The Starvation Mode Myth

KillingAurora

I have been reading up on the dreaded 'starvation mode' that seems to dominate a lot of the topics on MFP, and I came across this article which I thought was particularly interesting... Sorry if it has been posted up or linked to before! I just thought I would share


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.

Metabolism Slows During Kilojoule Restriction
Restricting kilojoules during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer kilojoules 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 8,400kilojoules (2100cal) per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 6,300 kilojoules (1575cal), assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 500g per week weight loss (Note: 500g of weight is equivalent to about 14,700 kilojoules (3675cal)). Furthermore, reducing to 4,200 kilojoules (1050cal) should result in a weight loss of 1kg per week and going down to 2,100 kilojoules (525cal) a day should result in a weight loss of 1.5kg per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 2,100 kilojoules (525cal), the weight loss would not likely be a steady 1.5kg per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 1kg. This 'lower than expected' rate of weight loss is a lot different to 'no' weight loss as the 'starvation mode' notion proposes.

It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced kilojoule intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the kilojoule reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the kilojoule restriction is quite large (e.g. 3,360 kilojoules (840cal) or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in kilojoule restriction, with the gap increasing as the kilojoule deficit is enlarged.

While there is no biologic evidence to support the 'starvation mode' myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when kilojoules are severely reduced. Over-restriction of kilojoule 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 Centre 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 stabilised, 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.

FOOTNOTES
1 Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The role of energy expenditure in energy regulation: Findings from a decade of research. Nutr Rev. 1995. 53:209-220.
2 Burgess NS. Effect of a very-low calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.
3 Rogers PJ. Eating habits and appetite control: a psychobiological perspective. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Feb;58(1):59-67.
4 Weinsier RL, Nagy TR, Hunter GR, Darnell BE, Hensrud DD, Weiss HL. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Nov;72(5):1088-94.

Article taken from:

http://signup.weightwatchers.com.au/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=37261&tabnum=1&sc=3046&subnav=Health#footnotes

For those of you that are unsure of the calorie/kilojoule conversion:
1 calorie = 4 kilojoules (rounding up)
So to convert the numbers, divide the kilojoules by 4 to get the calories (which I have done in the brackets )

Very interesting indeed...

aimlow

Very interesting.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

caprica

I like the reference to the second article. It shows that dieters placed on a very low calorie diet their metabolic rate slowed by 23%. The body probably did this as some kind of defence mechanism to protect the fat stores incase of a famine. Just goes to show you what an amazing machine the human body is.

No wonder every time I complete my food diary I can never believe that in 5 weeks time I will be super skinny like MFP suggests.

david081

More here on this too:

http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267

Starving can never be a realistic weight losss strategy - Boxers do it very short-term to hit weight targets pre-match - I wonder how they find energy to fight afterwards!

rgds, David

sargent1976

Thanks for sharing this.

jlsAhava

I appreciate that you took the time to share the article, but it doesn't really address what I think of as starvation mode. They're simply refuting their own, limited definition of the phenomena.

When I think of Starvation Mode, I don't think of it as entirely stopping your weigh-loss. What I do believe is that it slows your weight-loss down to a point where it's no longer equivalent to the anticipated 3500 cal restriction = 1 lb loss.

I believe that starvation mode is counter productive because:

- does not produce sufficient nutrition, causing you to be sluggish and hungry.
- weight-loss slows to the point where the 3500 cal restriction no longer equals a 1lb loss. Limited weight-loss may be occurring, but it is at a slower pace than would occur on a higher calorie diet. Having the opposite effect of what the extreme dieters are hoping for.
- it can't be healthfully maintained in the long-term - you're more likely to binge or go "off diet" because you're so hungry, only your binge has an even worse than usual effect because your metabolism is working at a slower pace.
- it takes time for your body to readjust back to a healthy diet. And while this happens weight is actually gained before it's healthfully maintained or lost again.

Basically, the only thing this article "debunked" was that weight-loss stops entirely at the extreme cal reduction - which is not how I thought of as "starvation mode" in the first place.

---

As for the 800 calorie restriction they are referring to, it's important to understand that this reduction is taken from the calorie count needed for maintenance (this may be over 2000 calories for some large people), not from the minimum 1200 required for even the smallest person.

spaboleo

Has been in the discussion here for several times...

The following quite is from the user SHBoos1673:
(http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/108724-story-about-starvation-mode?hl=starvation+myth+weight+watchers#posts-1537611)

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

Then I guess the above article from Weight Watchers is a total lie, as it debunks the myth of starvation mode.

But I know I'm in the minority here as I don't buy the starvation mode idea. Nor do I buy the idea that there is a magic number of calories one must eat every day. I think weight loss is as individual as the person. No two bodies will react the same way to the same food. Find what works for you and stick with it.

This article talks about a specific misconception with regards to starvation mode. I.E. the idea that if you don't eat enough you won't lose weight, which IS a myth. But it also confirms, by way of the first paragraph, the fact that your body will, in fact, reduce it's metabolism if you create a large calorie deficit (which is what starvation mode really is). It also very meticulously tap dances around any other issues that can arise from eating far to few calories such as nutrient deficiencies, long term organ damage, reduced immune system, increased risk of systemic diseases, and possible neurological damage that can all come from a prolonged session of reduced calories.

And exactly that is the problem...

If you starve yourself, your whole body-system shuts down...your metabolism won't work properly for example...but there is a lot more going on in our body that hasn't been researched in depth today.

If you are undernutritioned you pay little sins (a little too many fats e.g.) with the double price...
Not worth it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jlsAhava

Really? To me it seems like they are saying 800 calories or less eaten in total, not having an 800 calorie or less deficit... Maybe I misread it? Where does it say they are referring to a deficit?

Thanks for catching that! I took another look at the article, and agree with your assessment. They could have said it more clearly, but I agree they are saying that the 800 cals they are referring to is a total calorie intake of 800 calories. I wish I could erase / clarify that statement in my earlier post, but it's been too long and the "edit" option has disappeared :grumble:

I was only able to get to the abstract of the original source, and not see that statement in context, so I am a bit hesitant about blindly accepting that as fact for all people. Based on what I've read elsewhere, I would imagine (though I haven't got a study handy) this number must vary by height and body type.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jesseBYAH

Marking so that I can read this later and read the ensuing comments.

gp79

Keep in mind who wrote the article. Statistics and studies are sometimes manipulated in order to get a certain point across...which in this case may be to benefit WW.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

khk2010

Very interesting. Thanks for the post.

spaboleo

Keep in mind who wrote the article. Statistics and studies are sometimes manipulated in order to get a certain point across...which in this case may be to benefit WW.

Very true, but they have referenced their sources and made them avaliable for you to read for yourself. Also there is a ton of information available about this topic that agrees with what WW are saying.

That isn't anyhow close to a study
This is just an article published by Weight Watchers providing "random" references to studies on that topic, to make it look funded. Add a nice fancy name, like "Weight Watchers Research Department" to it and you are able to convince over 90% of the people, who read it.


The following insights are published by the "Spaboleo Center for Truth-Research in Nutrition-Science": (:bigsmile:)

What you should really keep in mind:
- WW is a dieting company that makes money solely by selling
- WW sells coaching-classes
- WW sells recipe-books
- and lately even their own food-products

And that is why the following paragraph is added recently to some of the "Starvation Mode Myth" articles published on the various WW-sites:

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.

Source: http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501&sc=801


Has anybody really looked through the references? – No? Oh because only half of them are published publically?
And only one of the published aricles has really something to do with the question? Alright. :laugh:


Let's have a closer look:
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7501305
A paper that compiles various results from studies done before 1995. In supports the thesis that a disbalanced energy-intake might be conducive for obesity or weight gain in general. Nothing more.

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490
All that we can take from the abstract is the fact that cutting your calorie-intake will make you lose weight and body-fat. Still nothing new...but hey, now it's proven.

3) http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PNS/PNS58_01/S0029665199000117a.pdf&amp;code=77153c50b880b5500e528452fc6608c7
This indeed a very interesting journal that needs a closer look at. But what I don't get is, why is it referenced in the context of the WW-article? It doesn't state that periods of restrictive calorie-intake are followed by overeating phases.
It goes far beyond such a vague statement. It shows what research SHOULD be done (but isn't YET) in the following years on psychobiological effects that have influence on the eating behaviour of humans in the socio-cultural surrounding of a westernized world.

4) http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/5/1088.full
Actually the only article that is really supportive and informative. If you cut-back on your energy-intake, you'll be able to reacquire your normal state basal metabolic rate a while after you have "starved" yourself.
And if you look at the set-up of the study the weight-loss state with a lowered calorie-intake of the probands was around 1200kcal/day, which appears to be healthy.
It also states that you can maintain your new weight if you don't overindulge food after your low-calorie-diet.



So why did Weight Watchers do that?
- Because they want to sell their program.
Overweight people are very tempted to crash-diet, because they expect to see great success in a short period of time. The Weight Watchers system is nothing more than a reasonably designed diet (just like MFPs dieting advises, too) covered with a system to count calories in a foolproof way.
Instead of counting calories and logging them meticulously, like here at MFP, you simply deduct points from your daily budget.
Of course the system will work, if you stick to it. The same applies to MFP...
Weight Watchers makes a lot of money with your pitty be selling the stuff mentioned above at high prices. Why pay for that? Thre reward is yet another counting system.
I prefer sticking to the nutritional facts directly.


I'm confused now, what is it with the "Starvation Mode Myth" now?
– Yes, it exists. If you cut-back on you calories very very drastically (e.g. beneath 800kcal/day) you will loose weight at first (crash-dieting), but be more likly to gain that weight back very fast. Or you will gain that weight back in form of fat at parts of the body you don't want it.
It is very simple...the human body and overall metabolic system is evolutionary untouched since 10.000.-50.000 B.C. Back then we were hunters and gatheres. Periods of food abundance and shortage alternated on a regular basis.
Our body adapted to this situation and will be more prone to store that weight in fat cells if a period of food-shortage is upcoming.

If we starve ourself we will lose weight first. If we starve ourself over a longer period our body will degenerate. And if we then start eating back the body will store the sudden food-flood as adipose fat around our belly or somewhere else.

Dieting is good and dieting with a reasonable calorie deficit (like advised by MFP) is even better.
If you overdo it (starving at a very low calorie-intake) you will store fat more likely and you will have the tendency to binge eat on some days, which you will have to pay double-wise (more fat and higher weight).



So why did I do that?
– Because I hate the tendency that everything what get's popular in all kinds of media and looks scientific is accepted as true. We are all to lazy to put a little effort in thinking by ourselves. (Yes I include myself in that.)
Always question everything you get presented.

CARNAT22

I get this automated message from MFP when I eat too few calories!!!

*Based on your total calories consumed for today, you are eating too few calories. Not only is it difficult to receive adequate nutrition at these calorie levels, but you could also be putting your body into starvation mode. Starvation mode lowers your metabolism and makes weight loss more difficult. We suggest increasing your calorie consumption to 1,200 calories per day minimum.

It's hard to know what to believe sometimes :-(

Unknown

This content has been removed.

spaboleo

I would also like to point out that you can experience malnutrition while eating any number of calories. Someone eating 3000 calories a day (or indeed the magic 1200!) can be just as under-nourished as someone eating 300 calories a day if they are not eating the correct foods. If you are looking solely for weight loss then it is just a very simple numbers game, but if you are looking for improvements to your overall health then you need to consider more than just the calorie content of your food.

True to the core.

[...] WW are not the first or the only ones to say something along these lines! Of course they have an agenda; they are a business after all. All businesses have an agenda; that is the point of having a business! Studies and research articles also have an agenda, [...]

I work in a scientific environment (university) and I know by heart how the agendas of research institutions differ from the one that businesses have to encounter.

But anyways...I am still missing a large-scale study that:
a) doesn't lack of a reference group that doesn't diet
b) surveys more than eight probands of the same age (two groups gender specific)
c) uses comparable diets (with some probands regularly and controlled transgressing against the restrictions)
d) watches and compares different aproaches (fasting, calorie-cut, only healthy eating, intermittent fasting)
e) reglementates and tracks the amount of exercising done by the probands
f) isn't done with rodents (Because recent studies showed that our metabolisms aren't as similar as expected)

Nearly every study I read these days lacked of something very basic.
There a lot of studies performed in parallel (which isn't bad by nature), but with conflicting results. It is hard to tell, which is wrong, because some of them aren't anyhow comparable.

I think that is the very reason for the large amount of myths in nutrition. :ohwell:

If anybody knows of good studies I am always open to hear from them

benitocereno

This article was posted a few days ago, you can see responses in this thread:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/183765-starvation-mode-myth

kevanos

Soemone posted a link to a thread earlier where I adamantly rebuffed this article.

It`s a very poorly written article and they mislead people into thinking starvation is a myth. Honestly, if they didn`t title their article that way, i doubt people who read the article would conclude for themselves that starvation is a myth.

regardless, starvation is not a myth. There is scientific eveidence that supports it. This article is not scientific in any sense.

Studies and reserch that have agendas should be taken with a grain of salt and lose most of their reliability. Don`t generalize all studies and research as having an agenda. Science doesn't have an agenda.

What you presented is not a study and hardly constitutes as research. Its mearly an opinion, a wrong opinion.

jrt9999

I just got done with a sweet morning workout. I am now cooking up an egg with real cheese on a whole grain English Muffin. Maybe a glass of milk and a clementine. Have an awesome rice with shredded chicken and red bean mix for lunch. A variety of fruits and fresh vegies to snack on during the day. Will get home work out some more, have an awesome dinning experience of home cooked food tonight. A nice evening snack and then go to bed know I fed my body well tonight.

I might even read some more of these agenda filled posts and laugh tonight.

ngr1973

bump for later

gp79

Exactly my point. If the article didn't align with WW marketing campaign, they would have never released the article. Business is about making money. I've never tried WW but I don't think it would be for me.

Just1forMe

I appreciate that you took the time to share the article, but it doesn't really address what I think of as starvation mode. They're simply refuting their own, limited definition of the phenomena.

When I think of Starvation Mode, I don't think of it as entirely stopping your weigh-loss. What I do believe is that it slows your weight-loss down to a point where it's no longer equivalent to the anticipated 3500 cal restriction = 1 lb loss.

I completely agree and this has been my experience. I believe that that is why after weeks or months of rigidly sticking to 1200 net cals, ( or low points on WW) if I "splurged" for one day and jump up my calorie intake drastically, the next day I've had some of my best losses. This has happened to me 4 or 5 times...

Unknown

This content has been removed.