"Starvation Mode"

BikeNut5

‎"STARVATION-MODE?" Time to re-think the common myth that the intake of “too few” calories will cause your body to go into "starvation mode", causing your body to “think it’s starving”, therefore burn only muscle as fuel, holding on to “all” its fat-stores.

Also, let’s stop buying-into the notion that to get out of “starvation mode” you’ll need to consume MORE calories to 'kick start" your now sluggish metabolism. Most people believe this, probably because they’ve have heard it so often, they guess it MUST be true, but like most other dieting myths, it’s false.

You cannot "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight". The laws of physics and thermodynamics will simply not allow it. Let's say a person claims to be eating only 1000 calories and not losing weight. A well-meaning friend then tells them that they are in starvation mode, and in order to lose weight they must eat more to “jump-start” their metabolism.
My question is: What if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they then go further into starvation mode and continue to stay at the same weight or maybe even "gain" weight? Clearly, they would lose more weight if they stopped eating altogether. Dumb, I know - I’m simply illustrating a point.

So, where did this myth come from, and how did it begin.

Like many myths, they can be born out of semi-truths. There actually is a well-documented and true phenomenon known as the “Starvation-Response”. However, it only happens in humans when they lose so much body fat that they fall below fat-levels essential for “survival”. For men this would be below around 5%-fat and in women, just above that. This hardly applies to the average “Dieter” reading this post, or bodybuilders dieting for their next competition.
My “Bodybuilding” friends usually like to jump in right here and say, “But, if we consume to-few calories we’ll be burning muscle instead of fat, right?” Wrong again. This is another case of a slice of truth being blown-up into a major exaggeration. We always burn or lose some muscle (amino-acids) when we diet, no-matter how sensibly it’s done. But, before it actually amounts to anything significant (or an amount that is noticeable in one’s visual musculature), the body will first exhaust most of its fat reserves.

BOTTOM-LINE: if you are “over-fat” and NOT losing weight, regardless of your efforts to do so; the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your own “Energy-Equation”. Yes, I mean “calories-in vs calories-out”.
Outside of a special medical-condition, “weight-loss” WILL ALWAYS BE the on-going balance of HOW MUCH YOU EAT vs HOW MUCH YOU MOVE.
The best way to do this WILL ALWAYS BE to focus on “food-portions” and to maintain a healthy level of activity.

I hope you will share this with your friends.


These aren't my words .They're from a facebook friend who's a nutitionist!

Arynamber

Thanks for the tips. For me I do input my calories.. but I admit sometimes I am under my magic 1200. I just eat when Im hungry and stop when Im almost full. I dont feel like Im starving by any means and I have lost 15 pounds in the past two months. Lately however Im been eating crap, eating about 1300 calories.. and guess what.. my weight loss has stalled. I just plan to listen to my body.. I think its kind of smart

suzieduh

great post, thanks for the info

Cathy_5011

Thanks for the post! Great info

6heatherb6

AGREE AGREE AGREE.....I call it common sense!!
Calories in vs Calories out...not rocket science is it!!!
Well done and thanks
:flowerforyou:

RyanDanielle5101

Thanks for the post. My calorie intake usually comes in abuout 300-400 under the magic 1200 and I was worried about this "starvation mode" but I'm good now thanks to your post. However I do find that the calories I am consuming seem to be "empty" and my sodium intake is way too high. Can you suggest any really fast on the go snacks with more of the nutrients I need?

Maggie_Pie1

BOTTOM-LINE: if you are “over-fat” and NOT losing weight, regardless of your efforts to do so; the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your own “Energy-Equation”. Yes, I mean “calories-in vs calories-out”.

Exactly this!

People really rely on MFP to tell them how much they burned and how much they ate, but it's all estimates. You could be overestimating your burn and underestimating your intake. If you are doing the same exercises you've been doing, and eating the same food you've been eating, then maybe your body has become more efficient and you don't burn as many calories in a day doing the same activities? Maybe instead of thinking you are in 'starvation mode' and increasing your calories, you increase the resistance level on the elliptical (or whatever workout you do) and challenge yourself more physically to get the scale moving again. I've found that as I've lost weight, exercising isn't as taxing on my body, and therefore isn't going to use as many calories.

CrystalFlury

Thanks for the tips. For me I do input my calories.. but I admit sometimes I am under my magic 1200. I just eat when Im hungry and stop when Im almost full. I dont feel like Im starving by any means and I have lost 15 pounds in the past two months. Lately however Im been eating crap, eating about 1300 calories.. and guess what.. my weight loss has stalled. I just plan to listen to my body.. I think its kind of smart

Agreed!

CrystalFlury

Thanks for the post. My calorie intake usually comes in abuout 300-400 under the magic 1200 and I was worried about this "starvation mode" but I'm good now thanks to your post. However I do find that the calories I am consuming seem to be "empty" and my sodium intake is way too high. Can you suggest any really fast on the go snacks with more of the nutrients I need?

Fresh fruits is a given, apples are in season right now so stocking up on those would be a good idea. I'd say something like granola bar, but watch the labels. I eat Nature Valley Honey and Oats bars, but I've noticed they're higher in sugar. Also consider having LIGHTLY salted nuts around.

Vivian_Phoenix

I agree entirely with this post.

liftingbro

kyle4jem

I saw the subject line and I was about to scream and then I read the post and it's just wonderful common sense.

I think the over-estimating exercise cals and under-estimating food cals is something we all are guilt of.

I do weigh most things, but not everything as I have a rough idea now of the calorific content of the foods I eat the most. I also have to guestimate the calories in my husband's cooking as I've got about as much change of convincing him to count calories as I have of getting him to quit his 40-a-day habit :noway:

I also know from my HRM how many calories I'm supposed to have burned, but when I'm only in the zone for 70% of the time, does that mean I should calculate the real calorie use as 70% of what the read-out states?

In the food database, so much is listed as cups and portions and that's not very accurate imho. If you don't weigh it you'll never be 100% accurate.

The easiest way to diet... eat less and move more. It's not rocket science :happy:

Upcycled

Thank you!!! It's about time someone said this. O.O I'm tired of arguing with people over this.

fteale

I completely agree with you.


And you are going to get flamed.

Suziq2you

Not sure about "starvation mode", but I'm not willing to risk it. Bring on the cheesecake! :happy:

LaComadreja14

bump for later- I want to reply to this but I will loose it lolol

Beehiveof8

Honest question here...

I just posted about my own frustration. I have been stuck where I am for a long time. This week I decided to amp up the exercise to burn LOTS of calories. I burned almost 4200 calories SINCE Monday. I only lost two tenths of a percent of a pound. My calories were under my daily goal for the most part, and I did NOT eat any of my exercise calories back. All the advice I got back was "You need to eat more"., "You are starving yourself".

Well, I don't feel hungry, and when I do I eat.

So, what is the problem then? One pound is 3600 calories, right? Just using the math, I should have lost a pound. How does this fit in with the common sense route in the OP?

Again, not trying to cause a raukus, I am truly trying to figure out what my body is doing, and why I can't seem to lose the weight. I am frustrated and tired of working out HARD and not seeing results.

Arynamber

When this happens to me I go a day or two with no exercise and more calories..seems to confuse the heck out my body and usually gets me outta the no weight loss rut

krithsai

So, what is the problem then? One pound is 3600 calories, right? Just using the math, I should have lost a pound. How does this fit in with the common sense route in the OP?

Water retention maybe? I would try eating a lot of papaya and barley...they usually make me go to the bathroom a lot!

adtrevors

hate to break it to you but most nutritionists are pretty clueless beyond what they were taught in school. Maybe your friend is different, but I don't buy it as "this is true b/c my nutritionist friend said so".

