starvation mode myth

xraychick77

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




Weight Watchers Online

The Starvation Myth

Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department

The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.

Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.

While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Center article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint).

Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilized, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.

Weight Watchers Approach
The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint.

MooseWizard

Counterpoint:

IS STARVATION MODE A MYTH? NO! STARVATION MODE IS VERY REAL AND HERE’S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF

QUESTION:

Tom, I was wondering if you had seen the 6 part e-mail series sent out by [name deleted] from [website deleted]. if you look at the last part, he basically states that “starvation mode” is a bunch of crap made up in order to sell diet programs. He didn’t mention you, but it almost sounds like he’s talking about you specifically. How do you feel about this?

ANSWER:

Yes, I saw that article/email and the author is mistaken about starvation mode. In his article, he accused those of us who use the term “starvation mode” as being unscientific and he even says “dont buy diet books if they mention the starvation mode.” I’ll make it clear in a moment, that in this case, he is the one who doesn’t appear very well read in the scientific literature on the effects of starvation and low calorie diets.

I do have to point out first that the effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown. There are also myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (doesn’t happen), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).

Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.

As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.

However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documented and is not just a metabolic adaptation - it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food seeking behaviors.
Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:

Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)
Here’s one of those follow up studies:

“Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition.

Quote:

“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”

“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”

Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.

Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.

There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them - when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women.

Starvation mode is not just adaptive reduction metabolic rate - it is much more.

There IS a controversy over how much of the decrease in metabolism with weight loss is caused by starvation mode, but the case is extremely strong:
For example, this study DIRECTLY addresses the controversy over HOW MUCH of a decrease in metabolism really occurs with starvation due to adaptive thermogenesis and how much is very simply due to a loss in total body mass.

Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”
quote:

“It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”

Starvation response is even a scientific term that is used in obesity science textbooks - word for word - CONTRARY to the claim made by the expert mentioned earlier who thinks the phrase, starvation mode is “unscientific.”

Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard
(two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )
quote:

“The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”

Textbooks on nutritional biochemistry also acknowledge the decrease in metabolism and distinguish it as an adaptive mechanism, distinct from the decrease in energy expenditure that would be expected with weight loss. In this case, the author also mentions another downside of very low calorie diets: spontaneous reduction in physical activity.

Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)

Quote:

“During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.

This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”
Granted, it is more often referred to as “metabolic adaptation” or “adaptive reduction in metabolic rate.” However, starvation mode and starvation response are both terms found in the scientific literature, and they are more easily understood by the layperson, which is why I choose to use them. Another effect of starvation mode is what happens after the diet: A sustained increase in appetite and a sustained reduction of metabolic rate that persists after the diet is over. Although controversial, this too is documented in the literature:

American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”

American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”
quote:

“Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”
and Dulloo 1998:

“The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”
By the way, this explains what some people refer to as “metabolic damage” and although this is not a scientific phrase, you can see that it too is a reality. It is the lag time between when a diet ends and when your metabolism and appetite regulating mechanisms get back to normal. Last, but certainly not least, and perhaps the best indicator of starvation mode is the hormone LEPTIN. you could spend weeks studying leptin and still not cover all the data that has been amassed on this subject. Leptin IS the anti starvation hormone. Some people say leptin IS the starvation mode itself because it regulates many of the negative effects that occur during starvation. leptin is secreted mostly from fat cells and it signals your brain about your fat stores. If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases. If your calorie intake decreases, your leptin level decreases. When leptin decreases, it essentially sounds the starvation alarm. In response, your brain (hypothalamus) sends out signals for other hormones to be released which decrease metabolic rate and increase appetite.

