Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

SortaBadass

Thanks so much for posting this. I used to be a believer in the starvation mode as propagated through diet and fitness media, but as someone with a science background I wanted to know why it worked. I tracked down the study that I believe started people talking about starvation mode and read it. (Yes, I read scientific papers for fun. I know it's lame. If you'd like to check it out, look up Minnesota Starvation Experiment either in google or wikipedia and you should be able to find the actual paper with enough digging.)

Anyhow, reading that really changed my viewpoint on starvation mode. Now I definitely believe that it is a real phenomenon, but I don't think that phenomenon comes close to resembling how it's described on weight loss/fitness sites. The little things that bugged me before make more sense now -- things like, 'Why do my 4'11" friend and my 6'1" 26-year-old female friends BOTH instantly begin to trigger starvation mode if they go under 1200 calories?' 'Where does this 1200 number come from?' 'Why doesn't it discriminate between age, height, build, and level of activity?'

So yeah. I think starvation mode is real but I think Inigo Montoya best sums up my opinion when it comes to the popular usage of the term with, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Addendum: If I'm wrong and starvation mode is linked to something earlier than the Minnesota study, I'd like to know so I can check it out.

dwarfer22

More info...including SCIENTIFIC studies and EXPERTS...on what starvation mode is and is not.

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

http://unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E11.HTM


I have stopped using the term "starvation mode" and instead, am using "nutritional deprivation". You may not starve by eating too little, but you will definitely deprive yourself of necessary nutrition.

Personally, I will continue to encourage people to learn to eat reasonable quantities with a small, sustainable deficit, in order to maintain a healthier lifestyle permanently while feeling in top form. As opposed to...crashing to their desired goal with a enormous deficit, all without learning a single tool to prevent a recurrence of the habits that got them to the overweight point.

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto

muth3rluvx2

I totally disagree w/ this post. It is referring to a sixty hour study not a prolonged peroid of time. For all the girls out there wanting to be thin, tired of being teased or whatever this post is very misleading. It says, don't believe what you've heard, you can eat as little as you want and you'll be fine. MFP puts the warning up when we go under the recommended limit for the day. For most of us it's a rare occurance. We are trying to eat healthy, we know we need to nourish our body to keep it functioning at peak performance. We don't eat 600 cals every day. I don't think you can summarily dismiss "starvation mode" because a study done say it will be fine after 60 hours no problems. New dieters, desparate teenagers, and all the rest of the misinformed masses will think all will be well. They can starve themselves to their target weight and then everything will be fine. Except that it won't. Some will lose weight, some will get sick, some will end up anorexic, some will gain weight. 60 hours is not a sufficient length of time to determine if the metabolism will be permanently damaged. So say 60 hours is ok, what then? how often should you starve yourself? three days on, one off? twice a month? At what point does your body say, enough is enough, I quit. How do you know when to stop? When you are so tired you want to sleep all the time? When your hair falls out? Where do you draw the line? A plant needs sun and water to grow strong. If you put it in a closet w/ no water does it get thin, delicate leaves and morph into a dainty flower? No. It dies. End of.

I believe it was already noted that the variance is in metabolism and that it's minute and therefore, 'starvation mode' is not something that is going to happen even at a high deficit but what suffers is nutrition.

let us keep some technical terms in mind:

starvation
mal-nutrition
metabolism
eating disorders
calorie restriction
calorie deficit
fasting

None of these are synonomous with the next and the problem has been that we've been using many of them interchangeably as though they all meant the same thing. They don't. I believe the point of this topic is to help identify and distinquish the reality of the definitions from casual - and therefore mis- interpretation. In short, no one here is going to suffer from starvation. Period. Malnutrition? Possibly. Have an eating disorder? I'm aware that there's some here with those issues and they are most likely to suffer malnutrition - but not starvation. Restricting calories is not the same as a calorie deficits. They refer to two different concepts yet they are related. And so on....

If we want to express concern for someone's lack of food consumption, then I would like to suggest pointing out their nutritional deficits rather than their calorie deficits. Also, natural nutrients (food) is utilized by the body more efficiently and effectively than via supplements.

dawnemjh

I would like to point out that the first article you cited is statistically insignificant. First of all, it was done in 1987, and secondly it was done on 6 MEN. For anyone who does not analyze data or review research articles regularly, this essentially means that the information that they claim in the article is not scientifically reliable as : # 1. does have nearly enough subjects, and #2. there were no women in the study, and finally the article is over 20 years old. ALso of note in the study was that the subjects resting metabolic rate DECREASED from 73.5 to 63.8 after 3 days. So in other words their metabolism decreased after 3 days.

benitocereno

The 1500 / 1200 limits are averages to make it easy for people to follow. As noted, this is a 26 year old study with an incredibly small sample size. The only "pseudoscience" is saying this is truth for everyone.

Glad you've thrown some scraps out there so this debate rages on though. I, for one, won't be risking my health and hard-earned muscle for some idiotic sub-1500 diet. And neither should anyone else. Nothing to see here, move it along folks.

ladyhawk00

More info...including SCIENTIFIC studies and EXPERTS...on what starvation mode is and is not.

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

http://unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E11.HTM


I have stopped using the term "starvation mode" and instead, am using "nutritional deprivation". You may not starve by eating too little, but you will definitely deprive yourself of necessary nutrition.

Personally, I will continue to encourage people to learn to eat reasonable quantities with a small, sustainable deficit, in order to maintain a healthier lifestyle permanently while feeling in top form. As opposed to...crashing to their desired goal with a enormous deficit, all without learning a single tool to prevent a recurrence of the habits that got them to the overweight point.

Bingo

ladyhawk00

There are certainly people here and elsewhere who use the term "starvation mode" incorrectly and out of context. Using that as an excuse to decry the concept is rather silly though. Just because some people do not fully understand it, or its applications, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most commonly, the actual circumstance (around here) is underfeeding. A consistent, long term lack of nutrition, and a lack of fuel, is real and unfortunately quite pervasive here and in other weight loss communities. Trying to say it's rare or some kind of anomaly is a bit naive, IMO.

What does is exist is the body's natural inclination to adjust to extreme conditions. If you lower your calorie intake to a level that deprives it of the energy (which is what a calorie is) it needs to function at an optimal level, it will not function at an optimal level. Pretty simple. RMR will decrease. The body will begin to break down and utilize a higher ratio of muscle to fat. It's quite well documented. Does it mean you won't lose weight? No. It means the weight you lose will not be mostly fat. It will be mostly muscle. Does it happen right at 1200 cals? No. It happens at different points for different people. Does it take 3 days or 30? No telling - each individual has different variables that will impact the outcome.

MFP has made an effort to assist people in utilizing the site as a tool to aid in healthy, sustainable weight loss. To this end, they discourage people from eating too little or too much. Perhaps the tactic they use is a bit overdramatic, in the 1200 cal rule - but unfortunately, that's what it takes to get a lot of people's attention. Some very small women can eat below 1200 and be healthy. But the bell curve puts them well outside the vast majority. Trying to create a program that fits every exact situation is impossible. But they've done their best to make the site as user-friendly and customizable as possible, while trying to discourage people from using unhealthy means of weight loss. It is perfect? No. But I, for one, appreciate their attempts. If nothing else, it's encouraged a lot of people to actually go out and try to educate themselves. :flowerforyou:

muth3rluvx2

Scientists have identified the first gene essential to extending the lives of animals on low-calorie diets, raising the prospects of a longevity pill.

In earlier research, "caloric restriction" extended the life, sometimes 40% longer than average, of creatures ranging from mice to worms. Some studies in people and monkeys are exploring whether near-starvation diets, which consist of perhaps 70% of the calories consumed in a normal diet, will help them live longer, too.

But "those diets are pretty tough to stick with," says Andrew Dillin of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., whose international team's gene research is reported in today's issue of the journal Nature. Discovery of the gene, called PHA-4, raises hopes that uncovering the genetic machinery behind caloric restrictions may enable people to skip starvation and still live longer.

Other genes have been linked to low-calorie diets and life extension in the past, but in the new study, the team found that the presence or absence of PHA-4 in worms was the make-or-break factor in whether a starvation diet extended their lives, regardless of whether they had any of those other genes.

Dillin calls PHA-4 the "primordial" gene underlying a process that likely arose in feast-or-famine conditions in the past, where creatures that evolved metabolisms that worked more efficiently under starvation conditions survived. Versions of the gene, which the team has patented in worms, are found in mammals, too, and the team is conducting experiments on mice to see its effect.

"We are on the threshold of some pretty big discoveries in caloric restriction," says MIT biologist Leonard Guarente, who was not part of the PHA-4 study. A number of recent discoveries, such as last year's report by Harvard Medical School researchers that resveratrol, which is found in red wine, has life-extending properties in mice, also have boosted hopes for life-extension treatments.

"My suspicion is that (treatment) won't be a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. You'll still need to go to the gym," Guarente says. "But if you are fit, we'll find something to make you fitter and if you aren't, we'll likely find something to help."

In the study, Dillin's team turned their gene on and off by adding gene-silencing compounds to the worm's food. If similar experiments work in mice, a final step would be to try boosting the activity of the mammalian version of the gene, called Foxa1, in people.

Starvation is nothing new in human history, Dillin notes, but in previous centuries people lacked antibiotics, sanitation and hospitals, likely disguising any longevity benefits hidden in famine.

(c) USA TODAY, 2007

---

Source: USA Today, MAY 03, 2007
Item: J0E177937660207


2005 Abstract:
Abstract:Much research interest, and recently even commercial interest, has been predicated on the assumption that reasonably closely-related species – humans and mice, for example – should, in principle, respond to ageing-retarding interventions with an increase in maximum lifespan roughly proportional to their control lifespan (that without the intervention). Here, it is argued that the best-studied life-extending manipulations of mice are examples of a category that is highly unlikely to follow this rule, and more likely to exhibit only a similar absolute increase in maximum lifespan from one species to the next, independent of the species’ control lifespan. That category – reduction in dietary calories or in the organism’s ability to metabolize or sense them – is widely recognized to extend lifespan as an evolutionary adaptation to transient starvation in the wild, a situation which alters the organism’s optimal partitioning of resources between maintenance and reproduction. What has been generally overlooked is that the extent of the evolutionary pressure to maintain adaptability to a given duration of starvation varies with the frequency of that duration, something which is – certainly for terrestrial animals and less directly for others – determined principally by the weather. The pattern of starvation that the weather imposes is suggested here to be of a sort that will tend to cause all terrestrial animals, even those as far apart phylogenetically as nematodes and mice, to possess the ability to live a similar maximum absolute (rather than proportional) amount longer when food is short than when it is plentiful. This generalization is strikingly in line with available data, leading (given the increasing implausibility of further extending human mean but not maximum lifespan in the industrialized world) to the biomedically and commercially sobering conclusion that interventions which manipulate caloric intake or its sensing are unlikely ever to confer more than 2 or 3 years’ increase in human mean or maximum lifespan at the most. Copyright © 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR].
Copyright of Gerontology is the property of Karger AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.).
Author Affiliations:1Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
ISSN:0304324X.

---

2005 Abstract
Abstract:This article presents an interview with Michael Rae, an advocate for the Calorie Restriction (CR) diet. When asked about the limits of the diet, Rae refers to the anti-aging effect and the inverse of calories to the point of starvation. He believes in eliminating food that provides no nutritional benefits. He comments on the aging process and says that if CR participants didn't have a strong horror of degenerative biological aging, there would be no motivation..
Full Text Word Count:2969.
ISSN:00249262.
Accession Number:23707356.
Database: Academic Search Premier..
______________________________

Sorry I'm unable to provide direct links - these are articles from my university online library so access is limited to students and staff. If anyone wants more, I'll save as a pdf and email but only by request as I have no further use for these articles and no reason to retain them on my computer.

This is to address all the research concerns of the originally cited studies. Let it be known that I did several searches and none of them rendered negative articles so I've not picked and chosen ones that agree with one side or another. This is what was present. Unless someon is interested in the link of blood-brain barrier and obesity which doesn't have much to do with this topic.

I hope this helps.

MeliciousMelis

More info...including SCIENTIFIC studies and EXPERTS...on what starvation mode is and is not.

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

http://unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E11.HTM


I have stopped using the term "starvation mode" and instead, am using "nutritional deprivation". You may not starve by eating too little, but you will definitely deprive yourself of necessary nutrition.

Personally, I will continue to encourage people to learn to eat reasonable quantities with a small, sustainable deficit, in order to maintain a healthier lifestyle permanently while feeling in top form. As opposed to...crashing to their desired goal with a enormous deficit, all without learning a single tool to prevent a recurrence of the habits that got them to the overweight point.

THANK YOU!! Being successful at weight loss is not just measured by a number on the scale, and certainly not by how fast or unhealthily you get there. Learning how to eat nutritiously, and how to have a good relationship with what you eat and how often you move, is key.

muth3rluvx2

There are certainly people here and elsewhere who use the term "starvation mode" incorrectly and out of context. Using that as an excuse to decry the concept is rather silly though. Just because some people do not fully understand it, or its applications, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most commonly, the actual circumstance (around here) is underfeeding. A consistent, long term lack of nutrition, and a lack of fuel, is real and unfortunately quite pervasive here and in other weight loss communities. Trying to say it's rare or some kind of anomaly is a bit naive, IMO.

What does is exist is the body's natural inclination to adjust to extreme conditions. If you lower your calorie intake to a level that deprives it of the energy (which is what a calorie is) it needs to function at an optimal level, it will not function at an optimal level. Pretty simple. RMR will decrease. The body will begin to break down and utilize a higher ratio of muscle to fat. It's quite well documented. Does it mean you won't lose weight? No. It means the weight you lose will not be mostly fat. It will be mostly muscle. Does it happen right at 1200 cals? No. It happens at different points for different people. Does it take 3 days or 30? No telling - each individual has different variables that will impact the outcome.

MFP has made an effort to assist people in utilizing the site as a tool to aid in healthy, sustainable weight loss. To this end, they discourage people from eating too little or too much. Perhaps the tactic they use is a bit overdramatic, in the 1200 cal rule - but unfortunately, that's what it takes to get a lot of people's attention. Some very small women can eat below 1200 and be healthy. But the bell curve puts them well outside the vast majority. Trying to create a program that fits every exact situation is impossible. But they've done their best to make the site as user-friendly and customizable as possible, while trying to discourage people from using unhealthy means of weight loss. It is perfect? No. But I, for one, appreciate their attempts. If nothing else, it's encouraged a lot of people to actually go out and try to educate themselves. :flowerforyou:

Agreed on many points - and, just to take the side of the outliers, for those that DO fit this category, it's crazy frustrating to have an inaccurate fear placed in your head which actually detracts from your goals - not because they're "wrong" per se but they're wrong for YOU (in this case, me) but no one will acknowledge that and threatens you with extreme adverse effects. We have to be careful not to uniformely accept one aspect of the dichotomy over the other. We do have to account for the outliers, recognize them (us) and adjust our thinking, perceptions, attitudes AND responses to accomodate ALL variances. Who knows, what happens if someone shows up that is an outlier on the other end and has to consume 5000 cals just to maintain a healthy weight? Is everyone going to jump on the hypo(er)glycemic bandwagon and tell them their going to get diabetes and lose their feet and eventually die of gangrine if they don't decrease their intake?

Personally, this is the take home message in my mind: don't discount the outliers; they're real and valid and fear only isolates and diminishes the sense of self, the same as it does with anyone else. This is a very personal issue for me *because* I'm one of those outliers and it's incredibly off-putting when someone tells me I'm "sick" or I'm going to send my system into "starvation mode". I've done the starvation thing. I've gone 3 weeks without eating (years and years ago). I know the difference and trust me, I wasn't starving then either. Pretty depleted in some nutritional areas, yeah... but I wasn't anywhere near wasting away or dying or being hospitalized (although I was threatened with it which, ultimately, was probably a good thing). This isn't to say not eating is a good idea. It's not. What I'm saying is I've gotten some experience on that end of the spectrum and what we use here on MFP is inaccurate.

Yes DO encourage people to eat healthy and watch their macro nutrients AND their micronutrients. Those are ridiculously important. No one is suggesting otherwise. The problem is, we're putting too much emphasis on this..... unit of measurement called a calorie and not enough emphasis on nutritional standards. You want to talk worriesome data, how many women are dying from cancer that may have been mitigated by getting enough Omega-3s, Calcium and Vitamin C? We have entire organizations of millions trying desperately to get the message across about what we eat and health and yet we're quibbling over calories? Really? I'd rather quibble over my iron deficiency than my caloric deficiency and learning how to get my balance of calcium, iron and protein without over-consuming in fats and cholesterol at the same time! If I can keep that diet AND keep my cals at 800... hell yeah! If all my nutrients are at 100%+ and my daily consumption is 700 kcals - what's the problem? Really? And I think therein lies the issue. We're not talking calories. We're talking sufficient nutrition as the articles I've posted suggest.

Dobsaya

I try to fast once a week for religious reasons and I wear a bodymedia fit armband. I actually see my metabolism slowed for the entire day that I am fasting and my baseline at night is also lower when I fast. People can do what they please, but I know from experience that I only plateau when I eat too little.

Dobsaya

This post is vey quetionable. I have a step-father who weighs close to 300 pounds. I turned him onto MFP and my mom logs all his calories for him. He is basically starving himself with 1200 calories a day and exercising about 2 hours. He was stagnant the first week on here and actually gained 2 pounds the second week. Even before this site he was eating this low calorie amount but this sight wants him to eat to lose and he can't see the science behind that either so his gains in weight loss continute to be very little.

Grokette

Scientists have identified the first gene essential to extending the lives of animals on low-calorie diets, raising the prospects of a longevity pill.

In earlier research, "caloric restriction" extended the life, sometimes 40% longer than average, of creatures ranging from mice to worms. Some studies in people and monkeys are exploring whether near-starvation diets, which consist of perhaps 70% of the calories consumed in a normal diet, will help them live longer, too.

But "those diets are pretty tough to stick with," says Andrew Dillin of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., whose international team's gene research is reported in today's issue of the journal Nature. Discovery of the gene, called PHA-4, raises hopes that uncovering the genetic machinery behind caloric restrictions may enable people to skip starvation and still live longer.

Other genes have been linked to low-calorie diets and life extension in the past, but in the new study, the team found that the presence or absence of PHA-4 in worms was the make-or-break factor in whether a starvation diet extended their lives, regardless of whether they had any of those other genes.

Dillin calls PHA-4 the "primordial" gene underlying a process that likely arose in feast-or-famine conditions in the past, where creatures that evolved metabolisms that worked more efficiently under starvation conditions survived. Versions of the gene, which the team has patented in worms, are found in mammals, too, and the team is conducting experiments on mice to see its effect.

"We are on the threshold of some pretty big discoveries in caloric restriction," says MIT biologist Leonard Guarente, who was not part of the PHA-4 study. A number of recent discoveries, such as last year's report by Harvard Medical School researchers that resveratrol, which is found in red wine, has life-extending properties in mice, also have boosted hopes for life-extension treatments.

"My suspicion is that (treatment) won't be a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. You'll still need to go to the gym," Guarente says. "But if you are fit, we'll find something to make you fitter and if you aren't, we'll likely find something to help."

In the study, Dillin's team turned their gene on and off by adding gene-silencing compounds to the worm's food. If similar experiments work in mice, a final step would be to try boosting the activity of the mammalian version of the gene, called Foxa1, in people.

Starvation is nothing new in human history, Dillin notes, but in previous centuries people lacked antibiotics, sanitation and hospitals, likely disguising any longevity benefits hidden in famine.

(c) USA TODAY, 2007

I have read this several times. That because the metabolism is slowed down, the aging process also slows down, increasing our life expectency.

