The final word on "Starvation Mode"?

akaTheQueen

While starvation mode is not a myth, it does not STOP weight loss:

"Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 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 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes."

(Borrowed from: http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501 -- check it out!)

HaleyAlli

Interesting information. I always wondered about that. However, I don't think I personally could ever survive on 500 calories no matter what haha

AniMarieSt

This article by the "The Weight Watchers Research Department" makes me wonder who exactly works in that department.

I've failed to find any such listing of individuals with things like "Ph.D." after their names.

NightOwl1

Sorry, that's not the final word. 1000 calorie deficit is not recommended for everybody, only people with a lot of fat left to lose. The closer you get towards your goal weight, the lower deficit your body operates normal on. In a lot of people, being more than 500 down can start to trigger starvation mode. And it in itself doesn't cause weight gain, but weight is gained when people are in starvation mode (and the body restricts fat burning), and they have occasional binges, where the body stores all of that extra calories as fat.

With misinformation like that, it's no wonder than weight watchers has a 97% failure rate.

WifeMomDVM

I never heard that starvation mode, STOPPED weight loss. I had always thought that the definition of starvation mode (just my assumption here, not Webster's) was the slowing of your metabolism, which it is.

I'm just worried that new folks might read your post and think it's OK to go into starvation mode (it's not). The example given, while trying to prove a point, doesn't say anything about it being a bad, bad, bad idea to eat only 500 calories a day. I'm hoping people will have enough sense to realize this on their own, but you never know.

Hope I don't sound like I'm attacking your post - I'm not trying to. Just a little worried about how some people might interpret it.

Just for the record: Eating too few calories is not going to do yourself any favors. Eat to lose, folks! Fuel your body.

Ok, I'll hop off my soapbox now...

photorific

I had a feeling that this "starvation mode" that everyone seems so afraid of was a bit less scary than it seemed. (Otherwise all bulemics would be fat, right?)

rclay316

your body needs a certain amount of calories just for normal organ function. So while that person is consuming 500 calories per day they are feeling really bad and hardly moving and it'll just keep getting worse. And, your body will slow down its normal metabolic rate.

FatUncleRob

The "final word" on Starvation mode???

Now THAT's funny! :laugh: :laugh:

cmriverside

$20 says there will be more words.

kklindsey

i do not believe in starvation mode for the average dieter.

katbass

I never heard that starvation mode, STOPPED weight loss. I had always thought that the definition of starvation mode (just my assumption here, not Webster's) was the slowing of your metabolism, which it is.

I'm just worried that new folks might read your post and think it's OK to go into starvation mode (it's not). The example given, while trying to prove a point, doesn't say anything about it being a bad, bad, bad idea to eat only 500 calories a day. I'm hoping people will have enough sense to realize this on their own, but you never know.

Hope I don't sound like I'm attacking your post - I'm not trying to. Just a little worried about how some people might interpret it.

Just for the record: Eating too few calories is not going to do yourself any favors. Eat to lose, folks! Fuel your body.

Ok, I'll hop off my soapbox now...

What she said. Its reckless and not really helping anyone to post information without further noting your sources or the context...let alone the warnings that WW SHOULD be posting int he pragraph following their detailed explanation of how to lose weight by starving yourself. NO ONE should advocate a 500 diet or a 1000 deficit.

EAT. Fuel your body. Just like a car, your body cant run without enough fuel. Fuel comes though food...GOOD foods that give you nutrients. Your body is a machine. Feed it properly, and it will just keep running and running and running. Starve it or deprive it, and you will find yourself "in the shop"...or worse...back at the dealership.

Smittyinthesun2

THREAD CLOSED !

akaTheQueen

Wow---

Hostile much, everyone?

I put a question mark at the end of the subject. . . this is just one point of view I found interesting. I thought these forums were friendly. I don't think I will be posting again.

vickthedick

Wow---

Hostile much, everyone?

I put a question mark at the end of the subject. . . this is just one point of view I found interesting. I thought these forums were friendly. I don't think I will be posting again.

I agree, where is the civility in this thread???:grumble:

Pebble321

$20 says there will be more words.

No one is going to take you up on that

I would love to think it is the final word... but it is one of those topics that will come up again and again as people struggle with the concept that eating very very low calories doesn't always make you lose more and doesn't lead to long term health. Intuitively it seems that it must be right, but in practice, the numbers don't work in a linear manner - as this article says.

I think the term "starvation mode" gets thrown around too much, but the concept of needing to eat enough to give your body good nutrition to function needs to be repeated over and over for people who are just getting started and are looking for a quick weight loss solution.

I don't see hostility in this thread, just sarcasm and an acknowledgement that anyone who has been on the forums for more than a few weeks will have seen this topic debated often! Don't be put off posting, this is a community and if you put out a topic like this, you WILL get a variety of responses!

jimennis

Not hostile just hungry!! LMAO You made it sound like the subject was ending with your bit of info. You should understand this starvation mode thing has been on this board and discussed a million times and you FINAL WORD seemed kinda funny. Don't be so thin skinned..NO PUN INTENEDED!

Schwiggity

GUYS STOP POSTING!!! THAT WAS THE FINAL WORD!

Schwiggity

With misinformation like that, it's no wonder than weight watchers has a 97% failure rate.

Gotta love them sources you posted. Oh wait....

ladyhawk00

Alright guys, there's no need to get rude. As you can see, there is misinformation all over the place (or at least incomplete information.) She saw an article on a website which most of us would think would be at least somewhat reliable (especially if new to dieting/fitness), and thought it was interesting.

This is a subject a lof ot us are passionate about, but try to keep the responses civil and remember that not everyone has the same experience or knowledge of health and fitness that you might. Everyone has to start somewhere and we often start with some pretty backwards information and ideas. Give the benefit of the doubt. :flowerforyou: