If you think you're in starvation mode...

registers

Here are the signs of starvation from wikipedia....

Starvation is a severe reduction in vitamin, nutrient and energy intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. In humans, prolonged starvation can cause permanent organ damage[1] and eventually, death. The term inanition refers to the symptoms and effects of starvation.

According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health.[2] The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases.[2] Six million children die of hunger every year.[3]Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the FAO, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 925 million people, or about 14 % of the world population.[4]

Some symptoms are sever dizziness, vomiting, and death. If you're not dying, you're not in starvation mode.

bflicker11

I'm so glad you posted this!! I'm not an expert but it does get on my nerves when people on this site talk about starvation and I think to myself, really???

rfcollins33

I have to say I'm glad you posted it as well! Like the doc told me about my 19 mo old son whose appetite has slowed down: "No one ever starved with a fridge full of food."

waster196

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

MyaPapaya75

pumps her fist....yeah really...this post will have very interesting comments ...

Airbear3

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

i thought the same!

catcrazy

Starvation and starvation mode are 2 different things. I do not like the term starvation mode personally, you're obviously not starving. I'd suggest reading up on starvation mode but maybe replace the words "starvation mode" with "conservation mode" in your head as you read...thats closer to the truth IMO.

Babyblue4711

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

That is what my Physician told me Wednesday morning.

newman50

People on here are referring to the process where the body decides to store fat rather than use it, for fuel because of a supposedly biochemical/hormonal reaction to insufficient and regular food intake hence the term "starvation mode"

Nothing to do really with the literal meaning of starvation as an individual word and most realuse that difference

registers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

Waste, That is based on the linguistics used. You're talking about, the theory of muscle mass loss, and slowed metabolism etc... Wouldn't starvation be linked to these? Yes.

julia23

Not sure why you posted a topic on starvation on a site for people losing weight ? We all know what starvation is it's starvation mode that people talk about.

beverlyl64

While your definition of starvation may be correct, when folks on here as well as the site talk about starvation mode they are talking about something entirely different.

A starvation diet does not mean the absence of food. It means cutting the total caloric intake to less than 50% of what the body requires. When you do this you your metabolism is significantly reduced and you will stop losing weight. Although the reduction is not significant, any loss of metabolism when trying to lose weight is counterproductive.

So, though you are not "starving yourself" you are starving your metabolism and metabolism is the mechanism that determines how fast or slow you burn calories, thus lose weight.. IMO

registers

People on here are referring to the process where the body decides to store fat rather than use it, for fuel because of a supposedly biochemical/hormonal reaction to insufficient and regular food intake hence the term "starvation mode"

Nothing to do really with the literal meaning of starvation as an individual word and most realuse that difference

I know what you're saying. What happens when you go to low on calories? You lose muscle mass, you will remain at that weight untill you up your calories or decrease them, of course exercise or not exercise also play a role. Does this have anything to do with storing fat or burning it. not really. It's an issue with the lower muscle mass. You're probably burning fat just fine, but you're at a lower caloric intake.

McKayMachina

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

That is what my Physician told me Wednesday morning.

Agreed. I've even heard top nutrition and fitness experts refer to starvation mode when talking about why it's important to eat small meals throughout the day. Mini-starvation mode, starvation mode, whatever you want to call it IS a real thing.

waster196

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

Waste, That is based on the linguistics used. You're talking about, the theory of muscle mass loss, and slowed metabolism etc... Wouldn't starvation be linked to these? Yes.

Starvation would be the extreme case. Continual, prolonged malnourishment, complete lack of nutrition leading to the symptoms in your initial post. I think when people on MFP think (yes, most of the time falsely) that they're in "starvation mode", they're not refering to this extreme case.

I do however agree with what I think is your underlying point - many (not all) MFP users who are extremely worried about entering starvation mode are probably victims to some degree of scare-mongering. However, I think it's better to be over-cautious than to be ignorant to the risks.

By the by, Wikipedia prides itself on being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Whilst the information on there is generally accurate, it's also user edited and therefore the language can be very easy to misconstrue. I wouldn't base scientific assessments on what I read there.

registers

Here is a quote of "starvation mode" from wikipedia....

Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low caloric intake levels. During short periods of caloric abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source.[1]

Ordinarily, the body responds to reduced caloric intake by burning fat reserves first, and only consumes muscle and other tissues when those reserves are exhausted.[citation needed] Specifically, the body burns fat after first exhausting the contents of the digestive tract along with glycogen reserves stored in muscle and liver cells.[2] After prolonged periods of starvation, the body will utilize the proteins within muscle tissue as a fuel source. People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to caloric restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue.[3]. Resistance training (such as weight lifting) can also prevent the loss of muscle mass while a person is caloric restricted.

