The Myth of Starvation Mode?
Options
jellybaby84
Posts: 583 Member
What are people's thoughts on this? MFP seems to assume that starvation mode is a fact. I can accept it for extreme deficits but was unconvinced by the desperate need to NET 1200 as opposed to just eat 1200. There's a lot out there to argue with starvation mode.
How are you supposed to know what's true?
Some examples:
"over most ranges of normal calorie intake, the fewer calories you eat the more weight you will lose. Whilst it's true that with calorie restriction the body becomes more efficient, the concept of weight loss halting altogether or even reversing is completely false. If this happened the sad fact of millions starving to death through famine wouldn't happen.
What does happen though is that beyond a certain level of calorie restriction - the EXTRA weight you lose becomes insignificant enough as to make the additional restraint and effort involved not worthwhile. As a hypothetical example, take someone who needed 2,200 calories per day to maintain weight. Reducing intake to 1,700 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 1,200 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week. However going down to 700 calories a day (of course this wouldn?t be recommended(!) but it's just for demonstration purposes) the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pound but would likely be around 21⁄4 to 21⁄2 pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
Of course this doesn?t explain why people who restrict their calories severely do often fail. This is more usually because over-restriction of calorie intake, known as ?high dietary restraint?, is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss. "
And:
"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 metabolism 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 1lb per week weight loss (Note: 1lb of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2lb per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3lb per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3lb per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½lb. 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 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 behavioural 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 Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint)"
Also:
"Right, as a medic I feel I have to dispel this myth about going into starvation mode once and for all, weight plateaus are normal but there is no such thing as your body going into starvation mode by being on a severely reduced calorie intake, if that were the case, how do people become anorexic?, yes at some point your body will start losing muscle and not fat but this is why this Dr has recommended the exercise to keep the metabolism going, everyone has a BMR irrespective of the exercise you do and even if you were just lying in bed all day everyday and not eating anything, you would lose weight, you wouldn't go into 'starvation mode' and stop losing weight."
The info above is from a mixture of recognised weight loss sites (weight watchers, nutracheck, a running forum) and the top two are written by nutritionists. They both seem to say that plateus are natural and will reverse and that the main reason VLCDs fail is not starvation mode but the frequently resultant binges.
Any opinions?
How are you supposed to know what's true?
Some examples:
"over most ranges of normal calorie intake, the fewer calories you eat the more weight you will lose. Whilst it's true that with calorie restriction the body becomes more efficient, the concept of weight loss halting altogether or even reversing is completely false. If this happened the sad fact of millions starving to death through famine wouldn't happen.
What does happen though is that beyond a certain level of calorie restriction - the EXTRA weight you lose becomes insignificant enough as to make the additional restraint and effort involved not worthwhile. As a hypothetical example, take someone who needed 2,200 calories per day to maintain weight. Reducing intake to 1,700 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 1,200 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week. However going down to 700 calories a day (of course this wouldn?t be recommended(!) but it's just for demonstration purposes) the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pound but would likely be around 21⁄4 to 21⁄2 pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
Of course this doesn?t explain why people who restrict their calories severely do often fail. This is more usually because over-restriction of calorie intake, known as ?high dietary restraint?, is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss. "
And:
"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 metabolism 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 1lb per week weight loss (Note: 1lb of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2lb per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3lb per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3lb per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½lb. 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 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 behavioural 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 Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint)"
Also:
"Right, as a medic I feel I have to dispel this myth about going into starvation mode once and for all, weight plateaus are normal but there is no such thing as your body going into starvation mode by being on a severely reduced calorie intake, if that were the case, how do people become anorexic?, yes at some point your body will start losing muscle and not fat but this is why this Dr has recommended the exercise to keep the metabolism going, everyone has a BMR irrespective of the exercise you do and even if you were just lying in bed all day everyday and not eating anything, you would lose weight, you wouldn't go into 'starvation mode' and stop losing weight."
The info above is from a mixture of recognised weight loss sites (weight watchers, nutracheck, a running forum) and the top two are written by nutritionists. They both seem to say that plateus are natural and will reverse and that the main reason VLCDs fail is not starvation mode but the frequently resultant binges.
Any opinions?
0
Replies
-
That Diet Coke looks good. That is all.0
-
I didn't read all of your post but I don't think starvation mode is a myth. I don't think 1200 is the magic number for everyone, but I do think that if you deprive your body of enough nutrients, that eventually when you do start eating more, it will store it. That, is a fact.0
-
I agree with you, I have no idea what to believe about starvation mode.0
-
I want to add this article to the topic "living with obesity at 700 cals a day"
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core_march_8.htm
I thought it was interesting. Of course people who starve to death are not obese. Metabolism will slow down after prolonged periods of dramic calorie restriction. In fact, people who are dieting have been shown to actually move less and conserve energy in ways they didn't even realize they were doing. Your body wants to survive and that means holding onto extra weight for anticipated lean times. So while I don't think starvation mode is a very real phenomenon for most dieters, your body has a tremendous ability to adapt.0 -
Now, let's beat it to death, and beat it again.0 -
OH God not again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sad:0
-
:noway: :noway: Eeeeckk i'm more confused than ever...:noway: :noway:0
-
Now, let's beat it to death, and beat it again.
