Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

hellen72

Thanks for that post, it confirms what I think is true ie just over 1000 is ok and u lose. Will be interesting if u keep losing or if, after a period of time you go into this starvation mode

I had a look at your diary, v healthy! U have some interesting sounding things in the us! We have cinnamon Graham cereals but what are these crackers? They sound interesting!

muth3rluvx2

Thanks for that post, it confirms what I think is true ie just over 1000 is ok and u lose. Will be interesting if u keep losing or if, after a period of time you go into this starvation mode

I had a look at your diary, v healthy! U have some interesting sounding things in the us! We have cinnamon Graham cereals but what are these crackers? They sound interesting!

Hellen:

Graham crackers? I'll friend you and I'll TRY to describe them. LOL! Alot of what I've been eating lately has been very produce heavy and geared in the Indian direction. I'm wanting to go without beef and pork for a while. I love beef, but I'm ready for a lighter, healthier diet for a bit. If I feel the need for "meat", I'll go with chicken or fish - but even those I'm going to try to keep at only once a week. I'm *TRYING* to lower my carb intake too.. having a little harder time with that. :-(

Oh, and I doubt I'll go in starvation mode, but I probably will plateau. I think, for me, that will happen after I can manage to work out consistently enough to start building more muscle and my needs - both dietary and exercise - will change. Then, it'll be that struggle all over again to figure out what it is I'll need to do and by how much. I'll go ahead and assume I'll need to up both food & exercise intensity/time when that happens.

paulmmichaud

bump...it's prob gonna take me hours and hours to read/research all this. LOL

rdy2begin

OK Finally something that makes sense I have heard this over and over and have been back and forth trying to decide what I need to do so Thank You !

hellen72

Mouth, yes, I meant plataeu rather than starvation

About 15 years ago I put on loads of weight during a gap year in Kenya

After a couple of years I decided I needed to lose it so started to exercise and eat really healthy, lots of fruit and veg. I was working in a boarding school so had school meals at lunch and often eve but picked as healthy as I could although suspect the cooked things didn't have many nutrients left!

I used to chop a mars bar into several bits and have one or two a day as a treat. Other than that my diet contained little rubbish, perhaps a bagel or some choc spread on toast a few times a week

I counted calories, can't remember what I had but think it was about 1200-1500 a day, I exercised for on av 45 min a day

I steadily lost weight. I started at 10.5 ish and wanted to get to 9 stone which is where I had always been. Can't remember how long it took, many months though as by he time I got there I was so set in my healthy eating habits, it seem normal and I didn't feel deprived so I kept eating the same way. I got down to 8.25 stone. I wasn't really targeting anything it just kind of happened.

A few people said I was too thin ( but people always do that when someone loses weight so not sure if I was). Can't remember what happened to cause me to put on weight again, I think I went on a skiing hol and couldn't count cal as the food was diff so I didn't know what it was, also, treats were on offer a lot and I indulged. Then I got back and didn't continue counting so I think the calories crept up. I then stabilised at around 8.75 which is a bmi of 19 so still underweight.

This was in my early 20s so not sure how it would be now but then I def didn't get into starvation mode despite having net cal below 1200. I didn't even plataue, it was my change of habits which meant I put the weight on

Dobsaya

You calories weren't that low. Exercising for45 minutes a day may have burned between 200-400 calories making your net pretty close to 1200. Your net definitely wasn't like many with a 600 calorie deficit or less.

laurenk182004

This thread is still going? I've enjoyed reading the arguments...lol

dzilobommo

Thanks for that post, it confirms what I think is true ie just over 1000 is ok and u lose. Will be interesting if u keep losing or if, after a period of time you go into this starvation mode

I had a look at your diary, v healthy! U have some interesting sounding things in the us! We have cinnamon Graham cereals but what are these crackers? They sound interesting!

Hellen:

Graham crackers? I'll friend you and I'll TRY to describe them. LOL! Alot of what I've been eating lately has been very produce heavy and geared in the Indian direction. I'm wanting to go without beef and pork for a while. I love beef, but I'm ready for a lighter, healthier diet for a bit. If I feel the need for "meat", I'll go with chicken or fish - but even those I'm going to try to keep at only once a week. I'm *TRYING* to lower my carb intake too.. having a little harder time with that. :-(

Oh, and I doubt I'll go in starvation mode, but I probably will plateau. I think, for me, that will happen after I can manage to work out consistently enough to start building more muscle and my needs - both dietary and exercise - will change. Then, it'll be that struggle all over again to figure out what it is I'll need to do and by how much. I'll go ahead and assume I'll need to up both food & exercise intensity/time when that happens.

Something just occurred to me about plateau-ing...what I haven't seen mentioned so far is two issues about weigh-ins that can influence our perceptions of plateaus (on top of all those other confounding factors )

Firstly, accuracy: if your scales only show full pounds, then say a 1/4 pound loss won't show up. I weigh myself in kgs and my scales show every 100g lost, which shows up relatively minuscule fluctuations in my weight. My old scales were far less accurate so it was hard to see if anything was happening to my weight in the short run, making it look more like a plateau every now and then.

Secondly, frequency: I weigh myself every day (I'm too impatient to wait, plus it really helps with my motivation - I'm not suggesting this is the best way for everyone, it just happens to work for me ) and therefore I see all sorts of fluctuations up and down (although a definite downward trend overall). This may be another reason why I rarely ever see the same number on the scales for more than 2 consecutive weigh-ins - if I was weighing myself less often, it may look like a plateau, because it would conceal the 'activity' going on in between weigh-ins.

Bottom line: let's not get too hung up on plateaus, we're in this for the long run!

Dobsaya

Good points. Slow and steady wins the race.

hellen72

I weigh every day but have Tuesday as official weigh day making sure I always keep Monday night food/ exercise the same so comparing like with like

I find I weigh more if I have eaten later in the eve and if I have something heavier weight wise. If I had 100g bar of choc for my tea I would be lighter than if i had a massive bowl of homemade low cal soup cos it takes til longer than the next morning to go through me unless I eat early

On a Monday I eat about 5.30 pm then run to gym for body pump run home and try not to eat much , just banana and hot choc

I am lightest on tues am cos other days I tend to exercise then eat later. Mondays class is too late to have meal after

johnnya2

This is only common sense. I never see overweight or obese people who are in TRUE malnutrition starvation mode. Weight loss and health are simple. Your body needs to have a certain amount of nutrients (protein, carbs, vitamins, minerals and fat) to thrive. The theory is that you can lose weight on a myriad of diets, BUT for the average diet you can not get enough of these necessary items through a diet less than 1200 calories. The site and all general advice always have a disclaimer *check with your health professional BEFORE starting a diet".
One day at less than 1200 is not starvation, the body does not know to "store" the calories if you eat too little. If the body were able to self regulate in that way, don;t you think it would be able to burn the excess calories it never needed through body waste?

loverbey79

Thanks so much Skye76 for posting this. I have been hearing about the myth for ages.

loriefolk

GREAT research and post Kudos to you!

wannalose25

good info

SHBoss1673

http://www.burnthefat.com/starvation_mode.html

valeriebpdx

I also read online th 'starvation mode' only occurs once a person is eating 50% of what they're needing to eat a day. This was when I was reading the study of where they put a bunch of men in to 'starvation mode' giving them 50% of their daily needed calorie goal... Most of them went mental from it.

Actually, no: They gave them 50% of *what they had been eating before*. They were still taking in 1560 calories a day during the semistarvation period. And yeah, most of them went completely postal and many were plagued by disordered eating for years, long after the calorie restriction had stopped.

Ms_Natalie

Sounds like a very ethical study...making people starve for 60 hours.

Just like what came first, the chicken or the egg, there will always be debate over this issue.

I however, know that if i don't eat enough good foods I will get cranky, have headaches and generally feel rubbish.

Food is there to feed the body and brain...I would rather enjoy it sensibly than take drastic limited eating measures just to drop a few pounds quickly.

However, I do agree that eating below 1200 over a few days will not be severely detrimental to the body.

However, the only time I would do this is following dental treatment

Ms_Natalie

In my nearly 2 years here, I've seen it get heated EVERY time this topic comes up. The veterans just sigh...because...here we go again.:mad:

I agree totally!

Just like a few other topics such as HCG.....

ladyhawk00

http://www.burnthefat.com/starvation_mode.html

Thanks, Banks!

runningneo122

^ Ditto

MMK72

Eeek I promised myself I wouldn't post back on this topic but I think found where some of the "myth" comes from.
[presuming random web page is accurately quoting the study!]

http://www.possibility.com/wiki/index.php?title=EffectsOfSemiStarvation

This is like a summary of the 1950s Minnesota experiments and results which I find really interesting..
(36 Men eating whatever they like for 3 months, only half of that for 3 months, then whatever they like again for 3 months)

I find it interesting because these poor men suffered some of the feelings I have in the past on self imposed diets.
- Failure to finish or complete - check - 2 dropouts!
- feelings of anxiety and depression - check
- actually losing weight whilst dieting - check
- massive stuffing your face and regaining when you stop the diet - check!
- ending up weighing more than when you started - check.

Bits I found interesting: (and copied and pasted for you) (my comments in parenthesis)

2 people just couldn't keep up the calorie restriction so got kicked out of the study.

During the refeeding phase of the experiment, many of the men lost control of their appetites and "ate more or less continuously"
Even after 12 weeks of refeeding, the men frequently complained of increased hunger immediately following a large meal.
During the weekends in particular, some of the men found it difficult to stop eating. Their daily intake commonly ranged between 8,000 and 10,000 calories.

For most subjects, anxiety became more evident. As the experiment progressed, many of the formerly even-tempered men began biting their nails or smoking because they felt nervous.
most experienced significant emotional deterioration as a result of semistarvation
(one guy chopped his own fingers off!)

Sexual interests were likewise drastically reduced. *kitten*, sexual fantasies, and sexual impulses either ceased or became much less common.

At the end of semistarvation, the men's BMRs had dropped by about 40% from normal levels.
During refeeding, Keys et al. found that metabolism speeded up, with those consuming the greatest number of calories experiencing the largest rise in BMR.

Again, it is important to emphasize that following the months of refeeding, the Minnesota volunteers did not skyrocket into obesity. On the average, they gained back their original weight plus about 10%; then, over the next 6 months, their weight gradually declined. By the end of the follow-up period, they were approaching their preexperiment weight levels.

---

end of copy and paste

---

But read it for yourselves folks - it shows in some ways we are all right. BMR decreases during low calorie diets but is restored when you start eating again. Food relationships and behaviour are totally skewed by severe dieting. There's no magic number it was half of what they were eating before (no one mentioned less than 1200 LOL). No-one ended up obese.

Anyway I think there is truth in both camps of this argument - do what suits you the most - and avoid what has failed you in the past. I am here because of past failure of other techniques but I guess some of you are just applying new technology and free resources to things that have worked for you in the past. Peace.

*waves white flag, retreats slowly to the exercise calorie eaters corner*

EbonyGemstoneHealth

Bump

ferrari420

great info!!

lara_scoffed

Finally, an open debate, backed up by scientific evidence, by people who aren't afraid to question the received wisdom!! I switched here from weightwatchers after I was told I wasn't losing weight because I wasn't eating enough! I was told to eat more and watch while the pounds just fell off. What nonsense! And i was practically lynched for daring to question "THE PLAN". As far as I know, the only weightloss method backed by doctors is calorie restriction. I'm going to carry on tracking my food in weightwatchers at the same time and compare the two; I have a feeling WW was far too generous.

DrMooMoo...I´ve read about the Keys et al study before, just went & looked it up again..."During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject’s dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day. Their meals were composed of foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni." No wonder they got irritable!! Potatoes & turnips, yum! :laugh: Seriously though, this looks like a low calorie, high carb, low protein diet... not really what's being recommended these days.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Still_Sossy

My head hurts.

hedleyrocks247

*I am posting this after just reading the original post - so if there are other messages in the thread that are similar I apologize in advance*

1200 calories isn't the "arbitrary" number choses for starvation mode - it is the "least" amount of calories that should be consumed in order to get all the proper nutrients that your body needs in a day - this is something that causes a lot of confusion!

Starvation "mode" should be referred to as starvation "response" - and is not something that happens if you go without proper caloric intake for just a day or 2 or 3 or on and off over a couple of weeks or months......it happens after depriving your body over a long period of time. It is how your body "responds" to too little calories in (rabbit food) versus too many calories out (high activity level) which will eventually take a toll on a metabolism.

This is not the "same" for everyone. Some people are blessed with amazing, high functioning metabolisms and it doesn't matter what they eat or what they do, it is never effected. Then there are those of us who aren't so blessed and we have to work hard to get our metabolism working.

I know how my body works b/c I've been down this road a time or two. The last time I achieved weightloss success I was doing everything "right" or so I thought - I was eating nutritiously about 90% of the time, allowing myself to indulge about 10%, I'd given up alcohol, I had a job as a waitress where I was on my feet, running non stop for 8 hours a day - 5 days a week, I went to the gym 5 times a week for an hour a time, plus I was walking everywhere. I was 15 pounds away from my goal weight (after losing 40 pds over the course of 2 yrs) when the scale stopped moving. My solution for that was to lower my caloric intake and up my activity level - the scale did not BUDGE. Needless to say when I got pregnant with my daughter and started eating "normally" - whatever I ate just stuck, and the weight piled on. So here I am 4.5 yrs later and I'm starting all over. What I am glad for is websites like MFP, and others calculator sites where I can enter my activity level and see what I am appoximately supposed to be taking in calorie wise. Hopefully this will be my last journey down this road - b/c this time I am going to keep a close eye on what I am doing and if I hit a plateau I can take a look at what I'm eating versus what I'm doing and hopefully get going again.

As for starvation "mode", I believe it b/c I've lived it. And just b/c someone has written an article negating something doesn't make it so. There are many theories that once were thought to be the "truth" that have since been proved otherwise (thank goodness in many of those cases, history is riddled with horror stories of people being punished for things that were never in their control). The problem with our society and it's views on weigh gain or diet are MESSED UP b/c there is sooooo much information floating around out there. I'm tired of people thinking that someone who is over weight eats ALL the time and doesn't excersie. And I think it's ridiculous that people think that if they starve themselves they will be able to keep the weight off. Look at "Survivor" as an example - those contestants are skin and bones by the time they make it to the end, but do any of them still look like that at the finale???

kerriBB37

Thank you for this. I am a self-proclaimed nerd and I truly do value and seek out research to help me understand things. I only have time to dedicate research to my area of expertise so thank you for doing the digging. I totally agree with these articles. I personally eat 1400 calories a day and that's it. I sometimes net 100 for the day, big deal. It has been working well for me. I eat 50% protein, 30% carb and 20% fat. I found a great husband/wife combo--trainer/nutrionist and they have provided me with all kinds of great advice/information. I am excited that I can refer this link to someone when they question my decision to not eat back my exercise calories!

hedleyrocks247

I find it hard to get a balanced diet in if I eat below the 1200 number but maybe that's just me. What I can tell you is that I actually eat more food every day than my overweight friends. I'm losing and they're not.

:happy:

fteale

I agree with the first poster. Every bit of actual evidence I have seen/read/been taught disproves starvation mode as a theory.

Aside from studies and actual evidence, my real life experiences of myself, my family and my friends also backs it up. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know who is actually overweight who doesn't eat more than they should. Nor can I think of anyone thin who eats a huge amount, bar one friend who had coeliac disease and wasn't digesting anything at all, so was eating all day and losing weight and nutrients constantly before she was diagnosed and cut out gluten. My own family are a very compelling argument against the theory!