Starving yourself

MzFury

Bill, look: it's about the body defending itself and trying to stay alive as long as it can until it can eat, or eat enough, again. Then it dies of starvation or it gets enough food and begins to thrive, with some metabolic changes. There is solid medical understanding of this and is part of what must be understood when treating or helping people who are emerging from undesired or chosen starvation, physically. It's just what happens when you don't eat enough. You don't have to be eating nothing at all to be starving. If you are eating wildly too little, when you get to eat, the body will hang onto that as best it can for the long haul, which means turning it into fat. In the mean time, it will find nutrients where it can to keep organs functioning. Whether or not we use the word "mode" is really beside the point. Whether this can happen at times to industrial-world people who consciously restrict calories to the point that they are physically starving is not much of a question.

It's not a tautology or a logical fallacy.

But the fellow with the book with the blog is right: it's used as jargon now to sell all kinds of diets.

I am not going to attempt to find medical studies for you to read that I might have encountered in 1993 - 1996, nor anything since. Many major medical journals now have publicly available studies from previous years on line and may be easily researched by anyone with the time. And I have not disputed that there is evidence in support of calorie restriction being associated with greater longevity. However, you'll find that this generally means, you know, 1400 calories for a tall adult female, not 500.

MzFury

and yeah, what she said!

tigersword

I merely asked for proof that it exists. I think we can say it doesn't exist because if the body can go into some "mode" where you maintain or gain weight when hypocaloric that you would never die of starvation. That is clearly false. So the very basic premise of starvation mode is false. Not having a closed mind, I've invited all evidence to the contrary and to this point, I've only received anecdotes and emotional outbursts.

Please quench my thirst for information.

No joke. No one has provided any scientific evidence that it exists. Do you have some (please!) so we can put this issue to bed?

starvation mode is a myth

Really r u joking lmao

So then explain why it IS such bs?? If you look at humans as animals evolutionarily as well as other species our bodies go into WHATEVER you want to call it to survive when there is a lack of fuel to burn as energy. In earlier times food is not as abundant as it is now with sugar, salt and fat. To the extent in which it does is probably not fully understood bc its difficult to measure but just to say that it is flat out untrue is comical because I haven't quite heard a good argument for it except "its bs." I'm no professional I'm pretty most of you all aren't either. Its not fair to throw stuff out there that honestly you really have no idea. #Justsayin

Starvation mode has nothing to do with weight gain. You're using people using a term incorrectly as a crutch to say the term itself doesn't exist. That's like people throwing around the term "diuretic" thinking it means dehydrating, which then must mean water (which is a diuretic) must be dehydrating. Logical fallacy.

Starvation mode is the point where the body starts burning muscle tissue instead of fat to make up the difference when hypo caloric for an extended amount of time. On the hierarchy of fuel in the human body, muscle is low on the totem pole (the brain is first, followed by organs, then bone and muscle.) Body fat is an endocrine organ, it's responsible for hormone regulation and creating hormones. It's also responsible for regulating body temperature. If you are not getting enough fuel, your body prioritizes what gets fed and what doesn't. It also breaks down muscle tissue into amino acids that can then be used for fuel to help offset the deficit. When you lose muscle tissue, your metabolism starts to drop, as muscle is very metabolically active tissue and makes up a large part of your metabolism and BMR. So you lose muscle, your BMR drops, and eventually (usually a period of several months) your new total calorie need matches what little you are eating, and your weight loss stalls. This is also why people gain weight back quickly when they start eating more food, because their metabolisms have been slowed due to the loss of muscle tissue, so that they end up being hyper caloric eating relatively low amounts of food and gain weight.

mexy04

I merely asked for proof that it exists. I think we can say it doesn't exist because if the body can go into some "mode" where you maintain or gain weight when hypocaloric that you would never die of starvation. That is clearly false. So the very basic premise of starvation mode is false. Not having a closed mind, I've invited all evidence to the contrary and to this point, I've only received anecdotes and emotional outbursts.

Please quench my thirst for information.