OHMYEFFINGOD!!! i am mother effin absolutely peeing my pants laughing while totally rolling on the floor all over hte place and coughing from the hysteria!!! (and i probably burned about 22 calories doing so...best eat them back)
okay, you win.
0 -
Now, let's beat it to death, and beat it again.
OHMYEFFINGOD!!! i am mother effin absolutely peeing my pants laughing while totally rolling on the floor all over hte place and coughing from the hysteria!!! (and i probably burned about 22 calories doing so...best eat them back)
okay, you win.
0 -
The articles you posted make perfect logical sense. I do not, personally, believe in starvation mode.
I can not believe that the body will "store everything it gets" because it thinks it is starving any more than I believe your car will store all the gas it has just because it is on Empty. Your body will continue to use, rather than store, what it gets because it needs to!
I do believe, however, that is very difficult to consume all the vitamins and nutrients your body requires for optimal performance on less than 1200 calories. This has nothing to do with Starvation Mode, but should be kept in consideration.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and entitled to put or not put anything, or any amount, in their bodies that they want without judgment from anyone else (especially people on internet forums). Do what works for you. If it isn't working, do something else. :flowerforyou:0 -
People who lay in bed all day do Not lose weight, they end up having to be cut out of their houses for medical reasons or death. Anorexics also die from starvation. That happens rather often. The cals you burn just to be alive don't count for losing weight. Take myself for example, Before now, I didn't have the issue of eating to much, I only ate dinner everyday. Not huge dinners either. Over time I have gained the weight I'm here to lose, now, I am not a lazy couch potatoe type, but lets just say I didn't officially exercise everyday but I was active and still did NOT lose any weight, only gained. If you notice people who are thin and don't eat the nutritional cals they should, don't necessarily LOOK healthy. A lot of people are thin and unhealthy also. I believe there is no "myth" about starvation mode due simply to my own case. I'm proof....0
-
Now, let's beat it to death, and beat it again.
Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Lets hear it for logical discussion!!!! :laugh: :drinker:0 -
the original starvation study showed a 40% decrease in metabolism of the test subjects AFTER 3 MONTHS OF NEARLY STARVING (i.e. only consuming several hundred calories a day, when for 3 months they ate 3000+ and for another 3 months they ate 1500 calories per day before the three month period where they studied starvation effects). any person on here that is restricting their calories to 1200 a day is not going to go into "starvation mode."
not only that, but even if you did only eat 200 calories a day and went into starvation mode you would continue to lose weight, but instead of losing 5 lbs a week you'd lose like 3.5 lbs a week.
however, why even risk damaging your body in a way unrelated to metabolism? 1200 calories net a day gives you the required calories for your body to remain healthy (this is variable, however. some people require more calories and some less). go to a doctor, and they will most likely tell you to lose at most 2-3 lbs a week in order to be safe. also, long term weight loss is the goal, not some quick "let me lose 5 lbs a week" quick fix that will most likely see you gain all the weight back in the future because you didn't lose your old habits and now you think you can magically lose the weight whenever you want and quickly. just stick to losing 2 lbs a week. if mfp tells you to eat 1200 calories net a day, then eat 1200 calories net a day.0 -
Guys!
This is just a thought...as tempting as it can be, maybe we shouldn't chastise people so much for 'repeat' topics. I know some of them (this one in particular...also the 100,001 threads about 'lose/loose' :laugh: ) are done to death, but sometimes people have slightly a slightly different slant on a question and/or they aren't familiar enough with the site to use search functions to their fullest extent. I know I'm guilty. I've definitely done it on accident when I had a question on my mind...just gone and posted a topic and not checked around first.
By the responses I can see people are still both confused and curious...have a little heart.
We're here to support each other!
...Okay, now that I've said that, there literally are hundreds of threads dealing with the question of starvation mode. Lots of them will probably have really good information! 0 -
I'm sure there are lots of threads but I'm also sure there won't be any concensus or concrete fact on them. It's just so frustrating that people (including professionals!) can't agree on something which is so vital to whether people lose weight or not.
It's just good to hear people's opinions (actual opinions, not superior eye rolls that leave you assuming the poster knows what they think but isn't going to deign to tell you)
There're also a LOT of threads here. Things are off the first page after an hour! On most forums it's more like 2-3 days.0 -
Now, let's beat it to death, and beat it again.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Literally crying I laughed so hard! THANK YOU PHIL!!!!!!0 -
I blelieve your body needs certain amount of nutrients to be healthy. I also believe that WHAT you eat is a bigger factor...such as eating 200 cals worth of ice cream full of fat is not going to help you lose weight as much as 200 calories of veggies. Exericise is a must. The fewer calories you eat, the lower your metabolism is going to go...making you lethargic and your body will not burn fat. If you exercise more, you need more fuel. If you exercise a bit then don't scarf down so much.
Starvation mode to me means you are not giving your body enough fuel to work with. Treat it nice and it will be nice to you. Stoke the fire and burn it off.0 -
I absolutely agree with nancysda. Nicely put! 0
-
I completely agree with you. I roll my eyes when most people mention starvation mode on here. Lowering metabolism occurs, absolutely, but not weight loss reversal, unless you start eating more.0
-
No offense, but hasn't this topic been beaten to death? *sigh*0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions