The truth about Starvation mode being pushed on MFP boards.

ladyhawk00

The last time I asked for help on this subject the response was that I am not eating back my cal. from my work out.
Soooooo I started to increase my cal. intake, from 1200 per day to about 1700. Prior to my cal. increase I had lost
71 lbs. Since the cal. increase I put back on 4 lbs. I am now going to try a daily intake of 700 cal. I will see what that will do.

What that will do is result in loss of muscle, a slower metabolism and malnutrition.

If you have been at an extreme deficit for a length of time and increase cals, it is NORMAL to gain a bit temporarily while your body adjusts. Decreasing cals further is NOT going to fix the problem.

Might want to read this thread:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

Cletc

My understanding is the definition of "starving" is 1,199 calories or fewer.

Is that what we are talking about here?

ladyhawk00

My understanding is the definition of "starving" is 1,199 calories or fewer.

Is that what we are talking about here?

Not exactly. MFP uses the lower limit of 1200 because that is the minimum intake recommended by health experts as the amount required for the average woman to receive adequate nutrition in macronutrients and micronutrients.

But the key words there are "woman" and "average". For men, the recommended minimum is 1500. And if someone is smaller than average or larger than average, they will need a different amount. MFP created a floor to discourage unhealthy and unsafe underfeeding. But the minimum for YOU is determined by your exact stats - height, weight, age, BF%, activity level, exercise, etc.

Also, we need to think of cal goals as just that - GOALS. It's a number that you should try to meet on a regular basis. It's not a number to see how far under it you can stay, or to frequently go way over. Generally, within a 100 cals over or under is a good range. It is the average over time that is important. So chronically over OR undereating will cause issues; one day won't.

MyaPapaya75

Nice post.....

H_82

This is getting so annoying. The basic point of this thread, I believe, is just stating that (for most people), if you want to eat hardly any calories, go for it. You'll lose weight, sure. But once you start eating "normally" again, the weight will more than likely be put back on. Period. End of story. You don't need to be a doctor to figure it out.

pinAKAl

People fail to realize that you can also enter starvation mode from excessive exercise. Emphasis is placed on overeating all the time, but even people who eat "normally" and exercise a lot can be a risk if they do not eat enough of their exercise calories. A caloric deficit is a deficit no matter how it is acquired. The key is to maintain a balance!!! There are lot's of healthy and unhealthy ways to lose weight, but weight loss shouldn't be the only goal.

h3h8m3

Sorry, but these are just some of the scientific studies that show a significant decrease in RMR and loss of lean mass when at an extreme caloric deficit. Most of these studies focus on obese/morbidly obese persons - the effects are far more dramatic in those who are nearer to a healthy BMI. No, it will not "stop" fat loss entirely, forever. But it can impede weight loss and cause a reduction in metabolic rate that makes it harder to lose weight - and the scenario in which it occurs leads to being unhealthy, regardless of weight lost.

Starvation mode exists. Yes, the term is used too broadly and applied incorrectly many times on the forums. But that doesn't make it a myth. It's been proven time and again in scientific, reproducable studies.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-I/dp/0816672342/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Human-Starvation-II/dp/0816672334/ref=pd_sim_b_2

If anyone is interested, here is my explanation of the topic. I did a LOT of research, which included many, many sources, to put it together. I'm not an expert, but I believe I've learned a lot from those who are.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works

Also, just an added point: starvation mode is not the only concern when addressing undereating. There are many risks that come from undereating and rapid weight loss. Undereating simply sets you up for failure and losing weight in an unhealthy manner. I discussed this in another thread, which also includes scientific references:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/222019-60-lbs-in-60-days

I just spent a pretty good chunk of time reading through the articles you posted, and you know what? I think they agree with the OP's article. Both of them acknowledge that a severely reduced diet can and will result in a reduced RMR. What I saw in those articles was that the RMR would be reduced by between 20-28% below what other folks of a similar body composition would have.

Also, most of those studies were working on people eating like 300 calories a day. I have not seen many (or maybe not any) people looking at eating that little.

Am I missing something? If I understand the studies correctly then eating at a >1000/calories per day deficit will STILL be a more effective way to lose weight.

I am not here to tell anyone to eat less calories. Eat all the calories you feel helps you function best. But for all those people who feel all this pressure to jam down an extra 1000 calories at the end of a day because they worked out more than they intended, so they don't enter the dreaded "STARVATION MODE," it's just not that cut and dried. Eating at a PERSISTENT massive deficit is what will decrease RMR, but it's not going to decrease it down to nothing, and it will bounce back about 8 weeks after you finish eating a low caloric diet.

If I am wrong please help me by pointing out specific places in some of these studies that I misunderstood. I surely didn't read every word of every one, but I tried to get the gist of most of them.

Louiselesley

It depresses me how many people are so desperate to loose weight quickly without so much effort that they are willing to eat so little calories

If something isn't working, simply reducing calories isn't going to make a difference in the long run. You'll have to stick with that for life because if you start eating properly again, it'll just come back.

Yes, for some people it takes a lot of work to find the right way, but I am a firm believer that this does not mean cutting calories way back.

Change your foods. Change your workouts. But don't change your calorie intake.

I will always try to eat back my exercise calories. The only time I don't is when I have a really bad week or I have ate so much that day, but it's all low calorie, that if i ate anymore it would either keep me awake or make me sick.

bcattoes

Myth or not, why would anyone want to eat so few calories to find out?? Maybe it's just me, but I really HATE being hungry.