No joke. No one has provided any scientific evidence that it exists. Do you have some (please!) so we can put this issue to bed?

starvation mode is a myth

Really r u joking lmao

So then explain why it IS such bs?? If you look at humans as animals evolutionarily as well as other species our bodies go into WHATEVER you want to call it to survive when there is a lack of fuel to burn as energy. In earlier times food is not as abundant as it is now with sugar, salt and fat. To the extent in which it does is probably not fully understood bc its difficult to measure but just to say that it is flat out untrue is comical because I haven't quite heard a good argument for it except "its bs." I'm no professional I'm pretty most of you all aren't either. Its not fair to throw stuff out there that honestly you really have no idea. #Justsayin

Starvation mode has nothing to do with weight gain. You're using people using a term incorrectly as a crutch to say the term itself doesn't exist. That's like people throwing around the term "diuretic" thinking it means dehydrating, which then must mean water (which is a diuretic) must be dehydrating. Logical fallacy.

Starvation mode is the point where the body starts burning muscle tissue instead of fat to make up the difference when hypo caloric for an extended amount of time. On the hierarchy of fuel in the human body, muscle is low on the totem pole (the brain is first, followed by organs, then bone and muscle.) Body fat is an endocrine organ, it's responsible for hormone regulation and creating hormones. It's also responsible for regulating body temperature. If you are not getting enough fuel, your body prioritizes what gets fed and what doesn't. It also breaks down muscle tissue into amino acids that can then be used for fuel to help offset the deficit. When you lose muscle tissue, your metabolism starts to drop, as muscle is very metabolically active tissue and makes up a large part of your metabolism and BMR. So you lose muscle, your BMR drops, and eventually (usually a period of several months) your new total calorie need matches what little you are eating, and your weight loss stalls. This is also why people gain weight back quickly when they start eating more food, because their metabolisms have been slowed due to the loss of muscle tissue, so that they end up being hyper caloric eating relatively low amounts of food and gain weight.

Wish there was a like button for this...very well put.

mawhite717

you only go into "starvation mode" when you're starving yourself... not because you dont eat "enough calories"
some ppl say you can go into "starvation mode" when you have ONLY 900 instead of 1200. really??? how ridiculious is that??
its impossible!!! you can get the right nutrition on 900 calories... you're not gonna starve to death on 900 calories. i've heard people say they have to force themselves eat their 1200 calories. i think its more unhealthy to eat when you're not hungry!!!!

tigersword

you only go into "starvation mode" when you're starving yourself... not because you dont eat "enough calories"
some ppl say you can go into "starvation mode" when you have ONLY 900 instead of 1200. really??? how ridiculious is that??
its impossible!!! you can get the right nutrition on 900 calories... you're not gonna starve to death on 900 calories. i've heard people say they have to make themselves eat their 12000 calories. i think its more unhealthy to eat when you're not hungry!!!!

This is totally false. While some people may not starve to death on 900 calories a day, millions of people would. An anorexic eats about 800 calories a day on the high end.

UsedToBeHusky

While eating too few calories can lead to that mythical phase known as "starvation mode" (which for me is a totally misleading term), a day or two in a deep calorie deficit will not cause one to fall into "starvation mode". Most of the time, when people hit plateaus in their weight loss it is because their bodies have adjusted to routine calorie deficits. This is at any level of deficit whether you are at 500 calories a day, 1000 calories a day, or 2000 calories a day. If you consistently eat a specific amount of calories below maintenance, your body will plateau. This is because the body is designed not to lose weight and the metabolism will make adjustments to compensate for the calorie intake. So technically, what everyone on this site refers to as "starvation mode" can occur at any level of deficit. The only difference is that if it occurs at extreme deficits, for long periods of time, then it can cause physiological damage.

That being said, an individual can have 600 net calories one day, and 1500 net calories another day, and they will not be in "starvation mode" or causing life-long damage.

mawhite717

wow.... this is going nowhere. lmao. i give up... its ridic!

myofibril

Oh look. I get to post this article by Tom Venuto. Again. Link:http://www.burnthefat.com/starvation_mode.html

IS STARVATION MODE A MYTH? NO! STARVATION MODE IS VERY REAL AND HERE’S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF

QUESTION:

Tom, I was wondering if you had seen the 6 part e-mail series sent out by [name deleted] from [website deleted]. if you look at the last part, he basically states that “starvation mode” is a bunch of crap made up in order to sell diet programs. He didn’t mention you, but it almost sounds like he’s talking about you specifically. How do you feel about this?

ANSWER:

I’m afraid the person who wrote that article is mistaken about starvation mode. Not only does his article contain technical errors, but anyone who sees what kind of products he promotes will realize where all his biases come from if you simply read between the lines a little bit. The pot calls the kettle black.

He accuses those of us who use the term “starvation mode” as being unscientific and he even says “dont buy diet books if they mention the starvation mode.” Yet in a moment, it will become clear that he is the one who doesn’t appear very well read in the scientific literature on the effects of starvation and low calorie diets.

The effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown and there are myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (can’t happen - you’d be dead if your metabolism stopped), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).

Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.

As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.

However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documented and is not just a metabolic adaptation - it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food seeking behaviors.

Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:
Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)

Here’s one of those follow up studies:
“Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition.

Quote:

“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”

“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”

Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.

Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.

There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them - when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women.

Starvation mode is not just adaptive reduction metabolic rate - it is much more.

There IS a controversy over how much of the decrease in metabolism with weight loss is caused by starvation mode, but the case is extremely strong:

For example, this study DIRECTLY addresses the controversy over HOW MUCH of a decrease in metabolism really occurs with starvation due to adaptive thermogenesis and how much is very simply due to a loss in total body mass.
Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”

quote:
“It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”

Starvation response is even a scientific term that is used in obesity science textbooks - word for word - CONTRARY to the claim made by the expert mentioned earlier who thinks the phrase, starvation mode is “unscientific.”

Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard
(two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )

quote:
“The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”

Textbooks on nutritional biochemistry also acknowledge the decrease in metabolism and distinguish it as an adaptive mechanism, distinct from the decrease in energy expenditure that would be expected with weight loss. In this case, the author also mentions another downside of very low calorie diets: spontaneous reduction in physical activity.

Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)

Quote:

“During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.

This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”

Granted, it is more often referred to as “metabolic adaptation” or “adaptive reduction in metabolic rate.” However, starvation mode and starvation response are both terms found in the scientific literature, and they are more easily understood by the layperson, which is why I choose to use them.

Another effect of starvation mode is what happens after the diet: A sustained increase in appetite and a sustained reduction of metabolic rate that persists after the diet is over. Although controversial, this too is documented in the literature:
American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”

American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”

quote:
“Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”

and Dulloo 1998:
“The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”

By the way, this explains what some people refer to as “metabolic damage” and although this is not a scientific phrase, you can see that it too is a reality. It is the lag time between when a diet ends and when your metabolism and appetite regulating mechanisms get back to normal.

Last, but certainly not least, and perhaps the best indicator of starvation mode is the hormone LEPTIN. you could spend weeks studying leptin and still not cover all the data that has been amassed on this subject.

Leptin IS the anti starvation hormone. Some people say leptin IS the starvation mode itself because it regulates many of the negative effects that occur during starvation.

Leptin is secreted mostly from fat cells and it signals your brain about your fat stores. If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases. If your calorie intake decreases, your leptin level decreases.
When leptin decreases, it essentially sounds the starvation alarm. In response, your brain (hypothalamus) sends out signals for other hormones to be released which decrease metabolic rate and increase appetite.
In summary and conclusion:

There is no debate whatsoever about the existence of starvation mode - IT EXISTS and is well documented.

There is also no debate whatsoever that metabolic rate decreases with weight loss. It happens and is well documented, and it is a reason for plateuas.

There’s really only ONE debate about starvation mode that is — HOW MUCH of the starvation mode is comprised of adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and how much is due to loss of total body mass and increased feeding behaviors?

Researchers are still debating these questions, in fact just earlier this year another study was releasd by Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”
Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:

“Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”

I respect the work that other fitness professionals are trying to do to debunk diet and fitness myths, but this fellow didn’t seem to do his homework and totally missed the boat on this article about starvation mode.

What’s really odd is that he didn’t quote a single study in his article, despite his repeated reference to “scientific research.”

If he wanted to argue against adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and chalk starvation mode up purely to increase in food seeking behaviors… and if he wanted to attribute the decreased metabolism with weight loss purely to lost body mass, he easily could have done that. But he didn’t cite ANY studies. He just expects us to take his word for it that “starvation mode is a myth,” and people like me who use the phrase starvation mode are “unscientific”

Either way you argue it - and whatever you choose to call it - “starvation response” is a scientific fact and that’s why low calorie diets are risky business and mostly just quick fixes.

The rapid weight loss in the beginning is an illusion: Starvation diets catch up with you eventually… just like other habits such as smoking appear to do no harm at first, but sooner or later the damage is done.

For years I’ve considered it so important to understand the consequences of starvation diets that my entire burn the fat program is built around helping you recover from metabolic damage from past diet mistakes, to avoid the starvation mode, or to at least keep the effects of the starvation mode to a minimum so you can lose the fat and keep the muscle.

