Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

judymari

Thanks for this post. I was just going to now post a question about how long one could undershoot the 1200 cal's before the body went into starvation mode, and happened to see your post where you answered that very question! I haven't checked out the links yet but the post info makes sense to me. Appreciate your sharing!! :flowerforyou:

siegersma1992

I guess everyone is different! I exercise only a few days a week, but 1200 calories isnt enough! If I eat any less than that I get sick. I get dizzy and sick to my stomach and my doctor told me 1200 isn't enough for me. People, please don't starve yourselves! Just eat healthy and exercise. It's just very concerning because I have a student who is obsessed with counting calories and she eats the bare minimum and she's very unhealthy.

benitocereno

Thanks for this post. I was just going to now post a question about how long one could undershoot the 1200 cal's before the body went into starvation mode, and happened to see your post where you answered that very question! I haven't checked out the links yet but the post info makes sense to me. Appreciate your sharing!! :flowerforyou:

This, this is the reason "vets" (or just people who care and know what they're talking about) keep responding.

Well if someone is just going to come in and say "oh us vets are so tired of this blah blah blah" and then leave the convo why come in the first place.Its seems like if thats all you have to say then you should have just let the thread die insted of bumping it back up

Conversely, one could ask why those who think outside of this idea and continually egg the question on bother to post in these threads. I know I don't like arguing til I'm blue in the face with people who refuse to prove their point. Honestly, this reminds me a lot of one thing: high school.

It will be great to see the pics from sub-1200/1500 people when they reach their goals, if they reach them. Don't like this attitude? Prove me wrong. Will all of the sub-total advocates post pictures of themselves to prove me wrong? While you're at it why don't explain your fitness as well- what can you lift, what do you run, etc. If eat under those numbers and have an ideal and healthy physique I'll take back everything I've said.

Once you've proved you're correct I'm sure the people here advocating eating your calories and have current pics of themselves being built and fit will be happy to take back their opinions as well. I haven't seen a single healthy picture from someone advocating this, so please, prove us all wrong. If you're just starting and you need a few months to get it sorted out I'll be here, be sure to make a big gloating thread when you do it so I don't miss it. And remember, healthy does not equal skinny or skinny fat, and I'm talking your goal weight, not 1/2 or even 3/4 of the way there. Let's see this theory for all it is. So go ahead, make my day!

K Thx :flowerforyou:

KWSR16

You are my hero. Thank you for actually PROVING that starvation mode doesnt happen in hours.... I mean really... HOURS???? C'mon people.

But at the same time everyone IS different, and therefore their bodies act differently to food. Which is why you need to figure out what you should and should eat and what your limits should be on your OWN! MFP is just here to help you get there and follow your own guidelines.

Again, thank you so much for this. I KNEW that the whole starvation mode thing couldnt be right. I mean, I am usually under my calories by 100 or more every day..and I'm pretty sure Im not starving. In fact, foods taste better to me now when I eat. Quality is definately better than quantity!!

Have a great weekend!!

charny164

Ok, my two cents worth on this topic.

Everyone's body reacts differently to food, water intake, exercise, fasting, sleep etc. I don't have any hard fast scientific studies on this but I was 175 pounds for the longest time. Quite happy with my weight. Not too chubby not skinny. Just curves. Since my divorce I have lost way more weight than I thought possible without much exercise at all. My problem is that one day I eat, the next day I can't cause the thought of food repels me and makes me ill. (before anyone says anything - I know I know, therapy, eat something, exercise, whatever).

I think that you have to find what works for you and what doesn't. If eating 2000 calories a day makes you happy and you exercise and maintain or lose weight - good on ya. If you are eating 1000 calories a day and your not hungry then fine! It will all balance itself out in the end as long as you know what is and isn't good for YOU!

I don't believe in starvation mode. I do believe in dehydration and the serious side effects that it can have. So my advice is eat whats good for you when you can, exercise if you can (you always feel better afterwards anyways) but darn it drink something! You can drink some calories if you need something (smoothies or ice cream shakes or juice).

Of course if you are going to the gym weight lifing and cardio burning thousands of calories...you better eat enough to sustain yourself.

FearAnLoathing

Thanks for this post. I was just going to now post a question about how long one could undershoot the 1200 cal's before the body went into starvation mode, and happened to see your post where you answered that very question! I haven't checked out the links yet but the post info makes sense to me. Appreciate your sharing!! :flowerforyou:

This, this is the reason "vets" (or just people who care and know what they're talking about) keep responding.

Well if someone is just going to come in and say "oh us vets are so tired of this blah blah blah" and then leave the convo why come in the first place.Its seems like if thats all you have to say then you should have just let the thread die insted of bumping it back up

Conversely, one could ask why those who think outside of this idea and continually egg the question on bother to post in these threads. I know I don't like arguing til I'm blue in the face with people who refuse to prove their point. Honestly, this reminds me a lot of one thing: high school.

It will be great to see the pics from sub-1200/1500 people when they reach their goals, if they reach them. Don't like this attitude? Prove me wrong. Will all of the sub-total advocates post pictures of themselves to prove me wrong? While you're at it why don't explain your fitness as well- what can you lift, what do you run, etc. If eat under those numbers and have an ideal and healthy physique I'll take back everything I've said.

Once you've proved you're correct I'm sure the people here advocating eating your calories and have current pics of themselves being built and fit will be happy to take back their opinions as well. I haven't seen a single healthy picture from someone advocating this, so please, prove us all wrong. If you're just starting and you need a few months to get it sorted out I'll be here, be sure to make a big gloating thread when you do it so I don't miss it. And remember, healthy does not equal skinny or skinny fat, and I'm talking your goal weight, not 1/2 or even 3/4 of the way there. Let's see this theory for all it is. So go ahead, make my day!

K Thx :flowerforyou:

I will be glad to! :devil:

ladyhawk00

You are my hero. Thank you for actually PROVING that starvation mode doesnt happen in hours.... I mean really... HOURS???? C'mon people.

But at the same time everyone IS different, and therefore their bodies act differently to food. Which is why you need to figure out what you should and should eat and what your limits should be on your OWN! MFP is just here to help you get there and follow your own guidelines.

Again, thank you so much for this. I KNEW that the whole starvation mode thing couldnt be right. I mean, I am usually under my calories by 100 or more every day..and I'm pretty sure Im not starving. In fact, foods taste better to me now when I eat. Quality is definately better than quantity!!

Have a great weekend!!

Um. First, nothing in the OP's post proved anything (other than that one study on 6 men for 3 days means nothing, especially in a scientific sense.)

Second, you clearly didn't read even some of the other posts in the thread. You need to look at more than the "sound bite" to educate yourself. Not trying to be rude, just saying seeing one title, post or thread is hardly a good way of actually learning something on such a complex issue.

Last, I don't believe ANYone has said that starvation mode, famine response or any other way you want to phrase it happens in hours, or even days. It takes a sustained large (how large depends on the person) caloric deficit over weeks or months to develop. And the point at which a person falls below the threshold is different for each person, based on numerous dynamic variables.

FearAnLoathing

well ive been eating this way most of my life except the period of time when I ate nothing but fast food and would drink 6 sodas a day and gained all this stupid weight.Its been a year of me eating the way that was normal for me pre drug years,and I am not in starvation mode.
I am in NO WAY advocating people eat the way I do.
I have no idea what YOUR body needs.
Just mine

jamebugg

bump...

chuisle

I'm sorry if this has been covered but I haven't seen it...

What about the idea that if you don't eat enough that your body will burn muscle, and tend to store fat?

ladyhawk00

I'm sorry if this has been covered but I haven't seen it...

What about the idea that if you don't eat enough that your body will burn muscle, and tend to store fat?

I don't believe it's been specifically discussed in this thread, but yes, it is a well-studied aspect and does happen. Here are a couple of threads that discuss it, I'm sure there are others if you look around.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

chuisle

I'm sorry if this has been covered but I haven't seen it...

What about the idea that if you don't eat enough that your body will burn muscle, and tend to store fat?

I don't believe it's been specifically discussed in this thread, but yes, it is a well-studied aspect and does happen. Here are a couple of threads that discuss it, I'm sure there are others if you look around.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

Thanks for the response! To me, that seems to be the most important part of this how-many-calories-are-too-little-calories debate. You want to get rid of fat, regardless of whether you want to get fit, lose weight or whatever.

AmeMahoney

well ive been eating this way most of my life except the period of time when I ate nothing but fast food and would drink 6 sodas a day and gained all this stupid weight.Its been a year of me eating the way that was normal for me pre drug years,and I am not in starvation mode.
I am in NO WAY advocating people eat the way I do.
I have no idea what YOUR body needs.
Just mine

Maybe you started eating all the fast food and sodas because you'd been starving your body for your whole life!
Hehe.
:bigsmile:

SHBoss1673

I'm sorry if this has been covered but I haven't seen it...

What about the idea that if you don't eat enough that your body will burn muscle, and tend to store fat?

it's true. After about (and I'm saying ABOUT because everyone has a different metabolism and genetics, so it's different for everyone) 3 days (actually somewhere between 40 and 60 hours for most people) of fasting (or probably anywhere from 3 to 14 days depending on the size of a deficit to large to sustain) the human body depletes it glycogen stores in the liver. When this happens the body has to get fuel from somewhere, and because there's no way to directly replace the glycogen with carbohydrates (because you aren't giving it enough), the body turns to protein and fat. Since fat can't be directly turned into glycogen and needs amino acids to be converted to usable energy, the body starts to amp up the conversion of protein to energy. It's a long, very complex story from here on out but essentially the body produces more cortisol which counteracts insulin sensitivity and also reduces testosterone and growth hormone production, which increases fat storage and reduces anabolic muscle cell growth. Thus you burn more protein as energy and store more fat.

and THIS essentially is the beginning of starvation mode. It's a simplified version, but that's it in a nutshell.

dalbers

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

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

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

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

Further reading, although I know nothing will put this topic to bed.

JenUB

bump

HerbieSue

Yay you, original poster.................I have always thought "starvation mode" was a bandwagon everyone just jumped on! As a lot of posters have said, everyone is different! In other words: "Here's to you, starvation mode is just a myth original MFP poster "!! (anybody?)

jenX1174

Anybody find it funny that the people with the most lbs lost are they ones who can see that the article presented makes sense. It is the ones with low lbs lost that seem to want to continue to believe in Starvation Mode.

Anyone find it funny this chic obviously didn't bother to look at anyone's profile when she made this statement?

I started 5 weeks ago and have lost 11 pounds. I'd hardly call that "low pounds lost". :huh:

runningneo122

Anybody find it funny that the people with the most lbs lost are they ones who can see that the article presented makes sense. It is the ones with low lbs lost that seem to want to continue to believe in Starvation Mode.

Anyone find it funny this chic obviously didn't bother to look at anyone's profile when she made this statement?

I started 5 weeks ago and have lost 11 pounds. I'd hardly call that "low pounds lost". :huh:

I find it funny that she thinks the cited posts actually make the OP's point when they most certainly DON'T. Probably didn't read them like all the other "sheeple" that agreed w/ OP.

As to the weight loss numbers, I (and I'm sure that I'm not alone) lost 45 pounds B4 joining MFP. Just b/c the counter has a low number for pounds lost since joining MFP, it doesn't mean we don't know what we are talking about. Talk about judging a book by the cover.

wilmelenne

So you're saying I've been wrong to try to eat back at least half of my exercise calories? Sometimes I'm too full to eat it but other times I eat something.

runningneo122

So you're saying I've been wrong to try to eat back at least half of my exercise calories? Sometimes I'm too full to eat it but other times I eat something.

No, wilmelenne. You are correct in eating back your exercise cals. The goal cals on your home page as well as the net cals are the two numbers to watch. Going over a little on some days is OK as well, since then you are "eating into" your planned deficit a little.

Read this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

_Bro

When you get right down to it, there's a mental "trap" with counting calories and fat burns.
You overdo it -- A good way to end up binging/over eating/failing/giving up is to deprive yourself in a consistent manner for an extended period of time. "Man I got fat by overeating... I'm not doing it again. "

Also, your starvation numbers might be a myth due to inaccurate logging -- it's difficult to get everything in just right

Seriously – EAT just a little less, exercise, improve what you eat and sleep..
You'll be just fine.

If you over and under eat a bit that's fine you're utilizing an advanced concept - Zig Zagging your calories...
Of course if you're silly enough to not eat after a workout well.. I hope you have a really good reason

Good luck everyone!

ebgbjo

I can't imagine what a low calorie restricted diet not only does to your muscles, but what it also does do your brain....

muth3rluvx2

maybe we should better define "low calorie diet"? I know we're debating abotu the whole 1200 mark and all... are we talking about 600 calories a day or 950-1000?

and this is assuming a person is set at 1200 calories by MFP - not 2,500 or 1850 or ... whatever. Cuz really, I don't think anyone that's posted is interested in a 600 calorie intake. It would seem to be that the debate is rating over a 200 calorie margin of error.

200 calories. That is 3 cookies & a cup of coffee; that is a 1/3 an avacado (or something like that); a handful of chips or crackers; a tablespoon of pasta, a yogurt & apple.... in short, it's missing 1 snack.

Just to add another perspective. I think some are assuming people are referring to a major cut in dietary needs and I don't think that's the case. We're not talking extremes such as some of the studies are citing. We're talking about day to day people with *some* activity and who generally make decent food choices through the day. It seems to me people are thinking that those who miss that one snack are going to dry up and wither away.

The other thing I'd like to ask is where does the concern come from? Is it because you want to be right or is it genuine concern for the wellbeing of others? Some responses look to be genuine concern - which is really kind. Many are offering responses that give the appearance of more the need to be right...which is fine too, but doesn't do much as far as getting people on the other side of the fence on board with your idea.

Maybe more questions should be asked rather than demands for a change of mind/heart? I did see some posts that indicated some people obviously have a scientific background - but really, the jargon isn't helpful. Put things in laymen's terms and we have to admit, science is NOT the end all be all. I mean.. Pluto. Really? Need I say more? It's a generalization and we must be careful of that as well. We need to all learn a little flexibility in our thinking and the way we approach debate.

I firmly agree that the 1200 calorie thing has nothing to do with the OP's point. Starvation mode is intimately tied to a person's TDEE (maintenance calories) and can usually be defined by the long term (>3 days) reduction of calories to a point that is below the threshold where that particular person can replenish glycogen stores in the liver and muscle.

In layman's terms, starvation mode is a relative condition to the person you are describing, thus everyone is different. A host of genetic, environmental, and internal factors decide when a body will cross the threshold.

Starvation mode begins when the body can not reach energy metabolism homeostasis (I.E. energy needed is exactly equal to energy provided). This means carbohydrates consumed, plus the result of lipolysis plus the result of gluconeogenesis (protein break down for energy), plus the existing glycogen stores can no longer reach an equallibrium with what the body demands for energy.

So, this all said, someone who is obese, has a lot more lipids (fat) in their body to use to make up the large deficits. when someone who is NOT so big tries to do the same thing, the gap between TDEE and the starvation mode threshold is far smaller, which is why you can't lose as much weight if you only have 20% body fat as you can if you have 35% body fat, and why more of that weight will be lean tissue (protein from muscle tissue and other non-fat substrates)

the discussion in the medical community isn't whether any of what I just wrote is true, the discussion is more along the lines of what the long term effects of starvation mode are to the body, and what hormones are triggered in response to it, and what this does to body composition after those hormone changes go into affect. THAT is where the medical community has debates.

For instance, there's a strong push to find out the role of Growth Hormone and Testosterone in a fasting environment, along with the "fat" hormones like cortisol (which is called the fat hormone because it's produced by adipocites, or fat cells in higher amounts as a response to times of high stress), and other hormones which are catalysts for energy absorption into cells like insulin. While we have a basic idea of how these hormones interact, because of the amount of chemicals in the body, their VERY complex interactions, and the changes that occur during different times (high stress, underfeeding, obesity, anorexia...etc) we don't know exactly what role these hormones play yet. But we are coming closer every day.


You asked where the concern comes from. Well I admit, I'm no longer trying to lose weight, and could have stopped using MFP years ago. But I'm intimately tied to weight issues by family, I was formerly obese, I'm now a personal trainer, and I genuinely like helping others and receive a certain amount of personal joy from it. My science background allows me to read technical journals and research and be able to (hopefully) translate it into useful information.

You say the technical jargon isn't helpful. but I disagree. Besides the small percentage of people that can actually read and correctly interpret the studies (they're difficult sometimes), there are a lot of people here that need to know that we who cite these resources are actually doing real investigation into the issues, and even if you can't read them all, the fact that we cite them and show how we arrived at a conclusion is important to the process.

As to the concept that science isn't the end all. I disagree, citing Pluto as an example isn't really very relevant as that wasn't a "mistake" it was a reclassification based on additional information. Any mistakes that we make in science are because we are imperfect, not because the science itself is wrong, our existence in the physical world has laws, our bodies follow those laws, just because we don't understand them all yet, and get them wrong sometimes, doesn't make the laws wrong, it makes us flawed as beings.

I have a lot more I would love to say, but I've already written to much. There's reams and reams of data out there if you want it. And there's opinions aplenty on this topic, believe what you want for what ever reasons you want, that won't change the truth, I just hope those out there in MFP land that are unsure do some analytics on the posts they read and don't choose things based on "how much they like the poster" or how much weight the poster has lost, because there's a lot more to this site than a popularity contest.

Whew.. lol.. okay, I'll try to keep my response to your response to my response a little shorter. TRY. :laugh:

It seems that the debate in this particular instance is whether or not going under 1200 (by a reasonable amt!) will put one into starvation mode and ultimately, it sounds like it would be a far more complicated process than using an online calculator to *truly* determine what *any* individuals maintenance calories actually are? Am I understanding that bit correctly?

Believe me, I understand the complexity of hormones and their involvement in our bodies; but not so much in this capacity. I have more the pharmopsych understanding. There's so much we don't know and it all goes back to the brain as that is where the messages for particular hormones to be released or absorbed comes from and then that response triggers another response and on and on - and yet we're still so very unfamiliar with the human brain still. It's a unique machine and we haven't even determined all its possible functions much less HOW those functions operate. Yeah, I get it. :happy:

It's nice to get some background on someone who's been posting sometimes. I do it because its completely in my nature to want to help. Of course, like many, I have faults and occasionally err or get frustrated with something/one - and I also acknowledge those shortfalls on my part. It sounds like getting into the health field was a natural and good fit for you.

As far as the jargon part, I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't think of it that way, of course, but what I meant by saying it wasn't helpful is that people who don't understand it doesn't know what it means and therefore cannot learn from what you have to offer. Perhaps you could make your statements with the jargon and then restate it in laymens terms? That way both effects are covered and everyone gets the benefit of your knowledge without you having to explain it in two different places? I know that would really help me! :drinker: I get some of it, but not enough.

Regarding science - of course we're human and we err - all the time. Even in our scientific findings. Or, as you pointed out, we change our minds about something due to additional information. You took my statement a little too literally, I think. :laugh: You're right in that science is objective and unfailing - but we're not and within the perfection of science we still make many many mistakes and/or alterations. In 5 years, we'll learn something new that will totally alter what we thought kcalories meant or how they were used or how we determine how much someone needs or something. Well, maybe we won't, but you get the idea. My point in that statement was to make a note that we even in dealing with scientific information, we need to be judicious, use common sense in addition to what we've learned and make the best possible judgments - not because someone else said so - but because we have determined in our own right that whatever it is that is in question is worth investing our faith in the knowledge, practices and outcomes of that other person or party that has provided such information. In other words, critical thinking skills.

1) don't believe everything you read
2) don't believe everything you hear
3) don't believe everything you see (especially these days with modern technology aiding in the falsification of images! usually for the purpose of humor, but sometimes ... not).

We always have to examine and re-examine what we think we know - as a race, as a culture, as a society and as individuals. Aside from religious views, the only thing we know for absolute certainty and without any artifice or alteration is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Everything else is subject to change. (sometimes, much to our chagrin and disappointment)

roylawrence87

*walks in, looks around, runs out*

muth3rluvx2

I looked at some of the articles that were post-posted (LOL!) and I have some questions - I'm including some bits for the purpose of referencing.

Article 1)
Starvation diet and very-low-calorie diets may induce insulin resistance and overt diabetes mellitus.

Koffler M, Kisch ES.
Diabetes Unit, Tel-Aviv University Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital, Israel.

Abstract
We have observed seven initially obese individuals who, during the course of a strenuous weight-reduction program, developed diabetes mellitus: non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in five cases and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in two cases. None had any sign of prior diabetic symptoms. Although weight reduction is encouraged in obesity, crash diets without proper medical surveillance may have deleterious effects. This sequence of induction of diabetes has not previously been reported in the medical literature. The metabolic situation in extremely low-calorie diets may be comparable to that in starvation. An attempt is made to explain our observation concerning the induction of a diabetic state during such diets, on the basis of increased insulin resistance in states of starvation and anorexia nervosa, with a concomitant role in stress hormones.
PMID: 8777329 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

In the last part, are they saying that those who are anorexic/starving do not end up suffering from this diabetic state? I can never remember the whole hyperglycemic/hypoglycemic thing and I'm having the same problem with increased insulin (which causes diabetes and which types... I just get it all mixed up)? I just need to clarify in order to better understand the abstract. I do find it interesting that this is occurring in people who are obese. Is there a shown cause/effect relationship or is this just a correlation? I don't seem to have access to the whole article.

Article 2)

During the past decade there has been a dramatic surge of increased use of low-calorie, semistarvation diets for weight reduction (1-8). Some protein-sparing modified fasts, designed to overcome the adverse effects of negative nitrogen balance and subsequent loss of lean muscle mass characteristic of starvation, were associated with reports of complications and death (9-17). Some (13-18) but not all (19) investigators suggested that deaths attributed to these diets were due to cardiac arrhythmias associated with N depletion (5-7, 14, 20-2 1) and/or potassium imbalance (5-7, 14, 19). Other reports suggest that vigorous supplementation of low-calorie diets may be protective (2, 6, 20-24). However, there continue to be reports indicating the dangers of low-calorie diets especially when accompanied by rapid and significant weight loss (22-34). Consequently there are yet many unanswered questions regarding the metabolic response to very-low-calorie supplemented diets (27, 28, 33-36). Specific factors that may lead to adverse consequences of very-low-calorie diets remain difficult to identify.

Consequently there are yet many unanswered questions regarding the metabolic response to very-low-calorie supplemented diets (27, 28, 33-36). Specific factors that may lead to adverse consequences of very-low-calorie diets remain difficult to identify.
I'm reiterating this portion as to me, this says that the study does not provide information regarding supplemented diets and there is still alot of unknowns regarding metabolic rate. I can see how this may show *some* evidence of dangers of a low calorie diet, but let's see.. I'm bad at math here... 23% of 1200 is... uhm...276, so 1200-276=924. Just in case anyone is wondering what a 23% decrease on a 1200 cal diet looks like. And if I understand right, they did not supplement the diets of the subjects?

Article 3)

2305 Am J C/in Nuir 1992:56:2305-45. Printed in USA. © 1992 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

Cardiac effects of starvation and semistarvation diets: safety and mechanisms of action1’2
Janis S Fisler

ABSTRACT
A major concern with the use of starvation or semistarvation diets for weight reduction in severely obese people has been the reports of sudden death due to ventricular arrhythmias. Obesity per se is associated with cardiovascular changes, including left ventricular hypertrophy and prolongation of the QT interval. With weight loss, the mass of the heart and left ventricle decrease, but some signs ofleft ventricular dysfunction remain.(...) A major concern with the use of starvation, very-low-calorie regimes (VLCRs), or very-low-calorie diets (VLCDs), for weight reduction arises from the reports of fatal cardiac dysrhythmias. Review of electrocardiograms (ECGs) and pathological specimens of individuals who suffered sudden death or death due to intractable ventricular arrhythmia while, or shortly after, consuming a VLCR (usually. but not always, a nutrient-poor formula) for _ 2 mo and who had lost a large amount of weight, revealed a pattern ofcardiac changes similar to those previously described in starvation (1, 2). Consistent ECG findings in these cases were an increased incidence of prolonged QTc intervals (QT intervals corrected for heart rate) and diminished amplitude (low voltage) of the QRS complexes. Whether these electrocardiographic abnormalities were caused by the energy deficit or a deficiency of a specific nutrient or whether they were unrelated to the diet has not been determined. Recently it has been suggested that there is an excess mortality from unexplained fatal arrhythmias in the morbidly obese.

Points of reiteration:
Whether these electrocardiographic abnormalities were caused by the energy deficit or a deficiency of a specific nutrient or whether they were unrelated to the diet has not been determined. and severely obese (a description that does not appear to apply to many responders?).


It would seem to be from these few articles that the matter (starvation mode) is somewhat still in question by the health community. It would seem there is no real determined answer as of the publishing of these articles (I loathe to make a longer post). I would also suggest that GENERALLY, 1200 is probably a good base to work from with the information we currently have AND if one feels the need to go under regularly, be very careful, supplement and if it's an option, talk to your doctor regularly to monitor your health conditions - and if that's not an option due to financial/insurance reasons, well... there's are possibly very adverse effects to be experienced well beyond the scope of "starvation mode". These articles do not appear to address that point from what I can tell. The other information is interesting and definitely shows some health issues related to extreme dieting. I'm not sure how to translate this to someone that's just slightly overweight though....

**shrugs **

But if someone could clarify the points regarding my inquiries, that would be most kind & thank you! :-)

stormieweather

*walks in, looks around, runs out*

:laugh: :flowerforyou:

jenbusick

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.

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

Wow, sneer much?

Like JenX, I spent two years unable to get below a plateau. I kept decreasing my calories and increasing my exercise, to no avail. I joined MFP, and as a result of reading about starvation mode/reduced metabolism, I upped my net calorie intake (skeptically, I will say). I broke the plateau and have continued to lose weight.

Your studies talk about a few days of calorie restriction -- many studies of brief periods of calorie restriction actually show an increase in metabolism, but this is temporary; my experience and JenX's involve longer periods of calorie restriction. Longer periods do appear to reduce metabolism, although by mechanisms that are not fully understood. One possibility I read about was that loss of lean muscle mass results in reduced metabolism; another possibility is that reduced caloric intake results in reduced energy levels, such that someone on a severely restricted calorie diet simply isn't active enough to burn as many calories as someone who has eaten well -- this is consistent with some of the findings about eating before a workout resulting in a more vigorous workout.

The mechanisms appear to be poorly understood, and "starvation mode" may not be the most precise name it could be given, but for some of us, calorie restriction below our BMR appears to work at cross-purposes to our weight loss goals. If it's not that way for you, then I hope you find what does work for you. After all, if the answers were well-defined and easy, none of us would be here.

muth3rluvx2

The thing I don't like about most of the studies is that they deal primarily in those who are obese or severely obese.

Does anyone have an article that deals in semi-average sized persons, weight/height ratio? There's a pretty big difference - in every possible way - between someone that needs to lose 20 or 30 lbs and someone that needs to lose 200 or 300 lbs. Medically, there's no comparison; unfortunately, I'm finding most of these articles inapplicable. That doesn't mean they're not valid but I can't translate the information from the experiments and findings to myself. :ohwell:

I'd be really interested in that, please!

btw: when I say article, I mean a scientific study - not a blog post, unknown online poster from yahoo.com, about.com, msn.com, etc. I'm looking peer reviewed publicized reliable and valid research.

Thanks again!!! :flowerforyou:

dalbers

The thing I don't like about most of the studies is that they deal primarily in those who are obese or severely obese.

Does anyone have an article that deals in semi-average sized persons, weight/height ratio? There's a pretty big difference - in every possible way - between someone that needs to lose 20 or 30 lbs and someone that needs to lose 200 or 300 lbs. Medically, there's no comparison; unfortunately, I'm finding most of these articles inapplicable. That doesn't mean they're not valid but I can't translate the information from the experiments and findings to myself. :ohwell:

I'd be really interested in that, please!

btw: when I say article, I mean a scientific study - not a blog post, unknown online poster from yahoo.com, about.com, msn.com, etc. I'm looking peer reviewed publicized reliable and valid research.

Thanks again!!! :flowerforyou:

I actually put up studies above that compared obese and fit people.

The result, BOTH kept losing weight even in so called starvation mode.

The difference, the obese people were able to retain more lean tissue while giving up more fat, and the thin people got to very very low body fat levels but gave up a lot of lean tissue as well.

These were not 3 day studies.

Starvation mode to the point of not losing weight is a myth. Metabolism, in skinny people at the end of their body fat reserves, slowed as much as 40%, but they still kept losing weight. Obese people who were eating little enough to produce a 2 pound a week weight drop did so, obese people who reducing enough to see a 4 pound a week weight loss only lost 2.5 pounds. They still lost FASTER then someone eating at "Diet levels" rather then starvation levels, just not as fast as you would expect.