Starvation Mode and Plateaus, what is the real story?

mynameisuntz

The starvation mode I am referring to is the concept that if you don't eat enough calories you will stop losing and possibly even gain weight.

And I'm going to assume you draw a distinction between starvation mode and the natural, long-term change (reduction) in maintenance that occurs via processes explained previously, correct?

fitnessbugg

I recently ran across some podcasts that Jillian Michaels did on iTunes. In one of them she talks about plateauing. Maybe you could look that up. It was really informative. She does not believe in plateaus. As others have said, human error is one factor. She says that people who have over 20 lbs to lose and maintain a nice deficit will lose weight easily because their body wants to shed the unhealthy weight. People who have 20 pounds or less to lose will have a much harder time because your body considers these "vanity" pounds. She suggests only going for 1 pound a week or a 500-calorie deficit. If I was more tech savvy, I would put a link up here to it, but I'm sure a search in iTunes will do the trick.

mynameisuntz

Two articles worth reading by Lyle McDonald - a firm supporter and referencer (counting that as a word) of empirical literature:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html - particularly the portion regarding large deficits

Roadie2000

[/quote]
Was 1,700 calories a proper deficit for you? Were you weighing all your food with scales, measuring cups/spoons, etc.? How did you calculate your maintenance?
[/quote]

No, I wasn't measuring everything, but I was conservative with most of my calorie estimates. 1700 calories was not a proper deficit considering how much I was working out. That was the point. I don't going to get in to calcs, but I know for sure that based on only calories, I should have been losing...a lot.

mynameisuntz

No, I wasn't measuring everything, but I was conservative with most of my calorie estimates. 1700 calories was not a proper deficit considering how much I was working out. That was the point. I don't going to get in to calcs, but I know for sure that based on only calories, I should have been losing...a lot.

I would suggest measuring everything and making a habit of it. Once you start, it comes naturally and you become much better at knowing what 3 oz. of chicken or 1 oz. or almonds looks like. This can skew your numbers by hundreds of calories depending on what kinds of food you are eating. An extra tablespoon of salad dressing, for example, can be an additional 150 calories. Same for olive oil.

How did you calculate your maintenance? Most online calculators can be off by hundreds of calories, typically by overestimating. Calculating based on lean body mass is the best route you can take.

Chuckw40

The starvation mode I am referring to is the concept that if you don't eat enough calories you will stop losing and possibly even gain weight.

And I'm going to assume you draw a distinction between starvation mode and the natural, long-term change (reduction) in maintenance that occurs via processes explained previously, correct?

To be honest I don't know. If you spend enough time on here you will hear people telling someone that the reason they aren't losing weight is because they aren't eating enough. They will use the term Starvation mode to describe this effect.

There are other people who will not lose a pound for months and then, without changing anything else, increase the amount of calories they consume and start losing weight again.

mynameisuntz

To be honest I don't know. If you spend enough time on here you will hear people telling someone that the reason they aren't losing weight is because they aren't eating enough. They will use the term Starvation mode to describe this effect.

There are other people who will not lose a pound for months and then, without changing anything else, increase the amount of calories they consume and start losing weight again.

Most people who aren't losing weight are messing up somewhere. Either they overestimate their maintenance or underestimate their intake, or in most cases, both. They calculated maintenance poorly, they aren't measuring food, they overestimate the calories they burn, etc. Not everyone, but most people.

Regarding the latter statement you made - the links I posted earlier are pretty good at offering some insight into that. Basically, too steep a deficit and/or too much exercise can really mess with your hormones which, in effect, severely lowers your metabolism. Typically these are extreme cases, however.

mapexdrummer69

Beat me to the Lyle links...



Read them as they are very imformative and offer some great insight.

Chuckw40

I will read them on the bus ride home, thanks.

From work that is, contrary to what some think I am not 13 years old :laugh:

RCKT82

Obviously if you're only taking in 1700 cals a day and burning 3500 in a day, you will lose weight. I believe what most people are talking about as far as a deficit is concerned and hitting a "starvation" point is in reference to being so close to your maintenance intake when you believe you are still running a deficit based on what you think your body is actually burning. Most people can easily underestimate the adaptations of the human body and also rely to heavy on making it an exact science when there is plenty of room for human error and uncertainty. Most try to get exact numbers for intake cals and cal burned, which is nearly impossible for the average person.

I agree, that the longer you're running a deficit the greater the chance your body will adapt to this change. Your body is way more complex than the physics and thermodynamic courses taught for an engineering degree. Diet and excercise isn't an exact science. For every study that proves one standpoint, there is another one that will prove it wrong. Plus there will be future studies that will continue fighting both sides. I found it best just to listen to both sides and try to make your best personal judgement of what seems sound and preceed to give it a whirl. If it doesn't give you satisfactory results, then try something else. Through trial and error and listening to others take on it, you will eventually find something that works for you. I wouldn't scrutinize trying to get exact numbers. As long as you try to be consistent with a general range and continue to watch what you eat and exercise and by always trying new things after you come to a standstill, it will all eventually work itself out.

Do what you can, keep your head in the game, and be patient. It will happen....it's not a race. There is no one way of doing something. Many solutions for the same problem... Every solution will have it's own sets of controversy. If we had a perfect solution available to us, we all wouldn't need a public forum to discuss ideas.


*disclaimer: this is all my take on it, agree or disagree if you will. Plus I'm sure my grammar/spelling isn't perfect... but hopefully my view was still coherent.

Chuckw40

Obviously if you're only taking in 1700 cals a day and burning 3500 in a day, you will lose weight. I believe what most people are talking about as far as a deficit is concerned and hitting a "starvation" point is in reference to being so close to your maintenance intake when you believe you are still running a deficit based on what you think your body is actually burning. Most people can easily underestimate the adaptations of the human body and also rely to heavy on making it an exact science when there is plenty of room for human error and uncertainty. Most try to get exact numbers for intake cals and cal burned, which is nearly impossible for the average person.

I agree, that the longer you're running a deficit the greater the chance your body will adapt to this change. Your body is way more complex than the physics and thermodynamic courses taught for an engineering degree. Diet and excercise isn't an exact science. For every study that proves one standpoint, there is another one that will prove it wrong. Plus there will be future studies that will continue fighting both sides. I found it best just to listen to both sides and try to make your best personal judgement of what seems sound and preceed to give it a whirl. If it doesn't give you satisfactory results, then try something else. Through trial and error and listening to others take on it, you will eventually find something that works for you. I wouldn't scrutinize trying to get exact numbers. As long as you try to be consistent with a general range and continue to watch what you eat and exercise and by always trying new things after you come to a standstill, it will all eventually work itself out.

Do what you can, keep your head in the game, and be patient. It will happen....it's not a race. There is no one way of doing something. Many solutions for the same problem... Every solution will have it's own sets of controversy. If we had a perfect solution available to us, we all wouldn't need a public forum to discuss ideas.


*disclaimer: this is all my take on it, agree or disagree if you will. Plus I'm sure my grammar/spelling isn't perfect... but hopefully my view was still coherent.

It's really hard to argue with results like that, well done!

Chuckw40

Ok, I read the articles posted from http://www.bodyrecomposition.com and he seems to agree that there is such a thing as starvation mode though he calls it something different. I actually like the site and read a few other articles there as well. I was particularly interested in his thoughts on carbs and how reducing them can accelerate fat burning.

SoCalWoman

Bump

Interesting stuff. Thanks all

Roadie2000

Obviously if you're only taking in 1700 cals a day and burning 3500 in a day, you will lose weight. I believe what most people are talking about as far as a deficit is concerned and hitting a "starvation" point is in reference to being so close to your maintenance intake when you believe you are still running a deficit based on what you think your body is actually burning. Most people can easily underestimate the adaptations of the human body and also rely to heavy on making it an exact science when there is plenty of room for human error and uncertainty. Most try to get exact numbers for intake cals and cal burned, which is nearly impossible for the average person.

I agree, that the longer you're running a deficit the greater the chance your body will adapt to this change. Your body is way more complex than the physics and thermodynamic courses taught for an engineering degree. Diet and excercise isn't an exact science. For every study that proves one standpoint, there is another one that will prove it wrong. Plus there will be future studies that will continue fighting both sides. I found it best just to listen to both sides and try to make your best personal judgement of what seems sound and preceed to give it a whirl. If it doesn't give you satisfactory results, then try something else. Through trial and error and listening to others take on it, you will eventually find something that works for you. I wouldn't scrutinize trying to get exact numbers. As long as you try to be consistent with a general range and continue to watch what you eat and exercise and by always trying new things after you come to a standstill, it will all eventually work itself out.

Do what you can, keep your head in the game, and be patient. It will happen....it's not a race. There is no one way of doing something. Many solutions for the same problem... Every solution will have it's own sets of controversy. If we had a perfect solution available to us, we all wouldn't need a public forum to discuss ideas.


*disclaimer: this is all my take on it, agree or disagree if you will. Plus I'm sure my grammar/spelling isn't perfect... but hopefully my view was still coherent.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't disagree with anyone on here, I'm just sharing my thoughts and experiences. I'm definitely no expert or else I probably wouldn't be on here in the first place.

From what I understand about starvation mode, you intake isn't anything close to your maintenance intake. I like to call it "survival mode". It's when you are consuming too few calories so that your body begins to panic and tries to hold onto as much fat as possible for future reserves. It basically starts burning calories very very slowly in order to survive. Maybe we are talking about two different things. The human body is an amazing thing, and the things it will do in order to survive are mind boggling. So we definitely agree on this part.

That is why I think there is so much more to it than just calories in vs. calories out. A lot of the tools we use to figure out how many calories we need to consume are just estimates. Sometimes I wonder if my BMR is even close to what "they" say it is. Calorie burning estimates sometimes vary by a few hundred per workout, and sometimes people make mistakes in assuming caloric intake because of serving sizes and what not. So there is a lot of room for error in all of these aspects.

So assuming all of the numbers I was using were somewhat correct, I'm still trying to figure out why I wasn't losing weight and why so many people say they started losing when they started eating more if this starvation mode is a myth. I wasn't measuring everything I was eating, but most of it was pretty tough to mess up or was labeled on the package. I could have maybe been off by a couple hundred calories a day, but it doesn't explain why I wasn't losing because after exercise I figured I was around a 1,000 calorie deficit per day.

There were also other factors at work. I was also trying to quit smoking, so I was smoking on and off, I wonder if maybe that messed with my metabolism. Beer also does some weird things to your body. I also lost about 25 lbs last year around this time with about the same diet and the same exercise. This year...nothing. The only difference I can think of is I've been eating more protein.

So pretty much lately I've about given up with the scale. I just want to be fit, so I'm exercising a lot and eating decent, but not counting calories. I've definitely put on some muscle and lost a little bit off the gut, but the weight thing just bugs me. Not because I think I'm fat or heavy, it just bugs me because I can't figure out what I was doing wrong, so I just assume I was in survival mode.