Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

simplywriting

Happy this was posted. Getting really tired of hearing about "starvation mode" and not too thrilled that the site promotes that way of thinking.
Perhaps there could be an area on the site for weight loss articles and this could be posted.

Dobsaya

Good for you, sticking with it and not giving up and figuring out what your body needed to start back losing!

jenX1174

Good for you, sticking with it and not giving up and figuring out what your body needed to start back losing!

I think you were responding to me? If so, thank you .....it's hard work -- dedication and discipline, but I know this time it will be so worth it! :drinker:

runningneo122

OP is absolutely misrepresenting the facts.

I read all the cited studies and they were ONLY targeting research of starving the body of ALL food for any distinct period of time.

The second one cited even used "30-min infusion of epinephrine at 25 ng.min-1.kg body wt-1".

Trying to say that these studies prove ANYTHING referring to "starvation mode" is an OUT-AND-OUT LIE.

The studies said nothing about exercise cals being eaten or not eaten.... in fact all subjects were "sedentary".

Making such false statements is where this debate got started.

Read these for the TRUTH:

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/6/981.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/230S.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl488623pn1q0219/


Long-Term Weight Patterns and Risk for Cholecystectomy in Women
Background: Obesity and rapid weight loss in obese persons are known risk factors for gallstones. However, the effect of intentional, long-term, moderate weight changes on the risk for gallstones is unclear.

Objective: To study long-term weight patterns in a cohort of women and to examine the relation between weight pattern and risk for cholecystectomy.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 11 U.S. states.

Participants: 47 153 female registered nurses who did not undergo cholecystectomy before 1988.

Measurements: Cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994 (ascertained by patient self-report).

Results: During the exposure period (1972 to 1988), there was evidence of substantial variation in weight due to intentional weight loss during adulthood. Among cohort patients, 54.9% reported weight cycling with at least one episode of intentional weight loss associated with regain. Of the total cohort, 20.1% were light cyclers (5 to 9 lb of weight loss and gain), 18.8% were moderate cyclers (10 to 19 lb of weight loss and gain), and 16.0% were severe cyclers (≥ 20 lb of weight loss and gain). Net weight gain without cycling occurred in 29.3% of women; net weight loss without cycling was the least common pattern (4.6%). Only 11.1% of the cohort maintained weight within 5 lb over the 16-year period. In the study, 1751 women had undergone cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994. Compared with weight maintainers, the relative risk for cholecystectomy (adjusted for body mass index, age, alcohol intake, fat intake, and smoking) was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50) among light cyclers, 1.31 among moderate cyclers (CI, 1.05 to 1.64), and 1.68 among severe cyclers (CI, 1.34 to 2.10).

Conclusion: Weight cycling was highly prevalent in this large cohort of middle-aged women. The risk for cholecystectomy associated with weight cycling was substantial, independent of attained relative body weight.
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v22/n6/pdf/0800634a.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696424?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7489033&dopt=Citation

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t462u540t7151722/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/620?ck=nck

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2341229&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

stormieweather

/applause

Now there is some research, if anyone wants to know the TRUTH about this matter.

scagneti

Happy this was posted. Getting really tired of hearing about "starvation mode" and not too thrilled that the site promotes that way of thinking.
Perhaps there could be an area on the site for weight loss articles and this could be posted.

I take it that you didn't read the study itself or the pages of comments or you would see that the study that he posted actually PROVED that metabolism DOES slow down by not eating adequately.

There are lots of websites that not only promote consuming far too few calories but actively encourage it. Thankfully MFP is not one of them.

phinners

A myth eh? It wasn't a myth when I did my biochemistry degree.

_Bro

Sigh - deprivation sucks...
If you have to worry about starvation mode being a myth or fact you probably are doing yourself a diservice.

Eat good food frequently, improve your nutrition, exercise regularly with variety and for heavens sake vary your deficiencies.
Seems to work..

susanrsocal

I have done bouts (weeks at a time) of very restricted calories (yes, significantly less than the 1200 cals), but I eat very specific foods(equal protein to vegetable ratio) in certain measurements (eliminate grains and sugar, etc) - and then follow up w/ weeks of eating 2000+ calories (increased fat but still eliminate grains and sugar).

I have done these very successfully. And felt great both in energy and overall feeling of health. The reason I have done this is to "reset" my metabolism. I have no scientific proof to cite other than it works for me.
I lose weight while on the restrictive calories, then it tapers off after a few weeks. Then when I move into the phase of increased calories and good fats - I continue to lose weight...even while eating 2,000 cals a day.

This is not something I would suggest or advocate for everyone, nor do I plan on living a lifetime of it. But I think that "cleansing", "fasting" for health or religious reasons can be done safely and responsibly.

Obviously there are some absolute truths in fitness (more calories in than burned = gain and vice versa), but to use the same measuring stick for everyone is wrong, in my opinion. And I kind of think that is the point of the original post.

SHBoss1673

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

thankyou4thevenom

OP is absolutely misrepresenting the facts.

I read all the cited studies and they were ONLY targeting research of starving the body of ALL food for any distinct period of time.

The second one cited even used "30-min infusion of epinephrine at 25 ng.min-1.kg body wt-1".

Trying to say that these studies prove ANYTHING referring to "starvation mode" is an OUT-AND-OUT LIE.

The studies said nothing about exercise cals being eaten or not eaten.... in fact all subjects were "sedentary".

Making such false statements is where this debate got started.

Read these for the TRUTH:

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/6/981.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/230S.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl488623pn1q0219/


Long-Term Weight Patterns and Risk for Cholecystectomy in Women
Background: Obesity and rapid weight loss in obese persons are known risk factors for gallstones. However, the effect of intentional, long-term, moderate weight changes on the risk for gallstones is unclear.

Objective: To study long-term weight patterns in a cohort of women and to examine the relation between weight pattern and risk for cholecystectomy.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 11 U.S. states.

Participants: 47 153 female registered nurses who did not undergo cholecystectomy before 1988.

Measurements: Cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994 (ascertained by patient self-report).

Results: During the exposure period (1972 to 1988), there was evidence of substantial variation in weight due to intentional weight loss during adulthood. Among cohort patients, 54.9% reported weight cycling with at least one episode of intentional weight loss associated with regain. Of the total cohort, 20.1% were light cyclers (5 to 9 lb of weight loss and gain), 18.8% were moderate cyclers (10 to 19 lb of weight loss and gain), and 16.0% were severe cyclers (≥ 20 lb of weight loss and gain). Net weight gain without cycling occurred in 29.3% of women; net weight loss without cycling was the least common pattern (4.6%). Only 11.1% of the cohort maintained weight within 5 lb over the 16-year period. In the study, 1751 women had undergone cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994. Compared with weight maintainers, the relative risk for cholecystectomy (adjusted for body mass index, age, alcohol intake, fat intake, and smoking) was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50) among light cyclers, 1.31 among moderate cyclers (CI, 1.05 to 1.64), and 1.68 among severe cyclers (CI, 1.34 to 2.10).

Conclusion: Weight cycling was highly prevalent in this large cohort of middle-aged women. The risk for cholecystectomy associated with weight cycling was substantial, independent of attained relative body weight.
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v22/n6/pdf/0800634a.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696424?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7489033&dopt=Citation

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t462u540t7151722/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/620?ck=nck

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2341229&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

runningneo122

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.

SHBoss1673

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'm crushed. That's ok though, I already had a science crush on Lady. she and I have recently swapped some great info (I a book that just blows everything else out of the water, and her a great post)

LP4me

All-in-all I believe each individual needs to do what works for their body and make sure they are getting the proper nutrition. If what your doing isn't working for you anymore ...switch it up. Seems like a no-brainer to me!

runningneo122

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'm crushed. That's ok though, I already had a science crush on Lady. she and I have recently swapped some great info (I a book that just blows everything else out of the water, and her a great post)

Aw, don't be. I was privy to that exchange and am downloading a bunch of bio-chem PDFs and etc. to look through. Rather large files that will take weeks to scan through and find the text that you mentioned in that PP. Looking forward to some "light" reading. :laugh:

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.

jojoworks

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!

evertongirl

Thank you so much for posting this because I have never believed in the starvation mode that people refer to and it drives me crazy when MFP tells me I need to eat more when I don't feel that I do because I am already full & have eaten enough, just worked out too. I understand the body will go into a starvation mode after a period of time, but many act as though it will if you don't eat for a few hours! The whole thing about eating your calories back also seems to be false to me because it seems that it would be pointless to workout if you were going to end up eating the calories back, and I know for a fact I have lost a lot of weight in the past without eating my calories back! In addition, I never understood the "minimum" because I never could see how I should eat a minimum of 1200 calories to lose weight when my body only burns 1400...while the 1200 would be a minimum for someone who is 3x the size of me! Thanks again, this just completely proved my previous thoughts and now I think I will be able to lose weight easier without being brainwashed that I need to eat more, when I know I don't!

SHBoss1673

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'm crushed. That's ok though, I already had a science crush on Lady. she and I have recently swapped some great info (I a book that just blows everything else out of the water, and her a great post)

Aw, don't be. I was privy to that exchange and am downloading a bunch of bio-chem PDFs and etc. to look through. Rather large files that will take weeks to scan through and find the text that you mentioned in that PP. Looking forward to some "light" reading. :laugh:

the section on the Krebs cycle makes me shiver if I think about it to long. 8 steps, pyruvate, CoE A, Adenosine triphosphate, adenosine monophosphate, free Nitrogen molecules... valence electrons. Ugh, I thought college was over for me.

Have fun. :drinker:

evertongirl

Thank you so much for posting this because I have never believed in the starvation mode that people refer to and it drives me crazy when MFP tells me I need to eat more when I don't feel that I do because I am already full & have eaten enough, just worked out too. I understand the body will go into a starvation mode after a period of time, but many act as though it will if you don't eat for a few hours! The whole thing about eating your calories back also seems to be false to me because it seems that it would be pointless to workout if you were going to end up eating the calories back, and I know for a fact I have lost a lot of weight in the past without eating my calories back! In addition, I never understood the "minimum" because I never could see how I should eat a minimum of 1200 calories to lose weight when my body only burns 1400...while the 1200 would be a minimum for someone who is 3x the size of me! Thanks again, this just completely proved my previous thoughts and now I think I will be able to lose weight easier without being brainwashed that I need to eat more, when I know I don't!

I agree with us - I eat alot of fruit and veg which have low cal content and keep me full so I dont eat the whole 1200 cals but im full- i asked an endocrinologist that i know who specialises in metabolic studies and he said that it wasnt right as well- when you plaueau in your weight loss it isnt from starvation mode - you usually just need to kick off a harder exercise routine or change to lower gi foods