In summary and conclusion:

There is no debate whatsoever about the existence of starvation mode - IT EXISTS and is well documented.
There is also no debate whatsoever that metabolic rate decreases with weight loss. It happens and is well documented, and it is a reason for plateuas. There’s really only ONE debate about starvation mode that is — HOW MUCH of the starvation mode is comprised of adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and how much is due to loss of total body mass and increased feeding behaviors? Researchers are still debating these questions, in fact just earlier this year another study was releasd by Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”

Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:

“Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”

I respect the work that other fitness professionals are trying to do to debunk diet and fitness myths, but this fellow didn’t seem to do his homework and totally missed the boat on this article about starvation mode.

What’s really odd is that he didn’t quote a single study in his article, despite his repeated reference to “scientific research.”

If he wanted to argue against adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and chalk starvation mode up purely to increase in food seeking behaviors… and if he wanted to attribute the decreased metabolism with weight loss purely to lost body mass, he easily could have done that. But he didn’t cite ANY studies. He just expects us to take his word for it that “starvation mode is a myth,” and people like me who use the phrase starvation mode are “unscientific”

Either way you argue it - and whatever you choose to call it - “starvation response” is a scientific fact and that’s why prolonged low calorie diets are risky business and mostly just quick fixes.

The rapid weight loss in the beginning is an illusion: Starvation diets catch up with you eventually… just like other habits such as smoking appear to do no harm at first, but sooner or later the damage is done.
For years I’ve considered it so important to understand the consequences of starvation diets that my entire burn the fat program is built around helping you recover from metabolic damage from past diet mistakes, to avoid the starvation mode, or to at least keep the effects of the starvation mode to a minimum so you can lose the fat and keep the muscle. Sincerely,
Your friend and “Burn The fat coach”

Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
www.BurnTheFat.com

kevanos

Sensationalst Headline. They do a horrible job in this articvle to disprove the starvation mode claim.

"Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism 1" see how they put their reference marker in the middle of the sentence. That part of the sentence has a source from a peer reviewed article, the rest of the sentence is simply their opinion and is not supported by research.

This is the full quote,

"Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism 1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival."

The author is saying eating a very small amount of calories make the body more efficient. No evidence for this claim is cited, no study is refered to, no researched is referenced. I think that is a very liberal interpretation of what the body is actually doing. To claim that the body becomes more efficient would mean it functions the same with less energy input, I don`t think that has been shown to happen in any study. They produce no evedence to make that claim.

Who is the author?

Well i looked into it more, the author is the research group at WW, note they are not sientific publishers, they are a corporation.

They took a well sourced theory: low cal cause slower metabolism, and then they added their own conclusion. Very amateur.

The article does a reallty bad job at presenting a clear argument.

kevanos

Counterpoint:

great post, I think Tom Venuto is great!

I loved his book.

tanniew78

Why even post this to begin with? People NEED to eat. It is a fact that without food you die. How much food is up to you. If your stomach is GROWLING and in pain or you feel weak then its time to eat. I have never been below 1300 cals and when I have (being sick will do that to you) I was very weak and nauseated.

Here is a simple formula.. and oh... MFP has done a GREAT job in automatically providing the answer to it...

Calories eaten < Calories expended = weight loss.

That doesnt mean you have to eat 500 calories a day.

Furthermore, WHY would you want to lose so much so soon... Dont you realize a body needs time to adjust to losing weight. If you want to lose fast then you can run around looking like an unsatisfied wrinkle dog if you want to. Im going to take my time and let my body adjust sizes as i go so I dont have the hanging skin.

benitocereno

While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth

Forgive my bluntness, but hahahaha. Really? This is a sham article with no science to support it, designed to sell Weight Watchers. How can you tell?

Weight Watchers Approach
The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint.

This article seems like that was written by Dr. Spaceman from 30 Rock. In fact, almost every argument I see for "starvation doesn't exist!!!" does. Here, enjoy:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/95442/30-rock-dr-spaceman-medical-moments

BullDozier

Counterpoint:

I do have to point out first that the effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown. There are also myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (doesn’t happen), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).

Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.

As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.

Aren't these the most hotly debated topics in the starvation mode debate? It seems to me that Venuto doesn't disagree much with what was posted in the original post. Maybe I'm missing something.

benitocereno

You are. Proponents of "starvation mode doesn't exist" refuse to believe their metabolism slows at all, or that they're doing anything wrong. Because hey, "I'm losing weight!." Venuto's point is that your body doesn't completely shut down, which makes logical sense. If you stop eating you whither away and die - you don't just hold the same weight forever. That doesn't mean there's no biological response or that it's healthy, and it especially doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

He's also right insofar as fat loss doesn't cease - but starvation mode leads to an increase in catabolism of muscles and bone density. I don't give two ****s if you're "losing weight" when that weight is muscle and bone, sorry. There's no appeal in being an empty skin-bag who's probably just as unhealthy as when they started their "weight loss."

The problem with this "debate" is people reading fast-facts from hacks and taking it as scientific evidence and refuse to be proven wrong or listen to actual journals. They pick and chose the ones they want and ignore the rest (and a reading of those cited studies shows how inaccurate they are- see 6 men for 3 days in 1980). People who don't believe refuse to be convinced, and it's too bad because they're harming themselves bowing to the "almighty scale" when fat-loss has little to do with their weight-loss.

Like I've said before - I'd love to see a single picture from someone who eats under their calories losing and maintaining their weight loss WHILE being healthy. If that person is healthy, can run a healthy distance, lift a healthy amount, etc, I'll take back everything I've said. Maybe I should put together an actual fitness challenge so I'm prepared the next time this comes up

AEROBICVIC

myth or no myth....as for my body, i have learned that a low cal diet of 1100-1200 for the last 5 years has hurt me more than helped me. i've been teaching aerobics (14 yrs) and lifting heavy (5 yrs) at that intake and hit a wall 3 years ago. my weight hasn't changed much....certainly didn't drop. i started eating around 1600 since Jan 1, 2011 and my body is just starting to drop in wt. i feel soooo much better, my muscle mass is growing, i have so much more energy to teach and lift hard again. the fear of gaining wt kept me at the low cal intake and unable to drop the last 35 lbs i want to drop (lost around 70 before hitting the wall 3 yrs ago).

i've tried the WW program before and did not learn a thing about food. a point did not teach me about the nutrients i need. it was a numbers game, not a learning experience. once finished with WW, i had to start over and learn about foods on my own.

benitocereno

myth or no myth....as for my body, i have learned that a low cal diet of 1100-1200 for the last 5 years has hurt me more than helped me. i've been teaching aerobics (14 yrs) and lifting heavy (5 yrs) at that intake and hit a wall 3 years ago. my weight hasn't changed much....certainly didn't drop. i started eating around 1600 since Jan 1, 2011 and my body is just starting to drop in wt. i feel soooo much better, my muscle mass is growing, i have so much more energy to teach and lift hard again. the fear of gaining wt kept me at the low cal intake and unable to drop the last 35 lbs i want to drop (lost around 70 before hitting the wall 3 yrs ago).

i've tried the WW program before and did not learn a thing about food. a point did not teach me about the nutrients i need. it was a numbers game, not a learning experience. once finished with WW, i had to start over and learn about foods on my own.

You are going to kick that weight's butt with the muscle you're putting on now, that's what it's all about!! The world needs more women not afraid to pick up the iron, I can't wait to see how your journey ends up with your attitude.

Ps. Sent you a friend request but forgot a message :drinker:

AEROBICVIC

myth or no myth....as for my body, i have learned that a low cal diet of 1100-1200 for the last 5 years has hurt me more than helped me. i've been teaching aerobics (14 yrs) and lifting heavy (5 yrs) at that intake and hit a wall 3 years ago. my weight hasn't changed much....certainly didn't drop. i started eating around 1600 since Jan 1, 2011 and my body is just starting to drop in wt. i feel soooo much better, my muscle mass is growing, i have so much more energy to teach and lift hard again. the fear of gaining wt kept me at the low cal intake and unable to drop the last 35 lbs i want to drop (lost around 70 before hitting the wall 3 yrs ago).

i've tried the WW program before and did not learn a thing about food. a point did not teach me about the nutrients i need. it was a numbers game, not a learning experience. once finished with WW, i had to start over and learn about foods on my own.

You are going to kick that weight's butt with the muscle you're putting on now, that's what it's all about!! The world needs more women not afraid to pick up the iron, I can't wait to see how your journey ends up with your attitude.

Ps. Sent you a friend request but forgot a message :drinker:

haha, yes i am! my husband and son are into powerlifting and so am i. i absolutely love hitting it hard! my guys qualified for the World championships last year, i want to join them this year!

xraychick77

Hey if all you people believe this is bunk, then post your own scientific PROOF that its not a myth, instead of just re-hashing what you hear from others who heard it from others etc. I posted it to get people to think and maybe do some research on their own instead of just believing what others tell them. If you dont like it, or dont believe it, then its your choice. I happen to enjoy doing my own research on subjects. If I find out I was wrong then I'll retract. I used to believe this myth, but in doing my own research I found out better. So hey, just like what is usually wrong with the world, people tend to believe what they are told, instead of finding things out for themselves.

xraychick77

Like I've said before - I'd love to see a single picture from someone who eats under their calories losing and maintaining their weight loss WHILE being healthy. If that person is healthy, can run a healthy distance, lift a healthy amount, etc, I'll take back everything I've said. Maybe I should put together an actual fitness challenge so I'm prepared the next time this comes up

I did. I can run no problem. I can run at least 2 miles, i am not a marathon person, so i dont run alot. And its impossible to gain muscle while losing fat..since losing fat takes a cal deficit, and gaining muscle a cal surplus. I cut and bulk. I am very healthy, my bp is very low, i have plenty of energy. I was working out at the gym doing weights 40 mins to maintain my muscle and then 50mins of cardio 6 days a week..during my cutting phase. i only took in 1300 cals, and didnt eat what i burned. I work third shift, so thats another strike against me. but i never had any problems with energy or weight loss. So i KNOW better. I know you have to eat for fuel, I do that. But when i'm losing fat i dont want to intake all those cals i worked so hard to burn back. I am now in my bulking stage. I am eating 1600-1800 cals (i am finding my range right now), so I can build more muscle. And now, yes of course I eat what I burn, because you need cals to make muscle.

i am 5'2" 119 lbs (gained a lb i found out today).

and I unlike some, dont just believe what is told me. this is why i did my own research on this subject. I dont just retell what everyone 'thinks' to be the truth. I find out for myself.

benitocereno

The burden of proof with those trying to disprove well documented facts lies on those who question it, so, by all means, prove us all wrong with some studies. I'm not going to post the stuff that's already all over these boards again.

Also, it's not impossible to gain muscle while losing fat. It's only impossible to do so if you don't properly fuel yourself. It can be difficult, but not impossible. Cells switch back and forth between their metabolic modes all day. By dieting correctly (see: eating your calories) you have less "bulking" to do at the end because you don't blow your muscle away with malnutrition. Weight loss takes longer, but that's because fat loss takes a long time. It's a fact, no getting around it.

Good luck with your weight lifting and I'm sorry if I came across as blunt, but I'm tired of seeing this misinformation on the boards. As you start seriously lifting and increasing activity I think you'll see how far behind you are from your dietary choices (if you lost a lot of weight... if your ticker is accurate and you started at 122, you were pretty tiny to begin with and you didn't have much to lose ). Are you beginning to work out to gain definition (aka. skinny-fat)? That's one of my main arguments for not cutting yourself so low.

If you did start at 122, realize you are the exception from the norm around here. People with 50-100+ lbs to lose cannot afford to diet like you do - while you may lose 4-5 lbs of muscle by starving yourself, they'd lose 25-30+. Unacceptable.

MrsChasteen

I think this is a very interesting and helpful thread because I often find myself struggling to be at exactly 1200 calories. Sometimes I feel full and I continue to eat fearing the "starvation mode." I am glad to know that my body is not in danger. I don't like systems, myths, or tricks to make people lose weight. People should be educated on EXACTLY what the body needs. I could never do 500 calories in one day as I would be starving and weak, but I think sometimes a 800 to 1000 calorie diet of only nutritional foods such as whole grain, fresh fruit/ vegetable, and lean meat/nut/protein could be beneficial. Too many people eat a diet of processed junk food then complain that they are hungry or weak. When I make the decision to eat processed or unhealthy foods I am prepared for the consequences.

lodro

Ah, the famous study:

(and a reading of those cited studies shows how inaccurate they are- see 6 men for 3 days in 1980)

to point out that no everybody on MFP is here to either lose weights or bulk muscle, or both. I am here, for instance to severely restrict caloric intake for another purpose.

However:
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/287/5/E1032.full
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA340804

My impression is that everyone is very focused on the number of calories and far less on the nutritional composition of low-calorie meals. And remember that the difference between 900 calories a day and 1200 is 1 plain, whole wheat bagel. Also I think that for many people, 1200 calories/day is already severe calorie restriction. In that case too, nutritional composition of meals should reflect that.

The second link especially in interesting in what it states about the composition of meals, especially the role protein plays in preserving muscle tissue.

justintime83

Counterpoint:

IS STARVATION MODE A MYTH? NO! STARVATION MODE IS VERY REAL AND HERE’S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF

QUESTION:

Tom, I was wondering if you had seen the 6 part e-mail series sent out by [name deleted] from [website deleted]. if you look at the last part, he basically states that “starvation mode” is a bunch of crap made up in order to sell diet programs. He didn’t mention you, but it almost sounds like he’s talking about you specifically. How do you feel about this?

ANSWER:

Yes, I saw that article/email and the author is mistaken about starvation mode. In his article, he accused those of us who use the term “starvation mode” as being unscientific and he even says “dont buy diet books if they mention the starvation mode.” I’ll make it clear in a moment, that in this case, he is the one who doesn’t appear very well read in the scientific literature on the effects of starvation and low calorie diets.

I do have to point out first that the effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown. There are also myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (doesn’t happen), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).

Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.

As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.

However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documented and is not just a metabolic adaptation - it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food seeking behaviors.
Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:

Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)
Here’s one of those follow up studies:

“Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition.

Quote:

“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”

“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”

Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.

Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.

There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them - when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women.

Starvation mode is not just adaptive reduction metabolic rate - it is much more.

There IS a controversy over how much of the decrease in metabolism with weight loss is caused by starvation mode, but the case is extremely strong:
For example, this study DIRECTLY addresses the controversy over HOW MUCH of a decrease in metabolism really occurs with starvation due to adaptive thermogenesis and how much is very simply due to a loss in total body mass.

Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”
quote:

“It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”

Starvation response is even a scientific term that is used in obesity science textbooks - word for word - CONTRARY to the claim made by the expert mentioned earlier who thinks the phrase, starvation mode is “unscientific.”

Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard
(two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )
quote:

“The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”

Textbooks on nutritional biochemistry also acknowledge the decrease in metabolism and distinguish it as an adaptive mechanism, distinct from the decrease in energy expenditure that would be expected with weight loss. In this case, the author also mentions another downside of very low calorie diets: spontaneous reduction in physical activity.

Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)

Quote:

“During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.