I read A LOT of bio-chemistry (nutritional, metabolic, disease, etc) and most of what you said is contradicted there. The laws of thermodynamics and 'calories in calories out' are quoted all the time and is such a crock of hooey that its laughable. First of all people are not closed systems, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply here. Calories are a measure of energy as well, and weight is mass. You can't just use the two interchangeably, it is a lot more complicated than that.

I'm not even sure where to being with addressing the rest of it. People need to stop wasting time with the energy balancing crap. Eat real food, lift heavy things, and move quickly in short bursts and your body will right itself. Eat until satiety but eat the right things is probably the best advice I was ever given. Figuring out 'the right things' is a bit more work but its worth putting the time in.

adtrevors

So, what is the problem then? One pound is 3600 calories, right? Just using the math, I should have lost a pound. How does this fit in with the common sense route in the OP?

The problem is energy and mass are not the same thing and there are more things at play here than what you put into your body vs what you expend. Your body chemistry just isn't that simple. Your body is a complex system of hormones and chemical responses. What you put in (food quality) is more important than calories (food quantity).

FelizMi

I don't agree with this.

According to all the calculators, my BMR (which is supposed to be how many calories I would burn if I did nothing but rest) is over 1800. I never eat more than 1800 calories in a day unless it's a day that I have worked out, but my net is always way under 1800 calories. And I work out (usually an hour of zumba) 3-4 times a week, which I've been told that for a normal weight person, which I am over 100lbs overweight, burns at least 800 calories. Plus I work full times, a single parent with 2 kids, yadda yadda, so the only rest I get is my sleep at night which is only 5 - 7 hours.

Now I've been doing this same thing since I had lap band surgery almost 2 years ago. Since the beginning of this year I have lost nothing, not a single pound. I will flux 5 or so lbs up and down, but I'm actually netting a gain right now. If all it is to weight loss is calories in vs calories out, why have I not lost anything all year?

ziggylove

Eat real food, lift heavy things, and move quickly in short bursts and your body will right itself. Eat until satiety but eat the right things is probably the best advice I was ever given. Figuring out 'the right things' is a bit more work but its worth putting the time in.

I agree with the eating right part for sure, but what's that about lifting heavy things and moving quickly in short bursts? How/why will those two things cause one to lose weight better than sustained cardiovascular exercise?

PB67

hate to break it to you but most nutritionists are pretty clueless beyond what they were taught in school. Maybe your friend is different, but I don't buy it as "this is true b/c my nutritionist friend said so".

I read A LOT of bio-chemistry (nutritional, metabolic, disease, etc) and most of what you said is contradicted there. The laws of thermodynamics and 'calories in calories out' are quoted all the time and is such a crock of hooey that its laughable. First of all people are not closed systems, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply here. Calories are a measure of energy as well, and weight is mass. You can't just use the two interchangeably, it is a lot more complicated than that.

I'm not even sure where to being with addressing the rest of it. People need to stop wasting time with the energy balancing crap. Eat real food, lift heavy things, and move quickly in short bursts and your body will right itself. Eat until satiety but eat the right things is probably the best advice I was ever given. Figuring out 'the right things' is a bit more work but its worth putting the time in.

Stop talking about things which you don't understand.

FelizMi

So, what is the problem then? One pound is 3600 calories, right? Just using the math, I should have lost a pound. How does this fit in with the common sense route in the OP?

The problem is energy and mass are not the same thing and there are more things at play here than what you put into your body vs what you expend. Your body chemistry just isn't that simple. Your body is a complex system of hormones and chemical responses. What you put in (food quality) is more important than calories (food quantity).

Agreed! I think hormones, heredity, and who knows what else have a lot to do with it! It's not as simple as the people, who by the way most seem to not have weight problems, say!

riccoismydog

I agree with OP. I think starvation mode only applies when your being really reckless or irresponsible. Obviously the smaller you get the more your bmr is going to drop. The more efficient you get at doing the exercise you are doing, the less calories you are burning. Even the best chart or hrm is at very very best, an educated guess. I'm only 5'2.5. Right now my bmr is 1200. I really wouldn't be starving myself to only eat 1000 calories a day. 1200 is not a magic number. If I make it to my goal weight, my bmr is only 1100.

If i sit on my couch all day and eat 1200 calories, I know I wont lose weight.

If you plateau, re check your bmr, and, up the ante on your exercise because you are definitely going to burn less calories the better you get at it (think of marathon long distance runners, if they burned the 100 calories in the ten minutes I burn while running, they would burn up all their fat reserves while trying to make to that last mile of a long race.) I'm aerobically challenged. So I get to burn more calories. The better I get the less I will burn. Your body will learn to adapt to any stress you put it under. Thats why, if your workout doesn't hurt a little, if your not pleasantly out of breath, it's not going to do a lot (it will still burn more calories than sitting on the couch)

If you've hit a plateau.....congratulations! Your becoming fit! Now work harder!

MSHug

Thank you for posting this. Im always under what this site says i need for my calorie intake, and it kept telling me i was putting myself in starvation mode. so this is reasuring.
also to some others on here, your not suppose to eat the same amount of calories, or the same rotunine food every day. Our bodies where ment to be for the life of hunter gathers. we would walk, and run to get out meals, and we didnt live in one place, so we would eat any food that was around us. there for exercise, and a different intake of food variety, and calories. I am trying to stick to this more than anything, and i have lost some weight already.

adtrevors

Our bodies where ment to be for the life of hunter gathers. we would walk, and run to get out meals, and we didnt live in one place, so we would eat any food that was around us. there for exercise, and a different intake of food variety, and calories. I am trying to stick to this more than anything, and i have lost some weight already.

Keep at it, I have been doing the same thing and have dropped 7% body fat and 30lbs in 4 months.

LabRat529

Regardless of whether there is or is not a "starvation mode", there is no good reason (in my opinion) to run a large calorie deficit when trying to lose weight, and there are a lot of good reasons not to to run large deficits. I personally believe your body does adapt, that your metabolism does drop if you're running too big of a deficit, but it's possible that I'm wrong. However... metabolism dropping or not... your body needs nutrients beyond simple calories. Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and minerals... it's not just about energy in and energy out. You need these things to function optimally and if you're not eating enough... well... I'll put it this way. It is possible to be malnourished while still being fat. If you run too large a deficit, you risk doing damage to your muscles (including your heart!!!!), your neurons (they don't regenerate!), your kidneys, liver, and other organs. I don't know when you start doing damage, but I know that it does happen... if nothing else... you're not going to feel good without fuel to keep your brain working well.

Is it really worth the risk? Just to be thin? Starvation mode or not?

Slow and steady seems the wisest plan to me.

Jeannelin

Thanks for the post. My calorie intake usually comes in abuout 300-400 under the magic 1200 and I was worried about this "starvation mode" but I'm good now thanks to your post. However I do find that the calories I am consuming seem to be "empty" and my sodium intake is way too high. Can you suggest any really fast on the go snacks with more of the nutrients I need?

Celery, baby carrots, grapes, raw almonds. I always have a ton of fruit in the house. Kids eat the celery and carrots and grapes. Yogurt is another good one. I keep things like dry edamame in my truck for moments when starvation strikes. You can buy it in snack bags in the health food snacks or in the bulk bins. Good Earth tea bags in my water bottle help my sweet attacks.

M3CH4N1C

I think the biggest aspect to focus on is calories vs. nutrients. If you consume mass amounts of calories but they are "empty" calories, and contain very little nutrients i.e. american diet, then your body can still be in hunger mode because its starving for nutrients. Technically, your diet can consist of little calories but if high in nutrients will satisfy your body, and vice versa. Remember all these ideas and information are a part of science, not law. There are still mysteries of the human body yet to be learned, and thats a good reason why you should pay good attention to to yourself and how you feel. Instead of using these guides like they are holy nutrition books. If you are only paying attention to calories, then maybe your body is in starvation mode?