Starvation Mode: Fact? Fiction?

onlyboys1

Hello all!

It's my first post here, but I've been reading for a while. I'm doing well on my diet plus new exercise regimen, but I keep hearing about "starvation mode." I think I fall into the "a calorie is a calorie" camp, and a deficit will result in weight loss (in my understanding). If this is true, then does the mythical "starvation" mode exist for someone who has an adequate amount of calorie stores?

I'm curious whether or not going well below my calories for a day, exercising and not eating back my exercise calories, could jeopardize my weight loss. I'm not having any issues yet--losing at a reasonable 6lbs in the first month.

Thoughts?

Supertact

100% fact based on Africans.

Cheekies_

Great article about 'starvation mode". Check it out. It helped me.

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

yarwell

The "you won't lose any weight because you aren't eating enough" version is probably mythical, although your metabolic rate and activity level might drop a hundred or two calories when you're restricting calorie intake.

There are reams of studies of people on VLC diets losing weight at below 1,000 calories which to me is evidence that the first version is nonsense.

The most challenging case would be someone with low fat levels trying to sustain a large calorie deficit. Something has to give.

Madame_Goldbricker

How far is 'going well below'?

You'll probably end up extremely lethargic prior to any other effects. Not my idea of fun personally.

StaciMarie1974

Starvation mode: the theory that you will hoard fat if you eat too little = myth.

On the other hand, I do believe that if over time you fail to give your body proper nutrition, you'll suffer negative effects. You'll lose weight, sure, but the body works at its best when it has what it needs.

Sam_I_Am77

The real issue is in the realm of negative impact to one's metabolism in a prolonged hypo-caloric state. People should "diet" on as many calories possible, so in other words; start with as small as a deficit as possible and work down from there. Unfortunately everybody wants immediate results, hence why so many crash diets are popular, 7-minute works, etc., etc. Unfortunately I believe the statistic is something like 80% of people that diet like that gain the weight back and that's part of the reason. The other reason is because people choose diets that are not sustainable in the long-term (i.e. Atkins, strict Paleo, etc).

tuckeychicken

Well I am not an expert, but Halie Pomroy is she is a nutritionist and the author of the book The Fast Metabolism Diet. This is a quote from her book about not eating. This is what she says, " Starving yourself does terrible things to your muscles. You know that feeling you get when you're hungry, but don't eat? At some point, you stop being hungry, right? You sure do, but it's not because you didn't eat. You did eat. YOur body turned to its own tissues for fuel.

This would be great if your body just cannibalized all the excess fat in the places you don't wat it to be. But unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Instead, the body goes for the muscle first. Becasue fat is stored for emergencies, your bod considers snacking on your own muscle tissue as a preferable option, Yum, bicep sandwich!" Well I hope that helps. By the way I found this book at the Library and it is a great read, even if you don't do the diet. I am on the diet and it is working so far and real well. I do suggest that if you do the diet, that you start cooking some things ahead of time and label and freeze them even if you don't start the diet for a couple of weeks. Any way best wishes to you hope you don't eat any muscles.

onlyboys1

My diet is under 1200 calories, which doesn't feel restrictive at all. I'm 5'1" and have about 60 lbs to lose. Sometimes I don't reach 1200 calories, but I don't feel that hungry. I'm running 4 miles about 4-5 times per week (but I run SLOW); it takes me about an hour to go 4 miles.

I feel fine, but do want this to be sustainable. I don't view this as a crash diet to lose weight.

I'll check out the links and the book. Thanks!

lemonsnowdrop

My diet is under 1200 calories, which doesn't feel restrictive at all. I'm 5'1" and have about 60 lbs to lose. Sometimes I don't reach 1200 calories, but I don't feel that hungry. I'm running 4 miles about 4-5 times per week (but I run SLOW); it takes me about an hour to go 4 miles.

I feel fine, but do want this to be sustainable. I don't view this as a crash diet to lose weight.

I'll check out the links and the book. Thanks!

The problem with eating so little is maintaining proper nutrition. While it won't hinder weight loss, not getting enough protein will also lead to muscle loss. Make sure you're meeting your macro goals for the day.

zman1313

Well I am not an expert, but Halie Pomroy is she is a nutritionist and the author of the book The Fast Metabolism Diet. This is a quote from her book about not eating. This is what she says, " Starving yourself does terrible things to your muscles. You know that feeling you get when you're hungry, but don't eat? At some point, you stop being hungry, right? You sure do, but it's not because you didn't eat. You did eat. YOur body turned to its own tissues for fuel.

This would be great if your body just cannibalized all the excess fat in the places you don't wat it to be. But unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Instead, the body goes for the muscle first. Becasue fat is stored for emergencies, your bod considers snacking on your own muscle tissue as a preferable option, Yum, bicep sandwich!" Well I hope that helps. By the way I found this book at the Library and it is a great read, even if you don't do the diet. I am on the diet and it is working so far and real well. I do suggest that if you do the diet, that you start cooking some things ahead of time and label and freeze them even if you don't start the diet for a couple of weeks. Any way best wishes to you hope you don't eat any muscles.

I'd love to see some studies that back up those claims. If you're starving youtself for days, then sure you're going to start "eating" your muscles, but the way she worded that claim makes it sound like that mid-afternoon hunger that many people get and push past is "eating" thier muscles. I've never read anything that substantiates that claim.

Aaron_K123

Starvation mode.

Fact. Your bodies metabolism can slow by up to 40% of its normal basal metabolic rate while under long term starvation conditions. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis. This is backed up by the Minnesota starvation experiment.

Fiction: If you don't eat enough your body will enter "starvation mode" where it will "hold on" to fat stores or any fat that you injest resulting in fat gain or fat maintenance. This is false, backed up by no studies at all and perpetuated as a myth on the internet. By definition if you are "not eating enough" then you are eating below maintenance at which point your body will of course rely on its energy storage in the form of fat. You may burn muscle as well but that doesn't mean you will "hold on" to fat.

jammer2net

Agree

Starvation mode.

Fact. Your bodies metabolism can slow by up to 40% of its normal basal metabolic rate while under long term starvation conditions. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis. This is backed up by the Minnesota starvation experiment.

Fiction: If you don't eat enough your body will enter "starvation mode" where it will "hold on" to fat stores or any fat that you injest resulting in fat gain or fat maintenance. This is false, backed up by no studies at all and perpetuated as a myth on the internet.

vismal

Can you starve? Sure you can. If you don't eat for enough time will it kill you? Yup, sure will, but by the time it finally does, you can bet your *kitten* you will weigh a hell of a lot less then when you first stopped eating. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons why very low calorie dieting is bad, but weight loss stopping is not one of them.

michikade

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' minimum level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Aaron_K123

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Glycogen is carbohydrate stored within muscle tissue, it is not itself muscle tissue. Your body will utilize stored carbohydrates first however this does not result in muscle mass depletion. The only reason your body would consume its own muscle is for essential amino acids in a malnourished state or potentially while at large caloric deficit if you are not actively using your muscle (reabsorbed, lose it if you don't use it).

If you deplete glycogen you will find that you will exhaust quickly if you try to do something like weight-lifting but this does not mean that your muscle has gone away, it means that your body has already utilized its primary energy source.

Also...."Sugar muscles"?

vismal

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Glycogen is carbohydrate stored within muscle tissue, it is not itself muscle tissue. Your body will utilize stored carbohydrates first however this does not result in muscle mass depletion. The only reason your body would consume its own muscle is for essential amino acids in a malnourished state.

If you deplete glycogen you will find that you will exhaust quickly if you try to do something like weight-lifting but this does not mean that your muscle has gone away, it means that your body has already utilized its primary energy source.

Also...."Sugar muscles"?

QFT

Aaron_K123

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Glycogen is carbohydrate stored within muscle tissue, it is not itself muscle tissue. Your body will utilize stored carbohydrates first however this does not result in muscle mass depletion. The only reason your body would consume its own muscle is for essential amino acids in a malnourished state.

If you deplete glycogen you will find that you will exhaust quickly if you try to do something like weight-lifting but this does not mean that your muscle has gone away, it means that your body has already utilized its primary energy source.

Also...."Sugar muscles"?

QFT

One thing I will say that might be why people get this impression is that glycogen requires a lot of water to solubilize. The result of this is when your muscle has full glycogen stores it has a lot of retained water which basically puffs it up like a baloon, makes it feel harder and fuller and gives it a larger more defined look. If you skimp on carbs and eat at a deficit your body will consume the glycogen and release the retained water resulting in your muscles basically deflating, becoming softer, smaller and less defined. This happens with zero loss to actual muscle tissue.

The opposite of this is lifting heavy weight where blood pumps into your muscle and then eating carbs where your glycogen stores will be replenished resulting in a huge influx of water for both solubilization of glycogen and repair. This gives your muscle a big "pump" that makes them look much larger than before and why I think people get so convinced that eating right after a workout just adds so much to their gains. Its not actual muscle tissue gain, its just refilling the glycogen. That is still important but yeah, big difference between that and changing the actual tissue density.

michikade

Wow, sarcasm doesn't read well - didn't think anyone would read that phrase and hold onto it.

The idea that starvation mode will make you hold onto fat is false, but the body uses the glycogen stores for energy in muscles first (i.e. sugar muscles due to the glycogen store) before it utilizes the fat stores in a deprivation state.

Apparently being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it didn't pass off on the internet correctly.

vismal

Wow, sarcasm doesn't read well - didn't think anyone would read that phrase and hold onto it.

The idea that starvation mode will make you hold onto fat is false, but the body uses the glycogen stores for energy in muscles first (i.e. sugar muscles due to the glycogen store) before it utilizes the fat stores in a deprivation state.

Apparently being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it didn't pass off on the internet correctly.

Of course the body uses stored glycogen before fat but how is that relevant to starvation mode? Also you do not have to completely exhaust your glycogen stores for the body to utilize fat for energy. To not over complicate things, all one really needs to know is that if you eat in a deficit you will lose weight. If you eat adequate protein and lift weights, the majority of that weight will be fat.

Aaron_K123

Wow, sarcasm doesn't read well - didn't think anyone would read that phrase and hold onto it.

The idea that starvation mode will make you hold onto fat is false, but the body uses the glycogen stores for energy in muscles first (i.e. sugar muscles due to the glycogen store) before it utilizes the fat stores in a deprivation state.

Apparently being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it didn't pass off on the internet correctly.

What part of your post was sarcasm? Unless you are being tongue-in-cheek again in your restatement I still disagree with you, utilization of glycogen does not prevent fat mobilization.