"When fat stores are exhausted, you will go catabolic(muscle eating) mode" If you're over weight, you're not in starvation mode.

naomi7703

Posting such articles is encouraging people to not eat enough... Live a healthy lifestyle and eat enough calories that your body doesnt shut down... do not be encouraged to starve youself by such ridiculous people

rikkijanet

LOL.......ok well this post if very confusing for those of us who don't know the truth. Guess I will have to do my own research. @asmcriminal, do you have any training in the nutrition field? I was just wondering about this starvation mode, mainly because sometimes after I finish my diary and don't eat back my exercise calories(which I usually don't) it will tell me I am at risk of going into starvation mode, which if it is real I don't want to do. Just trying to get some more info.

registers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that starvation and the bodies defensive "starvation mode" were two different things...

That is what my Physician told me Wednesday morning.

Agreed. I've even heard top nutrition and fitness experts refer to starvation mode when talking about why it's important to eat small meals throughout the day. Mini-starvation mode, starvation mode, whatever you want to call it IS a real thing.

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

newman50

Define "overweight"

I don't see the value in this discussion of semantics and wiki articles ?

pearlof69

Somebody posted this yesterday, which I kept (taken from Articlebase.com

MYTH: Eating a diet that is too low in calories will cause the body to go into starvation mode and not burn any calories
FACT: Severely cutting calories will cause the metabolism to adjust slightly, but not enough to prevent fat loss
Remember that people around the world who truly die of starvation are not overweight when they expire. It's true that when you severely cut calories your metabolism will make a slight adjustment, allowing your body to run on fewer calories—but it's not a large compensation. If you need to lose weight and you are not, eat less and/or move more and forget about slowing your metabolism.

That said, the point is not to lose weight too quickly by drastically reducing calories because that method is generally not sustainable. Second, although there is a slight down regulation in metabolism in response to a very low calorie diet, the main reason it may appear to slow down more than it actually does is because the extremely low calorie intake is slowing YOU down. In other words, you become less energetic, forcing a reduction in your daily activities, therefore burning fewer calories overall. Crash diets and low caloric intake leads to low energy levels ' meaning you burn less calories throughout your day and less intense workouts due to your lack of energy. This means more hunger; and as likely as not backsliding into binge eating and other unhealthy habits. This can result in a calorie intake that temporarily exceeds your pre-diet intake, leading to a rapid re-accumulation of weight. This is easily misinterpreted as the results of a "damaged" metabolism. It is worth noting that any temporary, minor reduction in metabolic rate due to excessively low caloric intake is regained once caloric intake is increased. Your metabolism is not damageable. Take home message: Never blame failure on metabolism, no matter what anyone tells you! Simply move more.

MYTH: Naturally skinny people have faster metabolisms, so they don't have to exercise and can eat anything they want FACT: Naturally skinny people consistently burn as many calories as they consume
Individual metabolisms do vary, but not much. And people who stay slim and eat anything they want either don't want much (total calories) or move enough (daily activities including fidgeting) to cancel whatever they eat. In other words, people who are overweight eat too much relative to how much they move, whether they exercise or not. People who stay thin and don't exercise eat as much as they move. Those who tend to stay thinner have the habits that overweight people need to adopt. They eat smaller portions, eat slowly at meals and get a lot of exercise. The calories in are countered by the calories out. In fact, the heavier you are (no matter who you are) the more calories your body burns. So put that heavier, more calorically expensive body to work and get moving! More weight in motion means more calories burned per unit of time.

Final note on metabolisms and plateaus: The "fast and slow metabolism" thing has become a bad excuse for many people. Anyone can get their daily calorie burn (overall metabolism) as high as they need by simply moving or standing more. The main reason the body comes to plateaus during dieting or exercise (besides cheating) is that when weight is lost you become fit, your body uses fewer calories to perform the same work (because it's easier than when you were heavier and out of shape), forcing you to add work or eat less in order to continue to progress .
People who eat well and exercise regularly (and are "tapped out" as far as time or cutting calories) is to simply increase your daily movements at home or at the office. Stand instead of sitting, pace the room while on the phone or thinking. Take stairs instead of elevators or escalators. Park further away. Take a walk at lunch. Walk to a colleague's office to talk rather than using e-mail or the intercom. Additionally, you can try changing your workout, including the type of cardio you perform, which may help temporarily fire up your metabolism .

So there you have it. You can now take these myths off your list and get on with your fitness goals. Most people know in their heart that these myths can't possibly be real, but then there's another segment on the news or an article in a "health" magazine that makes these myths sound plausible. Relating weight control back to calorie balance may not be as sensational as the idea of damaged metabolism, but it's the truth. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you hear or what you read in the mass media. If you're a fitness professional, you know that it all comes own to those notoriously immutable laws of nature. Calories (energy) in versus calories out determine whether you will stay the same, gain or lose weight. Those are the facts.

Amati F, Dube JJ, Shay C, Goodpaster BH. Separate and combined effects of exercise training and weight loss on exercise efficiency and substrate oxidation. J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jul 10. [Epub ahead of print] Børsheim E, Bahr R. Effect of exercise intensity, duration and mode on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Sports Med. 2003;33(14):1037-60.

registers

Oh, one last thing about starvation. Since eating extremely low calories leads to starvation mode, this is the theory. How does gastric bypass work??? Shrinking the stomach so the person eats at an extremely low caloric intake. Wouldn't this put them in starvation mode????!?!?! YES(according to the theory). The people who have gone through that type of surgery, look fine.

beverlyl64

Would suggest that people do their own research and consult a doctor if your that concerned

Driagnor

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

I've heard the exact opposite. I read about a study whereby they provided test groups with the same caloric intake in either 3 or 6 meals per day, and although there wasn't a significant difference in the weight loss, the group which ate fewer meals lost more muscle mass over the course of the study.

I'd be interested to read an article suggesting the opposite - do you have any details on this?

newman50

There are so many mistruths in this article, worst of all is the fallacy about calories in and calories out

Simplicity is one thing the human body and condition is not

Somebody posted this yesterday, which I kept (taken from Articlebase.com

MYTH: Eating a diet that is too low in calories will cause the body to go into starvation mode and not burn any calories
FACT: Severely cutting calories will cause the metabolism to adjust slightly, but not enough to prevent fat loss
Remember that people around the world who truly die of starvation are not overweight when they expire. It's true that when you severely cut calories your metabolism will make a slight adjustment, allowing your body to run on fewer calories—but it's not a large compensation. If you need to lose weight and you are not, eat less and/or move more and forget about slowing your metabolism.

That said, the point is not to lose weight too quickly by drastically reducing calories because that method is generally not sustainable. Second, although there is a slight down regulation in metabolism in response to a very low calorie diet, the main reason it may appear to slow down more than it actually does is because the extremely low calorie intake is slowing YOU down. In other words, you become less energetic, forcing a reduction in your daily activities, therefore burning fewer calories overall. Crash diets and low caloric intake leads to low energy levels ' meaning you burn less calories throughout your day and less intense workouts due to your lack of energy. This means more hunger; and as likely as not backsliding into binge eating and other unhealthy habits. This can result in a calorie intake that temporarily exceeds your pre-diet intake, leading to a rapid re-accumulation of weight. This is easily misinterpreted as the results of a "damaged" metabolism. It is worth noting that any temporary, minor reduction in metabolic rate due to excessively low caloric intake is regained once caloric intake is increased. Your metabolism is not damageable. Take home message: Never blame failure on metabolism, no matter what anyone tells you! Simply move more.

MYTH: Naturally skinny people have faster metabolisms, so they don't have to exercise and can eat anything they want FACT: Naturally skinny people consistently burn as many calories as they consume
Individual metabolisms do vary, but not much. And people who stay slim and eat anything they want either don't want much (total calories) or move enough (daily activities including fidgeting) to cancel whatever they eat. In other words, people who are overweight eat too much relative to how much they move, whether they exercise or not. People who stay thin and don't exercise eat as much as they move. Those who tend to stay thinner have the habits that overweight people need to adopt. They eat smaller portions, eat slowly at meals and get a lot of exercise. The calories in are countered by the calories out. In fact, the heavier you are (no matter who you are) the more calories your body burns. So put that heavier, more calorically expensive body to work and get moving! More weight in motion means more calories burned per unit of time.

Final note on metabolisms and plateaus: The "fast and slow metabolism" thing has become a bad excuse for many people. Anyone can get their daily calorie burn (overall metabolism) as high as they need by simply moving or standing more. The main reason the body comes to plateaus during dieting or exercise (besides cheating) is that when weight is lost you become fit, your body uses fewer calories to perform the same work (because it's easier than when you were heavier and out of shape), forcing you to add work or eat less in order to continue to progress .
People who eat well and exercise regularly (and are "tapped out" as far as time or cutting calories) is to simply increase your daily movements at home or at the office. Stand instead of sitting, pace the room while on the phone or thinking. Take stairs instead of elevators or escalators. Park further away. Take a walk at lunch. Walk to a colleague's office to talk rather than using e-mail or the intercom. Additionally, you can try changing your workout, including the type of cardio you perform, which may help temporarily fire up your metabolism .

So there you have it. You can now take these myths off your list and get on with your fitness goals. Most people know in their heart that these myths can't possibly be real, but then there's another segment on the news or an article in a "health" magazine that makes these myths sound plausible. Relating weight control back to calorie balance may not be as sensational as the idea of damaged metabolism, but it's the truth. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you hear or what you read in the mass media. If you're a fitness professional, you know that it all comes own to those notoriously immutable laws of nature. Calories (energy) in versus calories out determine whether you will stay the same, gain or lose weight. Those are the facts.

Amati F, Dube JJ, Shay C, Goodpaster BH. Separate and combined effects of exercise training and weight loss on exercise efficiency and substrate oxidation. J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jul 10. [Epub ahead of print] Børsheim E, Bahr R. Effect of exercise intensity, duration and mode on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Sports Med. 2003;33(14):1037-60.

registers

LOL.......ok well this post if very confusing for those of us who don't know the truth. Guess I will have to do my own research. @asmcriminal, do you have any training in the nutrition field? I was just wondering about this starvation mode, mainly because sometimes after I finish my diary and don't eat back my exercise calories(which I usually don't) it will tell me I am at risk of going into starvation mode, which if it is real I don't want to do. Just trying to get some more info.

That starvation mode on the web page is bs. If you're losing weight just fine, ignore it. My education is in my signature of my post. This post was kind of a joke amongst a few friends. On the other hand it's also true. What i preach is, If it's working for you stick with it, if it's not, change it. That's all, If you feel you need to eat more calories, and you do, and you're losing weight, stick with it. If you're in supposed "starvation mode" and are losing weight, stick with it. Just do what's working for you.

The reason why i say the webapge says starvation mode is bs. Because, if a 7ft man, who weighs 300lbs, eats 1200 calories he would be in starvation mode? what about a 110lbs woman, she would also be in starvation mode according to the website.

registers

Define "overweight"

I don't see the value in this discussion of semantics and wiki articles ?

Someone who has a higher bodyfat percentage than average. 18-24% for men, 25-30% for women(this is average numbers, not above average).

Driagnor

There are so many mistruths in this article, worst of all is the fallacy about calories in and calories out

Simplicity is one thing the human body and condition is not

What, that you need to have less calories in vs calories out in order to lose weight? Is this even in dispute?

registers

Small frequent meals have been linked to loss of muscle mass. If i eat 500 calories in one meal, i'll be in starvation mode because I don't eat small frequent meals?

I've heard the exact opposite. I read about a study whereby they provided test groups with the same caloric intake in either 3 or 6 meals per day, and although there wasn't a significant difference in the weight loss, the group which ate fewer meals lost more muscle mass over the course of the study.

I'd be interested to read an article suggesting the opposite - do you have any details on this?

Are you serious??? that's a big crock... Here's why, okay for clarity, this is what i do, i don't eat much during the day, maybe 500 calories, then my night meal i eat anywhere from 1500 - 3000 calories. yes in one meal. I don't recommend a consistent run of low calories.

When you're not eating, and you're hungry (like i am during the day) this triggers the flight or fight mechanism because it's a form of stress. This increases GH levels, GH levels have been linked to high levels of stress. You can look it up. That's why it's recommended to work out under 40mins at a high intensity level. Gh burns fat, and maintains muscle mass. WHy do i eat a huge meal at night??? It increases insulin, storing glycogen and repairing my body. I can probably eat 4000 calories, throught the day... 1000 calories per meal, yeah I can do that... But in one meal????? NO WAY. Eating this way automatically makes you eat less.

waster196

Oh, one last thing about starvation. Since eating extremely low calories leads to starvation mode, this is the theory. How does gastric bypass work??? Shrinking the stomach so the person eats at an extremely low caloric intake. Wouldn't this put them in starvation mode????!?!?! YES(according to the theory). The people who have gone through that type of surgery, look fine.

No. This is combatted by eating small meals, mutliple times per day. Their caloric intake will be significantly lower, but not so low as to introduce starvation mode. In any case this would be taken on a person by person basis and each patient would have advice from a trained nutritionist.

registers

There are so many mistruths in this article, worst of all is the fallacy about calories in and calories out

Simplicity is one thing the human body and condition is not

What, that you need to have less calories in vs calories out in order to lose weight? Is this even in dispute?

I completely agree, less calories in, more calories out.Simple.