Rename starvation mode to survival mode.

Newfiedan

I know this is hotly contested on mfp and there are pretty much 2 main camps on here, those whom believe it to be true and know it to be true and those whom do not believe it to be true and firmly advocate that it is a myth. Now I am not here to debate it's existence or to initiate a debate about it but what I do want to clarify is the misconception about this mysterious mode. For me "starvation mode" is a misnomer, it has nothing to do with actually being hungry which is what most of us would associate that with given its name. It implies starving yourself. Well that is not the case, I propose for a minute that you clear your notions on this and consider my take on this. I see it as survival mode more than starvation mode. Your body needs x amount of cals to function daily, your body needs x amount + more to allow for proper metabolic function. Now the X amount can vary person to person, those whom are exceptionally small may not need that magical 1200 cals a day for this to work, and the same applies if you are a 200 pound 6ft tall person, you simply need more than 1200 cal a day. Now with that said I know some of you are going to flip a lid at that last part so take a breather and hear me out. The body can and will adapt to everything you do to it diet wise. So if you got used to eating 600 cals a day then the body will adapt to that and you will feel full on those 600 cals, but you are not in a good metabolic position to burn fat anymore because in order for your body to do that for you it had to lower your metabolic rate to a crawl. You are in survival mode, as the body will consume everything it can to keep the brain and organs functioning.

So to address this from a weight loss standpoint yes you will lose weight either way, there is no doubt about that. Will you be healthy doing a low cal diet like 600 a day. Well that is super hard to do as the body needs a certain amount of vitamins, fiber, carbs, protein, fat, etc to maintain a healthy function so I highly doubt that this is doable even on the cleanest of diets. Most likely what will happen if you continue on that path is the consumption of your muscle tissue, burning of all fat reserves and an overall breakdown of your skeletal structure. You may be happy with your current weight that you hit but it really is not sustainable long term.

Now on other hand those whom are like myself whom advocate healthy eating, sensible caloric reductions for effective fat loss and a healthy diet will see benefits across the board other than fat loss. Increased energy, good mood, clear skin, healthy hair and nails, muscle growth and easy fat loss. The goal we have it to retain the muscle and shed the fat while slimming down and ultimately making a new goal once we hit the current one. I am taking it a step further by going into a muscle building program once I hit the bodyfat percentage that I want. My way is sustainable long term and I have easily shed the fat by letting my body's increased metabolic rate use up that fat store.

So with that said i think you really need to reconsider what survival mode means to your body and what it means to your health and yes fat loss is achievable either way, hell you can eat twinkies and shed weight but you will feel like crap. So in the end it is a matter of which side of the fence you want to be on, and which one suits your belief system best.

HoopFire5602

WIN!!!

thisisabbie

Well said.

anubis609

*Applause*

Losing2Live69

I must have ADD....I couldn't make it through this whole post. Too long, sorry.

HaleyAlli

Great explanation!!

tam120

Agreed. Never did like the term anyway.

rachellepilcher

agreed...well said...and I like the term "survival mode" much better

mrs_mouse

many likes

PeaceLoveStrength

Bravo!

staciekins

Hear Hear!!!

shaunshaikh

Adaptive Thermogenesis.

LisaKyle11

...so for those who possibly would/could sustain the 600 cals (give or take) a day for a long period of time.... i would imagine we're then talking about anorexia?

Newfiedan

Eating disorders can range in title and description, many whom consistently eat under 1200 cals a day do not say they have an eating disorder so why label those whom eat 600 a day the same? The point is that if you are in survival mode then you are having problems with eating the right amounts.

meggonkgonk

Random input: I believe in more scientific circles it's known as "Famine Response"

NY152

The way I see it starvation/survival mode is not a myth. It is not the “no weight loss” mode your body gets into when you go below the recommended caloric intake for healthy weight loss. Instead, it is a state that occurs when in a particular range. Let me explain:

(PLEASE DON’T PAY TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO THE NUMBERS, THEY ARE JUST USED TO ILLUSTRATE. WE ALL KNOW EACH PERSON IS UNIQUE).

Let’s say a person needs 1,500 cal/day for weight maintenance.

She’s recommended to eat no more than 1,200 cal/day for healthy weight loss so she’ll have a deficit of 300 cal/day that won’t affect her metabolic function.

She decides to go a little bit under that, maybe down to 1,000 cal/day.

Her body looks to adjust to the new reality and her metabolic function slows down. Now she does not need but only 1,000 cal/day. As a result, she does not shed any weight while on this regime.

Now, if she goes back up to 1,200 cal/day and her metabolism recovers, we all know what happens.

But if she reduces calories even more, let’s say to 800 cal/day, then the body has no option but to use whatever is at hand to support basic organ function.

In conclusion, she’d lose weight on a 800cal/day diet but at the cost of her own health.

So, it works but you have to think how long you want to live and the quality of life you want to have during that time … do you want to be able to be around and see your kids grow and play with them? Or do you want to spend your time visiting doctors and having chemotherapy? I know it sounds a little bit extreme but a little bit too often we forget the fragility of our own human body.

Hope this helps!

Newfiedan

well that was a good way to repeat what I had just said more or less lol, either way I agree.

michelle4271

Newfiedan, I love to see your posts and I'm so glad you share everything with us.

(btw, with your help I've managed to lose another 3 lbs and 2 inches )

fteale

Good. Glad you agree that you WILL lose weight on 600 cals a day. I agree you can't eat under 1000 cals a day and be healthy. You can lose weight, but you'll probably eventually lose hair and teeth as well. Or just have no muscle. Which isn't healthy either.

Sumo813

Great post!!!

I'm sure it's been said somewhere, but anytime I see this, all I can think of is fueling a vehicle or some other mechanical contraption. When there's no fuel or power, it doesn't run. Same thing for the body. You need X amount of fuel just to function. Add to that a caloric burn (on top of the deficit MFP already provides) and you have to make sure you're still getting fuel. For me, that's just the easiest way to look at it.

michelle4271

bump