For those who do NOT believe in starvation mode

emmab0902

As in the way it is sometimes pushed as something that occurs at high levels of body fat, or misquotes or misinterprets the Minessota starvation study.....

What convinced you it doesn't exist the way it is spoken about on these boards??

NB - this is not a thread to debate SM, it is to hear from those who have their doubts about it.

BeautyFromPain

bump

LilMissFoodie

I can understand why people would not believe in it because the way it is described on the boards sounds absolutely ridiculous. I do believe it exists but it is truly incredibly rare and takes quite a lot of 'starvation' (not a few weeks or so!).

eightyninepounds

I can understand why people would not believe in it because the way it is described on the boards sounds absolutely ridiculous. I do believe it exists but it is truly incredibly rare and takes quite a lot of 'starvation' (not a few weeks or so!).

Seconded. It's called "starvation" for a reason - it implies the point where your body cannot use any more of the stored reserve it has. To imply that one can be "starved" while eating 1200 calories a day and exercising is wrong because any calorie deficit would be taken from the body's reserves ... that's how the weight is lost!

Visser1971

Howdy,
I have my doubts about it, mostly the way it is described here many times.

Dr. Barry Sears (The Zone) had a better explanation of this, I will try to explain how I remember it. Basically if you do not eat for a long period of time and then eat your body will naturally want to store more of those calories for later use, but this doesn't really happen if you have one day that you only have 1000 calories. It is more to support the idea of having balanced meals and eating at regular intervals during the day, instead of for example eating 1000 calories in one sitting and nothing else all day.

So I think there is something to it, but I don't think that if you eat 1100 calories a day for a while you will starve, but I do think you have a bigger risk to have the weight come off your lean body mass instead of fat. If the 1100 calories are 3 square meals with two snacks, then I think you will be on the right track.

Cheers, Christy

emmab0902

Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!

"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.

But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:

a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention

And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."

People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.

talleway

I don't believe in starvation mode, but I do believe there is an optimum level of calorie intake for *sustainable* weight loss.

I also know, for me, that if I don't eat enough calories for a week, I don't lose anything, but if I add maybe an extra 100-200 calories on a couple of the days, I will lose 1 or 2 lb that week.

I'm using MFP as a guide to how much I should have, but sometimes I will have more calories and sometimes less. My weight is slowly going down and hasn't once gone up, so I must be doing something right *for me*.

MrsBlobs

I believe in starvation mode - but I think it needs to be renamed! Mainly because it's got f all to do with starvation.

AH2013

Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!

"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.

But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:

a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention

And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."

People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.

I think you posted a quote a while back Emma that made me realise that what I was thinking sounded more reasonable. I had asked a question fairly early on in my time on here about whether I should be eating back my calories and got some ridiculously sniffy answers to it from some people who said I was asking a stupid question and others who had done 7 day experiments that made no sense but seemingly meant they were an authority on it. In short, there was a lot of shouting about - you MUST eat back your calories or something bad will happen!
I ate back my calories for several weeks and it did nothing for me other than make me full up going to bed and I lost nothing over those 3 weeks. I eat 3 healthy meals a day and snacks in between. I don't feel hungry ever, if I do I'll have something to eat. In all honesty the studies I've read on starvation mode being a myth make more sense to me than the studies for eating calories back. I don't trust the calories burned on the monitor and don't 100% trust the calories in the database all the time so whether I get berated for it or not, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.
I thought the reason for us all being on here was to change our lifestyle and for me (not saying for anyone else) I want to learn to live on less food than before, better food than before, so why spend my day stuffing my face in order to eat back my exercise calories...otherwise what is the point in me exercising if I'm going to eat back what I've just burnt? I know it's not as simple as that but I'm happy doing what I'm doing!

emmab0902

Sassy I could not agree more!

meerkat70

I think it exists - i suspect I've experienced it when on ww. but it's used too easily as an explanation for everything on here and i don't think that helps anyone.

Eating vlc for a long period certainly messes with metabolism. but it won't happen in a week or two. and i think true sm rarely produces gains, but does produce very slow losses and plateaus, as well as muscle wastage.

Jo2926

Thanks for this interesting post.

I find it fascinating how to know how much to eat/exercise, and I find the idea of 1200 calories as the level below which you starve very unusual. Surely it depends more what you food is made up of to ensure you give your body usable nutrition?

Sidesteal

Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!

"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.

But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:

a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention

And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."

People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.

^ Good quote. Lyle does know his stuff!!!

neanderthin

People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.

That's interesting.......do you have a link?

joejccva71

Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!

"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.

But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:

a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention

And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."

People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.

Excellent Emma. Lyle is amazing.

He also goes a little further into starvation mode in his Ultimate Diet 2.0 book which is a fantastic read. He explains that your body likes fat alot more than it likes muscle. So when your body doesn't get enough calories it thinks it's a time of famine and hold onto the most tissue it can to survive. Now of course you have to eat a pretty hefty deficit for a extended period of time for your body to start asking "What the hell are you doing?" questions, and kick in this mode. However, this starvation mode does in fact exist.

slimkitty

I believe starvation mode does exists. I don't think it happens as easily and as quickly as it is described most of the time on the boards here. It is a very complicated issue to discuss in detail. ...maybe in prisoners of war or people with certain eating disorders, but not in someone who eats regular meals and snacks every day. Caloric restriction has been found to be the major factor in inreasing longevity. Those are complicated issues and I haven't read enough about them to understand what and how it works.

For me presonally tracking caloriers leads to trouble. I've done it on ocassion here and there and always end up obssessing about what else can I squeese to eat with in the allotted amount. I would eat those 2 slices of pizza whether I was hungry or not, just because I still had calories left over. Instead I have been really listening to my body and trying to eat slowly and mindfully. I eat fresh, whole foods and don't stuff myself. I go to bed slightly hungry. So I have no idea how many calories I am consuming on most days. My weight loss has been slow and steady, my energy level high. I am going to continue to do this until I see a reason for change.

emmab0902

Now of course you have to eat a pretty hefty deficit

do you know what size deficit we're talking? 1000+? Being in negative net calories? Have you seen any info on how large a deficit triggers this?

joejccva71

do you know what size deficit we're talking? 1000+? Being in negative net calories? Have you seen any info on how large a deficit triggers this?

Hard to say Emma. I know a few people on this site (friends) that have a TDEE of roughly 2000 cals and are eating 600-700 cals a day and are still losing, although they dont eat that EVERY day. They might do 3 days of 600 cals and then eat 900 the 4th day, then 1500 the 5th, then go back to 600. Seems to be working for them and havent plateaud too much. While starvation mode does exist you pretty much have to force it for it to happen.

dad106

I personally don't think starvation mode exists... There was a while when I would be eating around 1000 calories and I still lost weight. I also don't always eat all my exercise calories... I can eat some, none or all depending on the day and how hungry I am, and I still lose weight.

I think that people are so engrained in the fact that if it works for them, then it must work for everyone. They don't understand that each person is an individual and just because MFP says no lower then 1200, does not mean it's true for everyone.

sjcply

So I think there is something to it, but I don't think that if you eat 1100 calories a day for a while you will starve, but I do think you have a bigger risk to have the weight come off your lean body mass instead of fat. If the 1100 calories are 3 square meals with two snacks, then I think you will be on the right track.

Cheers, Christy

I agree with this 100% I eat 1100 calories a day 5 times a day and it is good nutritious food, vs before when I ate 1600-1700 calories of CRAP!! I am losing weight and getting in great shape and still have the energy to run and I feel great! The best I ever have! I dont think starvation mode would take place unless someone is eating non-nutritious foods and like 500 calories a day and not getting exercise!
There is a HUGE difference!

sjcply

Here is a quote from Lyle Mcdonald who knows his stuff!!

"And before somone jumps down my throat, make no mistake, I have occasionally seen some very strange things happen usually when there is some underlying major biological FUBAR. But those are NOT the majority.

But in most cases where someone 'can't lose fat regardless of deficit and activity', the truth is that they are:

a. overestimating activity
b. understimating true food intake (mis-measuring, not talking about the binges,etc.)
c. being impatient and having true fat loss masked by water retention

And 'c', and this is discussed on the main site, is a huge issue for women. A woman who retains 10 lbs of water may not see a moderate diet deficit 'working' for 5-10 weeks. And since she'll probably get frustrated long before that and give up, it's easy to draw screwy conclusions."

People will try to quote the Minnesota starvation study where men's metabolic rate fell by a cited 40%. What they don't add is that 25% of that was attributed to the lower body weight, and only 15% to real decrease in metabolism.

I think you posted a quote a while back Emma that made me realise that what I was thinking sounded more reasonable. I had asked a question fairly early on in my time on here about whether I should be eating back my calories and got some ridiculously sniffy answers to it from some people who said I was asking a stupid question and others who had done 7 day experiments that made no sense but seemingly meant they were an authority on it. In short, there was a lot of shouting about - you MUST eat back your calories or something bad will happen!
I ate back my calories for several weeks and it did nothing for me other than make me full up going to bed and I lost nothing over those 3 weeks. I eat 3 healthy meals a day and snacks in between. I don't feel hungry ever, if I do I'll have something to eat. In all honesty the studies I've read on starvation mode being a myth make more sense to me than the studies for eating calories back. I don't trust the calories burned on the monitor and don't 100% trust the calories in the database all the time so whether I get berated for it or not, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.
I thought the reason for us all being on here was to change our lifestyle and for me (not saying for anyone else) I want to learn to live on less food than before, better food than before, so why spend my day stuffing my face in order to eat back my exercise calories...otherwise what is the point in me exercising if I'm going to eat back what I've just burnt? I know it's not as simple as that but I'm happy doing what I'm doing!

WELL SAID!! I totally agree with you!