Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

Lisa1971

I have a mess (a tiny mess!) to go and clean up. My head just exploded!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

ceebs9

I have a mess (a tiny mess!) to go and clean up. My head just exploded!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And I just had a boregasm.

Kidding. The research is interesting. I just think there's a difference between "starvation" and "starvation mode." Or at least I look at the two differently.

What's really interesting to me is the emotions that get involved in a discussion like this.

runningneo122

Sometimes I do enjoy the drama that unfolds on these forums. This debate will rage on as long as this site exists and as such it's getting a bit old to hear the points on both sides belabored nearly every single day I log in.

Everyone is different, what works for them is different than what works for someone else. You don't like what someone is doing, don't put your nose in their business. Simple as.


That's about it for me, enjoy the rest of your regularly scheduled programming.

I disagree that BOTH sides are stating the facts. I showed that was CLEARLY not the case. One side(the eat your exer cals group) shows the facts and the other side simply disagrees, obfuscates or cites false premises.

hotmooglelove

Thank you runningneo122, good reads.

runningneo122

i asked an endocrinologist that i know who specialises in metabolic studies and he said

Yet again ..... one person citing another supposed "expert" that they know and trust, yada yada yada.

Please! Can someone cite a REAL STUDY that says, "Do not eat your exercise calories and you will be healthy." or something to that effect?!?

FearAnLoathing

I never claimed to be stating facts that apply to everyone justy the facts as they apply to me:happy:

Connie48

I personally have never bought into the starvation mode thing, actually I don't buy into a lot of the info so called "experts and studies" make avalialbe. IMO plain 'ol common sense works wonders. Studies/research changes all the time, we owe it to our selves to self educate and use common sense. I find it interesting that each person that posts links to studies/research/scrience whatever, is convinced THEIR post(s) and info is the best. I'm a firm believer in "do what feels right for YOU" regardless of what anyone else says, but these discussions are always interesting.

Shawnalee0703

I'm not to proud to say I now have a man crush on runningneo122

that was an awesome amount of research. I've actually read many of those, but not all at once, and I never put them all down in one spot. Thanks

Aww, shucks.... that was quoted from ladyhawk. I must give credit where credit is due. I copied it to a PM to myself for just this type of occasion.

I freaking agree!!!! Thank you! If our body doesn't need food and it is NOT our FUEL... then whyd don't we just stop eating all together... Oh yeah, THAT'S CUZ IT IS NECESSARY... real, healthy well rounded whole some foods! That's the big part. Thank you for the even more so accurate and backed up research! :-D I agree, do what works for you... But your body need minerals, vitamines, proteins, carbs, water and uch much more to keep it running in tip top shape... so tell me how eating 700 calories a day will give you enough food supplied nutrients? It won't. I eat between 1200 and 1700 (right now taking in 1500-1600/day) calories on a regular basis and I have lost 65 pounds (took my time doing it because I have made life/habit changes),I have built pretty sufficient muscle and kill it at the gym. I do have days where I eat 2000 ish as well.... usually on trips I focus on maintenance rather than loss... This has been successful for me.

frostiegurl

Sometimes I do enjoy the drama that unfolds on these forums. This debate will rage on as long as this site exists and as such it's getting a bit old to hear the points on both sides belabored nearly every single day I log in.

Everyone is different, what works for them is different than what works for someone else. You don't like what someone is doing, don't put your nose in their business. Simple as.


That's about it for me, enjoy the rest of your regularly scheduled programming.

I disagree that BOTH sides are stating the facts. I showed that was CLEARLY not the case. One side(the eat your exer cals group) shows the facts and the other side simply disagrees, obfuscates or cites false premises.

At what point in my post did I ever use the word "Facts"?

Dobsaya

Love it!

runningneo122

Sometimes I do enjoy the drama that unfolds on these forums. This debate will rage on as long as this site exists and as such it's getting a bit old to hear the points on both sides belabored nearly every single day I log in.

Everyone is different, what works for them is different than what works for someone else. You don't like what someone is doing, don't put your nose in their business. Simple as.


That's about it for me, enjoy the rest of your regularly scheduled programming.

I disagree that BOTH sides are stating the facts. I showed that was CLEARLY not the case. One side(the eat your exer cals group) shows the facts and the other side simply disagrees, obfuscates or cites false premises.

At what point in my post did I ever use the word "Facts"?

You said the debate rages on...... debate exists when each side states their belief and what it is based on. What are "they" basing their argument on? Certainly NOT the facts.

FearAnLoathing

as long as my doctor tells me im just fine then im not going worry about it:happy:

runningneo122

as long as my doctor tells me im just fine then im not going worry about it:happy:

Agree:flowerforyou:

SkierElle

Thanks to the OP for this I usually fast once per week, from 20-30 hours. The maximum fat burning window is from 18-36 hours then it levels off. Lots of people are technically starving if they are not getting enough nutrients. For example, it would be better to have nothing but water for a day rather than have 1200 calories worth of doughnuts, I believe.

MMK72

You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories)

Let them starve, let them weight cycle, let them burn muscle, let them release endogenous catecholamines and risk heart attacks. We should not care if they are silly enough to glean dietary meaning from 3 studies in tiny numbers of healthy weight male subjects eating absolutely nothing which are obviously done to help dieticians adjust TPN or NG feed doses in ICU.

And engage it if it is fun for you but otherwise, please just ignore them we are unfortunately bumping their silly posts

FearAnLoathing

You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories)

Let them starve, let them weight cycle, let them burn muscle, let them release endogenous catecholamines and risk heart attacks. We should not care if they are silly enough to glean dietary meaning from 3 studies in tiny numbers of healthy weight male subjects eating absolutely nothing which are obviously done to help dieticians adjust TPN or NG feed doses in ICU.