Sincerely,
Your friend and “Burn The fat coach”
Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
www.BurnTheFat.com

emmiee921

for example I have seen daily calorie goals set for 1,500/day and people taking in under 900....that is DANGEROUSLY low!!!!

it might be 900 after excerise. not everyone eats back what they burn. some only eat half, some eat all etc. everyone is different.

Only youself can see how much of a deficit you havenot otherpeople

emmiee921

you only go into "starvation mode" when you're starving yourself... not because you dont eat "enough calories"
some ppl say you can go into "starvation mode" when you have ONLY 900 instead of 1200. really??? how ridiculious is that??
its impossible!!! you can get the right nutrition on 900 calories... you're not gonna starve to death on 900 calories. i've heard people say they have to make themselves eat their 12000 calories. i think its more unhealthy to eat when you're not hungry!!!!

This is totally false. While some people may not starve to death on 900 calories a day, millions of people would. An anorexic eats about 800 calories a day on the high end.

However doesnt it depend on metabolism, i have a really slow one so having 1100 is enough for me, also since i have fequent uncontrolable binges atm, on my good days i try to eat a lot less.

vballscriscuolo

If the arguing and attacking each other doesn't stop I'm going to just delete the topic all together. I posted this topic based off of concern for others and the very basic information I have learned from my doctor and personal trainer.........it has gotten way out of hand and the back and forth is unnecessary.

tigersword

you only go into "starvation mode" when you're starving yourself... not because you dont eat "enough calories"
some ppl say you can go into "starvation mode" when you have ONLY 900 instead of 1200. really??? how ridiculious is that??
its impossible!!! you can get the right nutrition on 900 calories... you're not gonna starve to death on 900 calories. i've heard people say they have to make themselves eat their 12000 calories. i think its more unhealthy to eat when you're not hungry!!!!

This is totally false. While some people may not starve to death on 900 calories a day, millions of people would. An anorexic eats about 800 calories a day on the high end.

However doesnt it depend on metabolism, i have a really slow one so having 1100 is enough for me, also since i have fequent uncontrolable binges atm, on my good days i try to eat a lot less.

Have you considered that the uncontrollable binges are because you aren't eating enough on the other days? That is a normal physiological response to eating too few calories.

LorinaLynn

I'm not a doctor or a scientist, nor do I have any studies to reference.

I can only speak from my own experience, and that's that I lost more weight and felt better while doing it eating about 1500-1800 calories a day than I did on 800-1200 calories a day.

This is the only time I've ever reached my weight loss goals. Any other time, I got frustrated with feeling hungry and having such slow progress.

I wish I'd been part of a community like this other times I tried to lose and just drastically cut calories. I wish I knew that making smaller changes to the way I ate and exercised would make more of a difference than pushing myself too hard and being hungry all the time. I wish someone would have said, "Hey... eat more!"

UsedToBeHusky

If the arguing and attacking each other doesn't stop I'm going to just delete the topic all together. I posted this topic based off of concern for others and the very basic information I have learned from my doctor and personal trainer.........it has gotten way out of hand and the back and forth is unnecessary.

Your original post was accusatory and attacking and controversial.

nkziv

Personally, for myself, I find it hard to eat my calories. I don't have any appetite. I force myself to eat something after working out because I know I should, but I'm not hungry.

just out of curiosity, how did you get overweight in the first place, then?

bry_all01

If the arguing and attacking each other doesn't stop I'm going to just delete the topic all together. I posted this topic based off of concern for others and the very basic information I have learned from my doctor and personal trainer.........it has gotten way out of hand and the back and forth is unnecessary.

definitely not trying to argue, just want to point out, you cannot delete a thread. You can, however, ask for it to be deleted. But, it would be in your best interest not to TRY to get it deleted by derailing it. (I may or may not know from personal experience).

Steven

Dear Posters,

The staff of MyFitnessPal is actively reviewing our stance on topics that recommend or promote dieting methods that run counter to our site's own weight-loss recommendations.

In the meantime, please make sure to refrain from attacking or insulting other users.

Earnest and respectful debate on any message in the forums is acceptable. Attacking the messenger is not.

Please note the following forum rule:

4) Do not attack/slam/insult other users. The forums are here so that members can help support one another. Attacks or insults against each other takes away from the supportive atmosphere and will not be tolerated. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning! If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

You may review the forum rules in their entirety at the following link:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/14923-forum-rules-please-read-before-posting

Thanks for your understanding,

MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator