Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

0EmmeNicole0

Thank you for finally setting the record straight. I researched the hell out of this when i first started MFP and have believed it ever since. I'm glad someone finally posted the truth.

stephl21uk

1200 calories is the absolute minimum amount necessary for the body to function. Of course, it will vary depending on the person, but if one eats below 1200, they can get seriously ill in a short period of time.

i have been eating around 1000 a day for 3 weeks and never felt ill, if anything never felt better and got loads of energy.....and i exercise daily im doing 30 day shred.

0EmmeNicole0

The reason I"m overweight is because I did not listen to my body and I ate when I was not hungry. Now, I eat when I'm hungry. A couple of days the site told me I was going into starvation mode, but my body did not send such signals. I think the lesson is to learn "your" body and listen to the clues. I trust that my body will let me know when I'm begining to starve.

This!! I believe that you should eat when you are hungry. Don't force yourself to eat your exercise cals if you aren't hungry, but don't starve yourself trying to lose weight either. Use your body as a guide. Well said!

amyy902

thank god someone with sense. also the people going on about it tend to have a lot of fat storage anyway, so the starvatrion response( that would only come if youre one of those starving children in africa ) is nonsense your body will use up anystores of fat and carbs before it shifts to protein stores so its only extreme cases that this whole 'your eating your muscle' thing happens. im on track for a first class houners degree in this and have got A1s in all assessments relating to this topic, so i think i have rights to say this!!

the fatter you are the quicker you loose weight, chances are *not in all cases but most* those people on low calorie intakes are likely to be fairly small anyway, people dont get fat offf 800 cals a day. they get fat by consuming toooo much!!

r3d13

Bump

stormieweather

There's no myth. What you are burning is revealed easily via what you expel through your lungs.

What???????

Indirect calorimetry measures resting metabolic rate, or the number of calories your body burns at rest. It can also measure how many calories your body burns after eating.

The test involves measuring the amount of oxygen a subject breathes in, and the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) breathed out. From these gas exchange data, the number of calories burned per minute is determined.



http://www.uoguelph.ca/bodycomp/ic.html

0EmmeNicole0

And I can't find it, but whoever put "You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories) " What a joke! ALL of us here are "real" MFPers. What works for some, doesn't work for all.

Thank you! Real MFPers are supposed to be SUPPORTIVE and not JUDGEMENTAL like whoever posted that.

gemiwing

Now, through some work and diligence, I can eat much more and still lose. I have more energy than I have had in decades, am getting stronger all the time, and eating more and more and losing inches and pounds and I'm thrilled. I plan on gradually increasing my net calories to see how high I can go and still lose. And I'm looking forward to the day when I reach my goal and can eat without worrying about gaining because I have healed my slow-burning metabolism with one that burns much faster.

My heart goes out to those who are still stuck with the mindset and body that requires VLC eating to lose weight. I was one of those for most of my life. I believe I'm proof-positive that you can raise your metabolism. And, if it's possible, why wouldn't you want to?

I didn't expect to read this thread and find anything but people advocating denying themselves food, how they are different and how existing on 1000cals a day is fun. Very much enjoyed your post and your story- I'm keeping it in my file. My metabolism is repairing right now and you're right- it feels amazing to be able to be free of the yoke of VLC/starvation/denial of nutrients. Freedom is amazing and reading your story I know it's only going to get better from here and that's electric and exciting! :flowerforyou:

ATT949

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

Yes, anecdotal evidence is very persuasive to some folks but, in the world of science, of zero value. Promise.

If you can't replicate it in a lab, it means nothing.

Case in point, http://www.randi.org/jr/

For years and years, he's had a $1,000,000 offer to anyone who can recreate a paranormal or psychic power. The applicant works with the Foundation to set up the test conditions and then they execute it. IIRC, most people don't get through the initial trial and, even though folks have agreed to the test conditions, no one has claimed the prize.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." Yup, it's that simple.

OTOH, I do understand the power of the placebo. Ever hear of a thing called "acupuncture"? Acupuncture has never been able to show anything more than a placebo effect in a clinical trial yet there is no question that people find value in it. That's the placebo effect and there's no question that it has an impact on people. Is it scientifically valid? No. Do people "get relief". No question.

Again, "The plural of anecdote is not data."

You're right, everyone's body does react differently. I can't answer your anecdotal evidence; all I can do is cite scientific studies.

But here's the thiing, we have compiled, through time, on this site, a LOT of anecdotal evidence that suggests that when a person has been staying consistently LOW on their calories for weeks, and hits a loss plateau, often, increasing the calories will prompt a new start to the losses, and will break up the plateau.

I agree with your assessment that we toss around the words too casually ("starvation mode" sounds so chicken little)
and we do see a slavish adherance to the magical 1200 number.

BUT that doesn't cancel out the observations of so many members that show that prolonged undereating is detrimental to steady weight loss, and often a higher intake will "fix" this problem.

Agefyter

Whew! I felt like an idiot roaming my kitchen in the evening trying to find something to eat to get to that magical 1200. Think I'll back off of that a bit and see what happens, I'm pretty sure I won't starve myself.

Thanks OP!

JGT2004

bump

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Hello, all. Since I've been on MFP, I've seen quite a bit of pseudoscience (unfortunately, propagated by the site itself) that declares that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you do not eat X amount of calories per day. I don't know the origin of this myth, but here is an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which puts the lie to the myth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

For those of us who don't wish to wade through the scientific and technical jargon, here's a summary. If a person goes without eating AT ALL for SIXTY HOURS, their metabolism will slow by roughly 8%. Until you hit the sixty-hour threshold, without having eaten at all, your metabolism remains unchanged. Should you reach that point of sixty hours without food, your metabolism will come back to normal soon after you begin eating again.

Two other studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292) show that the metabolism actually INCREASES during periods of intermittent fasting, but at an equally negligible rate: 3.8 to 10%.

As well, it appears that the arbitrary number which has been chosen for "starvation mode" (1200 kCal) is the same for everyone, which makes absolutely no sense. Why would this threshold be the same for me, at 185 lbs., as it would be for someone who weighs 260 lbs., or even 110 lbs.?

So here's the science: "starvation mode" is a myth. There is danger in restricted-calorie diets, but it comes from the possibility of not getting the vitamins and minerals your body needs, not from a magical, instantaneous slowdown of your metabolism.

Edit: grammar error

Thank You. This actually backs up my words of it doesn't matter about the calories, it is more about QUALITY, than QUANTITY.

If you are eating a WHOLE foods eating plan that is devoid of processed foods, it is possible to get the necessary nutrients without hitting some arbitrary number..............

Since most people don't want to ditch their disgusting processed foods, that is where calorie counting and deprivation actually comes into play.

Bikini_Bound150

Not eating enough calories is bad for your body. If you believe otherwise, you are an idiot. End of story.

vsmurrow

YAAAAAAAAAY! THANK YOU!
I have a little baby internet crush on you right now!

funkycamper

Now, through some work and diligence, I can eat much more and still lose. I have more energy than I have had in decades, am getting stronger all the time, and eating more and more and losing inches and pounds and I'm thrilled. I plan on gradually increasing my net calories to see how high I can go and still lose. And I'm looking forward to the day when I reach my goal and can eat without worrying about gaining because I have healed my slow-burning metabolism with one that burns much faster.

My heart goes out to those who are still stuck with the mindset and body that requires VLC eating to lose weight. I was one of those for most of my life. I believe I'm proof-positive that you can raise your metabolism. And, if it's possible, why wouldn't you want to?

I didn't expect to read this thread and find anything but people advocating denying themselves food, how they are different and how existing on 1000cals a day is fun. Very much enjoyed your post and your story- I'm keeping it in my file. My metabolism is repairing right now and you're right- it feels amazing to be able to be free of the yoke of VLC/starvation/denial of nutrients. Freedom is amazing and reading your story I know it's only going to get better from here and that's electric and exciting! :flowerforyou:

I'm so glad it's helped inspire you. I'm still on the beginning stages of it myself but I see a huge difference. While I think exercise, in general, makes a huge difference with this, I truly believe that lifting heavy has made the biggest difference in my ability to eat more calories.

I'm also quite sad that most people seem to read the first post, as badly flawed as that study was and how it doesn't even really apply to those who are on long-term diets, and think it confirms their misguided approach. I'm betting that in a few weeks or months, we'll be seeing some of them doing the "I'm doing everything right and not losing" posts. Too bad.

lodro

Not eating enough calories is bad for your body. If you believe otherwise, you are an idiot. End of story.

yes, probably, not eating enough calories is what has brought people to this website in the first place <sarcasm mode off>

Sandytoes71

Bump

Bikini_Bound150

Not eating enough calories is bad for your body. If you believe otherwise, you are an idiot. End of story.

yes, probably, not eating enough calories is what has brought people to this website in the first place <sarcasm mode off>

Yes, actually, lots of people are here because they can't lose weight because they are starving their bodies and it doesn't want to let go of that fat. Go ahead and starve yourself and come back in a year. Good luck with that.