This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”
Granted, it is more often referred to as “metabolic adaptation” or “adaptive reduction in metabolic rate.” However, starvation mode and starvation response are both terms found in the scientific literature, and they are more easily understood by the layperson, which is why I choose to use them. Another effect of starvation mode is what happens after the diet: A sustained increase in appetite and a sustained reduction of metabolic rate that persists after the diet is over. Although controversial, this too is documented in the literature:

American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”

American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”
quote:

“Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”
and Dulloo 1998:

“The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”
By the way, this explains what some people refer to as “metabolic damage” and although this is not a scientific phrase, you can see that it too is a reality. It is the lag time between when a diet ends and when your metabolism and appetite regulating mechanisms get back to normal. Last, but certainly not least, and perhaps the best indicator of starvation mode is the hormone LEPTIN. you could spend weeks studying leptin and still not cover all the data that has been amassed on this subject. Leptin IS the anti starvation hormone. Some people say leptin IS the starvation mode itself because it regulates many of the negative effects that occur during starvation. leptin is secreted mostly from fat cells and it signals your brain about your fat stores. If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases. If your calorie intake decreases, your leptin level decreases. When leptin decreases, it essentially sounds the starvation alarm. In response, your brain (hypothalamus) sends out signals for other hormones to be released which decrease metabolic rate and increase appetite.

In summary and conclusion:

There is no debate whatsoever about the existence of starvation mode - IT EXISTS and is well documented.
There is also no debate whatsoever that metabolic rate decreases with weight loss. It happens and is well documented, and it is a reason for plateuas. There’s really only ONE debate about starvation mode that is — HOW MUCH of the starvation mode is comprised of adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and how much is due to loss of total body mass and increased feeding behaviors? Researchers are still debating these questions, in fact just earlier this year another study was releasd by Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”

Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:

“Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”

I respect the work that other fitness professionals are trying to do to debunk diet and fitness myths, but this fellow didn’t seem to do his homework and totally missed the boat on this article about starvation mode.

What’s really odd is that he didn’t quote a single study in his article, despite his repeated reference to “scientific research.”

If he wanted to argue against adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and chalk starvation mode up purely to increase in food seeking behaviors… and if he wanted to attribute the decreased metabolism with weight loss purely to lost body mass, he easily could have done that. But he didn’t cite ANY studies. He just expects us to take his word for it that “starvation mode is a myth,” and people like me who use the phrase starvation mode are “unscientific”

Either way you argue it - and whatever you choose to call it - “starvation response” is a scientific fact and that’s why prolonged low calorie diets are risky business and mostly just quick fixes.

The rapid weight loss in the beginning is an illusion: Starvation diets catch up with you eventually… just like other habits such as smoking appear to do no harm at first, but sooner or later the damage is done.
For years I’ve considered it so important to understand the consequences of starvation diets that my entire burn the fat program is built around helping you recover from metabolic damage from past diet mistakes, to avoid the starvation mode, or to at least keep the effects of the starvation mode to a minimum so you can lose the fat and keep the muscle. Sincerely,
Your friend and “Burn The fat coach”

Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
www.BurnTheFat.com

^^^reallly needs to get laid!

lodro

If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases.

however

Fasting and Leptin

By Brad Pilon, MS

Leptin is a very interesting hormone. It gets lots of ‘buzz’ in the weight loss industry, mostly because of its effects in animal research.

In 1994, researchers discovered that a certain strain of genetically mutated obese mice had a deficiency of a protein-hormone called leptin, which is released from fat cells and is monitored by the brain.

Whereas normal mice had a gene that causes fat cells to secret leptin, these mutated obese mice lacked this gene.

When these leptin-deficient mice were injected with leptin, their weight slowly returned to non-obese levels.

Shortly after this discovery it was found that leptin could even increase metabolic rate (energy expenditure) in mice.

The weight loss industry quickly jumped on this story, and Leptin was hailed as the cure for obesity.

Unfortunately, what works in mice, doesn’t always work in humans. It has since been found that when leptin levels are reduced by 80% in humans there is no change in resting metabolic rate [Chan JL, 2007].

In fact, changes in leptin levels do not seem to have any influence nor are they influenced by changes in resting metabolic rate in humans [Rosenbaum M, 1997; 2002]

In humans Leptin seems to be correlated to the amount of food we eat.

The more food, the more leptin in our blood stream.