And engage it if it is fun for you but otherwise, please just ignore them we are unfortunately bumping their silly posts

you sure must burn alot of calories climbing up on your pedestal.good for you:drinker:

MMK72

you sure must burn alot of calories climbing up on your pedestal.good for you:drinker:

I do but it gets a bit lonely up here sometime, I wonder why...

(PS ultimately I do believe in do what works for you, but skipping meals is something I've never been able to do so MFP is working a treat for me!)

FearAnLoathing

:laugh: :laugh:

so are the rest of us "poser" MFP users or something

MMK72

I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy

"I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

(picture white girl trying to look cool)

fat_beyonce

*bump*

frostiegurl

I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy

"I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

(picture white girl trying to look cool)

And your point is?

So what if there are people on here just using the site for it's calorie counting. Is there something in the TOS that states "all users must read every post in the forum, eat at least 1200 calories every single day, and agree with the "old guard" or your account will be blocked"?

MMK72

And your point is?

So what if there are people on here just using the site for it's calorie counting. Is there something in the TOS that states "all users must read every post in the forum, eat at least 1200 calories every single day, and agree with the "old guard" or your account will be blocked"?

Hell no! Just teasing love! It's free and it's a free world, so do as you like.

thankyou4thevenom

COME ON PEOPLE!

This is a study based on 6 MEN!!

The way some of you are jumping on the bandwagon you really do believe that 6 men can represent everyone's bodily functions.

FearAnLoathing

I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy

"I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

(picture white girl trying to look cool)

AHHH i remeber that song!

FearAnLoathing

I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy

"I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

(picture white girl trying to look cool)

ahhh now its stuck in my head:sick:

muth3rluvx2

I think you are just "using" the site for it's calorie counting, and not embracing the true philosophy

"I'm down with MFP yeah you know me"

(picture white girl trying to look cool)

ahhh now its stuck in my head:sick:

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Poor Jeanette... hee hee... :laugh: :bigsmile:

DrMooMoo - How the weather up there? Tell Jack we said hi! :laugh: :laugh: :glasses:

This whole thing has gotten silly and it does seem like there's a general consensus that people need to do what they feel is right and best for them, using common sense, logic, and armed with substantial information - and no one answer is a hard and fast rule for all people. Does anyone disagree with these statements?

(with my luck, someone will :indifferent: :laugh: :smokin: :laugh: :indifferent:)

girlinahat

oops multi-posting. Bad laptop.

girlinahat

oops

girlinahat

Good job all you MFP veterans. I found the mostly civil discourse to be not unpleasant to read and admired what seemed to be a quest for facts.

My concern in this discussion is not for the people who are well educated in these matters; rather it is for the many people, newly arrived on the site who are full of questions and uncertainty for whom such topics are confusing. I'm also concerned about the overly enthused about losing weight people who think less food and more exercise is good, hence way less food and way more exercise must be better. They deserve a discussion not shredded by those of extreme disagreement.

The OP made a bold title statement that drew out everyone with an opinion. It'd be nice to see something come out of this that newbies can understand and educate themselves with.

I really appreciate the care and concern that permeates this forum for the most part.

again, good job all!

I've been here not very long, and tried WW before that, but it took me a while poring through posts to understand how to properly understand the information MFP was giving me (okay, maybe there are instructions elsewhere and I just didn't read them). So for example, when it tells me my goal calories are 1200, I assume that I must try and eat LESS than 1200 calories. And then I see something called NET calories - Boy, did that take me a while to understand.

So I agree, it would be really useful for newbies like myself to be able to get to grips with how things work easily, and there is a lot of information and misinformation out there. I know that weightloss should be done slowly, I know that it should be a lifestyle change and not a restricted diet that gets you there (by that I mean not being able to eat bananas or something because they are not low GI). But I don't know what calories my body needs to function, nor do I have a clue what my BMR rate is. And this is something I need to know in order to be able to lose weight. So MFP gives me a guideline, a point to start from.

The 1200 WHO minimum calories thing is very interesting and thankyou whoever mentioned that is where that comes from. But if eating less calories but in a more nutritionally dense format would work, then why doesn't the WHO just say 'give 'em all supplements and they'll be fine'? Nutrients AREN'T the be-all and end-all of the bodies needs. The body needs calories. It needs more than vitamins and minerals for the cells to divide and regenerate. It needs power, and that power can only come from calories.

I do agree that 1200 is not for everyone, but more likely it is that 1200 is not enough for most people.

nice to meet you all.

ps. being 5 foot it is with some amusement I see an awful lot of similar height peple here.....

dlaplume2

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

I think it is sad that you quote one source of a 3 day study and say it's a mythe . I have done other research and I suggest you do the same. Check here http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742 . I am sure you can find on study going either way for every single argument under the sun. There is no set method for every body. Some will enter starvation mode sooner than others and the 1200 is an estimate not a rule for everyone.

You quoted a 3day study and the 1200 calorie restriction they are talking about here is prolonged. 6 months or more. We are trying to make lifestyle changes. Meaning changes the we will live on for the rest of out lives. We should not be restricting ourselves long term to very low calories. It is not sustainable.

If you want to reduce you calories by all means go ahead but when you give up and gain all the weight back, don't say we didn't warn you.

This is also why people lose a fair amount of weight and then have one cheat day, gain 4 lbs and get so discouraged.