I found this on Marks Daily Apple which also touches on the same notion about the gene in the above mentioned abstract.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/pdf/anti_aging_report.pdf

Guinepig

Hmmm, never heard that! However I have heard that you can safely reduce your calories to very low amount for no more that 3 days at a time, then take a break, bring it back up to a reasonable amount for 4 days and do it again. It's supposed to work quite well without triggering the "starvation mode". I have never tried this though because I get sick if I don't eat enough.

I have heard this also.
But I am still sceptical about it (starvation mode) being untrue. Years of the starvation mode myth makes me want to do more research, because if it is indeed a myth, why do people not lose weight on very low calorie diets overtime?

kwardklinck

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.

mikeyrp

Being relatively new to MFP I have only just seen this debate in action...

To me it seems like common sense to set a target intake based on what your body needs to function healthily whilst allowing you to loose weight. - And intake isn't just calories, its vitamins, minerals, carbs, protein, 'the right type of fats' etc

Likewise - whilst in an ideal world we would consume a similar amount every day, there is going to be a reasonable amount of flexibility over daily consumption in, say, a week long period, so long as your average is OK.

As for the 1200 Cal thing - Everyone is different - Start with recommended intake of someone your sex/age/weight - and see if you 1) loose weight and 2) don't feel tired (and are getting enough sleep and fluids). Adjust intake accordingly...

BigBoneSista

Yes DO encourage people to eat healthy and watch their macro nutrients AND their micronutrients. Those are ridiculously important. No one is suggesting otherwise. The problem is, we're putting too much emphasis on this..... unit of measurement called a calorie and not enough emphasis on nutritional standards.

AGREE!

CARNAT22

So the point is you don't have to make 1200 cals per day??

Is that an acccurate summary?

nk17

At first I was worried when I kept seeing the "Starvation Mode" notice. Then I listened to my body instead of the screen. It wasn't complaining, so I've gone right on starving and am feeling good and am not deprived. I pay careful attention to my nutrients though. Just recently I've noticed I have not enough Vitamin C in my diet, most likely due to the facts that orange juice tears up my stomach and tomatoes make me sick, which lets out the two key sources. But I've researched and will begin eating more papaya and kiwi and that should put me back in line. Bottom line, I feel, is to listen to your body. It will usually tell you when something isn't right.

dalbers

Starvation mode has become a witch hunt. The magic number that makes your metabolic rate go at a snail's pace.

And didn't I just read and call bunk on an article here yesterday about how low calories (700 a day) was causing some 185 lady to maintain weight due to this slowing of metabolism? This topic which I won't point out, had 4 pages of "bumps" to keep it on top!!!!

Swilson87

I would caution everyone to be careful of how you accept advice from any source. Not to say that anything said here is just out and out wrong, but we must always remember the our bodies goal is homeostasis. How do we gain size in muscle? By placing a load on them (resistance training). Our muscles grow to handle the "new" load placed on them. From what I've studied, the starvation mode is not a myth, but may be misunderstood. My understanding of the it is when the body does not have adequate amounts of necessary macronutrients and has to look to other sources.

Carbs are our main source of energy, so we need them. Once the carbs are depleted, the body targets fat stores. That's the basic premise behind low carb diets. You get to the fat sooner, but your energy levels are very low. This is where problems usually show. If the your carbs and calories are too low, your body may bypass the fat and begin to use protein (muscle) for energy. I'm sure we will all agree tha that would be counter productive. Could that be why you're not losing fat even though you've dropped your calories? Probably. Starvation mode does not shut the body down, but it will alter the way it rids itself of fat weight.

Ambrogio1

Every person is different. Some burn a ton more then they eat and don't lose weight. So many things go into weight loss.
Most of the time if you burn more then you eat then you lose weight. Science isn't always right, I seen it

Best to experience everything personal. Takes time to learn your body. There is no science behind that
You hurt, take a rest
Your hungry, eat
Your not losing weight, change what you are doing
Your losing weight, keep it moving!

RVLMonavie

Thanks for posting this, I ignore the sites words of encoragement to eat 1200cal. But I am glad to read your post. Some time back I was able to drink Shakes Tea and supplements for 3 days just to get my body detox and that was noway near 1200cal. I moved to 2 shakes a day and one meal, that was still not 1200cals I lost the weight I was not hungry but I did miss food. afte 4pm I was hitting the restaurant or fridge for all it had but found my self being satisfied ratter quickly. My metabolism wasn't slow and my body never when on starvation mode. thanks againfor the post

Swilson87

....and yes the rate at which the body burns fat weight will decrease because of that homeostasis thing. In short the body says, " you're not feeding me, so I'm taking over to preserve life."

Grokette

I would caution everyone to be careful of how you accept advice from any source. Not to say that anything said here is just out and out wrong, but we must always remember the our bodies goal is homeostasis. How do we gain size in muscle? By placing a load on them (resistance training). Our muscles grow to handle the "new" load placed on them. From what I've studied, the starvation mode is not a myth, but may be misunderstood. My understanding of the it is when the body does not have adequate amounts of necessary macronutrients and has to look to other sources.

Carbs are our main source of energy, so we need them. Once the carbs are depleted, the body targets fat stores. That's the basic premise behind low carb diets. You get to the fat sooner, but your energy levels are very low. This is where problems usually show. If the your carbs and calories are too low, your body may bypass the fat and begin to use protein (muscle) for energy. I'm sure we will all agree tha that would be counter productive. Could that be why you're not losing fat even though you've dropped your calories? Probably. Starvation mode does not shut the body down, but it will alter the way it rids itself of fat weight.

Actually it is incorrect to say that because someone eating low carb has low energy levels. Quite the contrary is true. The majority of us that are eating a low carb plan have way more energy and losing weight effortlessly.

Carbs are not necessary. They are a quick energy source, but not necessary for our survival.

FearAnLoathing

Thank you!

FearAnLoathing

Here is my problem with the whole starvation mode idea that people have tried to press on me.I am not a big eater!I have never been .If you were to track my calories as a child , a teenager,the times in my 20s when I was sober and eating normal for me, you would see thatI never went over 1200 and thats before you take any exercise into account.I started trying to lose this extra weight I gained from my pregnacy last april.from april to sep i exercised 6 days a week 1 to 2 hours a day.I didnt restric my eating I ate how I normally do.I lost 40 pounds and when I took a break between oct an jan i never gained a pound back.I saw a dr who told me I WAS PERFECTLY FINE!That is just how my body works im not going to shove extra food in my mouth if im not hungry.I do not deny or restric myself.Now I get that the way I work is not the way other people work which is why I have never said do what I do.
I find it compleatly ridiculos to be toldi might be lying or at 34 years old have no idea as to what im actually eating or how much.
I am very healthy im not anemic my hair is not falling out.ive seen a dr several times which is not cheap for someone without health insurance.AND IM OK that is me that is the way my body works.

StarryEyedGirl

Bump

muth3rluvx2

So the point is you don't have to make 1200 cals per day??

Is that an acccurate summary?

NO.

The point is that calories aren't the end all be all of a healthy & nutritious diet. Nutrition is. AND people are NOT going to starve at a little less than 1200. It depends MORE on what you eat and if you're meeting all your body's nutrient needs than if you hit that magical number. BUT unless you're living like the guy in the Today article, you aren't going to hit those nutritional goals at under 1200 just because most people don't heat in a way that is so healthy, natural and nutrient packed.

What's being pointed out is that WHAT you eat is more important than how many calories it has. If you eat 1200 a day in crap, you're not going anywhere. If you eat 600 cals a day but you're hitting 100% + on all your nutritional needs, you're not going to die of starvation (but remember, to do that, you'd have to live like the guy in the article). Most people do something in between so for **most** people, 1200+ is probably best.

neelia

I could really care less about the debate as I know what works for me, and that is consuming more than 1,200 calories per day. If I do not eat AT LEAST 1,200 calories, I feel deprived and lose energy. I'm sluggish, irritable and generally not a happy camper.

My body is obviously different from any other, so I wouldn't expect someone else to obide by the same rules as I do.