Overeating for several days can increase leptin levels, however these levels return to normal within hours after the overeating is stopped [Kolacznyski JW 1996].

Leptin seems to be a marker of both fat mass and calorie intake. Even in severe conditions of calorie restriction (like those found in anorexic women) Leptin levels are highly correlated with body fat levels. In other words, the lower the body fat, the lower the leptin levels [Bossu C, 2007].

Research has shown consistently that there are substantial differences in the physiological actions of leptin between rodents and humans [Ahima RS, 2000] and this may explain why there is so much leptin-confusion in the diet industry.

Leptin is a complicated hormone.

It rises and falls in different situations, which are not always logical. Both long term endurance exercise and resistance exercise can cause reductions in leptin levels, as can fasting, as well as increased testosterone levels and increased catecholamine levels.

Even injected anabolic steroids can decrease leptin levels.

In all of these situations an increase in fat burning occurs despite decreases in leptin levels.

Leptin is an important hormone, but it is not the ‘master regulator’ of fat burning that it has been made out to be by the fitness industry.

The bottom line is that while short term fasting typically involves an acute decrease in leptin levels , the consistent increase in Growth Hormone ensures that fat loss remains elevated during periods of fasting. In fact even when Leptin is injected into fasting individuals it doesn’t improve fat burning or decrease GH levels [Chan JL, 2008]

Using short-term flexible intermittent fasting combined with resistance training remains one of the most effective and simple ways to lose weight and reduce your body fat.

http://www.eatstopeat.com/fasting-leptin/fasting-leptin.html

Levedi

Lodro has a really good point - it's not just about the calories, it's about the over all nutrition of the meals you eat. Has anybody heard the story about the long distance extreme hiker who figured out that the most caloricly efficient thing he could eat was cake frosting? He reasoned that calories were calories, so he'd carry nothing but frosting to lighten his load so he could cover ground faster. To no one's surprise he collapsed about 1/3 of the way into a hiking marathon and had to be carried out. Losing weight is not the only issue. We have to learn to be healthy, not thin. Believe me, I live in SoCal and there are lots of thin girls around me who are blatantly not healthy.

jrt9999

Every time I see one of these post I wonder why folks want to eat so lightly. I for one love that my metabolism runs high enough that I can eat 1,500 calories a day on non workout days, eat back all my exercise calories, AND eat at my maintenance level of 2,000 to 2,200 each Friday and still loose 1.5 pounds a week.

The last thing I want is to be stuck having to only eat 1,100 calories once I am at maintenance just to stay even. I love lots of good variety foods to much for that to happen.

Good luck everyone and please enjoy your weight loss/getting healthy journey. I know I will.

Russellb97

Intermittent fasting is not going to cause our body to go into a starvation state, it's daily fasting with nighttime re-feeds. They over-eat at the best time to do it. Over eating at night lowers cortisol and allows for calorie storage in glycogen. Your body is not going to go into starvation mode at the same time it's storing calories.

Regardless of all of these contradicting studies, I know through years of experience that starvation mode is very real and the effects of leptin make sense. One thing that wasn't mentioned was how obese people tend to have built an insensitivity to leptin much like diabetics have to insulin.

Starvation mode is real, it doesn't happen in a day, or even a week. It's a gradual decline in metabolism. The one reason why metabolism slows much quicker with starvation diets like HCG is the loss of lean body mass, because muscle is what really drives metabolism.
Also food is important for metabolism, every calorie you eat gets metabolized, so of course if you eat less you metabolize less.

You may say the effects are not that big but metabolism is what actually burns fat so any reduction can cause a big slowdown of fat loss.

SHBoss1673

Counterpoint:

great post, I think Tom Venuto is great!

I loved his book.

I've actually quoted Tom's article on this before. He knows quite a bit and is a great resource.

pyro13g

They are the same thing. Yeah, you eventually waste away(lose all weight possible up until death) no matter what label you want to give it. It's accepted scientific, biological fact as to what your body does when calories are shorted. Intense strength training helps protect the muscle, but too short on energy will trigger over training and your own body will take you down. Over train your muscle and your body will take it away from you do you can't.

Even the article posted should make it very clear to everyone that it's bad news, period! Look up some concentration camp pictures and pictures of people living in famine. That's all the biological proof needed. Like anything else there's the extremes at both ends, the middle where weight can go up or down healthily, and then the warning areas on the way to the extremes.

pyro13g

dup post

kevanos

Like I've said before - I'd love to see a single picture from someone who eats under their calories losing and maintaining their weight loss WHILE being healthy. If that person is healthy, can run a healthy distance, lift a healthy amount, etc, I'll take back everything I've said. Maybe I should put together an actual fitness challenge so I'm prepared the next time this comes up

I did. I can run no problem. I can run at least 2 miles, i am not a marathon person, so i dont run alot. And its impossible to gain muscle while losing fat..since losing fat takes a cal deficit, and gaining muscle a cal surplus. I cut and bulk. I am very healthy, my bp is very low, i have plenty of energy. I was working out at the gym doing weights 40 mins to maintain my muscle and then 50mins of cardio 6 days a week..during my cutting phase. i only took in 1300 cals, and didnt eat what i burned. I work third shift, so thats another strike against me. but i never had any problems with energy or weight loss. So i KNOW better. I know you have to eat for fuel, I do that. But when i'm losing fat i dont want to intake all those cals i worked so hard to burn back. I am now in my bulking stage. I am eating 1600-1800 cals (i am finding my range right now), so I can build more muscle. And now, yes of course I eat what I burn, because you need cals to make muscle.

i am 5'2" 119 lbs (gained a lb i found out today).

and I unlike some, dont just believe what is told me. this is why i did my own research on this subject. I dont just retell what everyone 'thinks' to be the truth. I find out for myself.

at your size I don`t think anybody is telling you are going into starvation mode.

But i find find it very strange that you are stomping your feet saying you did you research for yourself and that we should stop believing everything we are told.

Umm, we did our research. We showed it to you. You ignored it.

Your research consists of a non-scientific article by a private company. that is not a good source of information.

Your ideologie to seek the truth and question is great, but unfortunately you failed at it by putting blinders on and not objectively looking at the arguments.

Goal_Seeker_1988

For one I personally am against weight watchers and for 2 I've put myself into starvation mode once without even knowin it. I wasn't eatin enough calories exercising 3 times a day wasn't losin any weight and ended up in the hospital from malnutrient. I am against eatin less than 1200 calories a day. I don't worry about gainin weight, my weight stays bout the same. I am lookin to build muscle and tone and get definition in my body. If you focus on eatin healthy, the right balance of proteins, carbs, healthy fats and your fruits and veggies and drink enough water then you shouldn't have to stress out over the amount of calories you are eating. and if you are workion out then you need more than 1200 calories a day to fuel your bodies needs. But to each their own, I don't care what everyone else does I feed my body the fuel to workout and stay healthy.

BullDozier

You are. Proponents of "starvation mode doesn't exist" refuse to believe their metabolism slows at all, or that they're doing anything wrong. Because hey, "I'm losing weight!." Venuto's point is that your body doesn't completely shut down, which makes logical sense. If you stop eating you whither away and die - you don't just hold the same weight forever. That doesn't mean there's no biological response or that it's healthy, and it especially doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Here are the two points both the WW article and the Venuto response touch on. I just wanted to put them side by side and comment that they appear to be saying the same thing. Please note, I am not claiming that the starvation mode doesn't exist, and I'm not claiming a drastic reduction of calories is the best way to lose weight. I am only putting these here together to point out that it doesn't appear (again, on these two points) that they are so far from each other:

WW Post says:
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters

Venuto respose says:
There are also myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (doesn’t happen), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).

WW Post says:
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.

Venuto response says:
Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.

Just an observation.