...for people who think they can defy the energy balance equation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions