Another non-believer of "starvation mode"?

carolann_22

This whole topic is so frustrating to me. I burn, according to my BodyMedia, about 3300 calories a day. I tried eating 1400-1600 a day, since everyone says you tend to overestimate calories out and underestimate calories in, this way, I have a deficit AND a cushion. The scale doesn't move. Like for 11 days straight, and I'm big- I should be losing SOMETHING weekly. This past weekend, I had two days over 2000 calories - the scale moved down 1.8. Now just because that happened I know it doesn't mean it CAUSED it to happen, it could have been coincidence. BUT I JUST WANT TO LOSE EVERY WEEK. I want to make it happen. I am working my butt off and I want to LOOK the way I feel inside now that I've decided to change my life. And I just don't know what the best thing is, and I'm terrified that 2000 cals EVERY day will not have the results either. If it's calories in- calories out, why is it so frustrating!

Just a little rant....

heathersmilez

Most people who are new to working out overestimate their cals burned and eat back too many because it felt like they deserve it or need it so she's not wrong 100% especially if she is referring to obese people. It's people who are a healthy BMI that find it hard to lose weight on low-cals because our metabolism has slowed with increased efficiency and we work out more efficiently hence NEED to eat back at least some of those cals burned in order to breakthrough.

** That being said, I've never experienced starvation mode so I will continue to be an "atheist" if you will on this topic

MassiveDelta

Im not going to debate any of the things mentioned here Im just going to give you my personal results and you can be the judge.

In Jan 2010 I started I weighed in that day at 297 I had been over 300 lbs easily. I lost 22 lbs in the first 9 weeks. I was exercising everyday for at least 30 min of hard cardio. I wasnt eating my calories back. I continued to lose.

By Oct 2010 I was down to about 225 and over the next couple months it seemed to me that it was harder for me to lose weight. If I missed a workout I wasnt losing so I had to be very strict. I still was not eating my exercise calories.

In reviewing my diary now, I was taking in roughly 1300-1600 calories a day and exercising 450 - 1100 calories a day. There were some days where my net caloric intake was less then 500 cals. How long had I been doing this? I never ate back my calories.

Feb 2011, I was at my lowest weight yet. 197 lbs Woohoo! From over 300lbs to 197lbs I felt and looked amazing. I hurt my knee running and was layed up for 6 months. Because I couldnt do cardio I did upper body strength training and Kept my calories low. I managed to maintain and only inched back up to about 205. By the time I had recovered and I was back to training for my triathlon. I was 198 the day of my race. But I couldnt lose anything more. I was trying hard I was eating very carefully. Burning 1000+ cals 4-6 days a week and eating about 1500 total. This had gone on for months. All of 2011 I essentially stayed the same or gained 5 lbs.

As the 2011 holiday season approached and triathlon season ended I relaxed my diet and my exercise as I was mentally spent from the constant grind of not making progress for a year. The fell off of me all through 2010 but in 2011 It was all I could do it shave 5 pounds.

Jan 2012 I weighed in after abandoning diet and exercise for 2 full months. Scale was 221 lbs. I dropped 7 lbs in 2 days (water). I had to get back under I started again doing what I had done again.... Nothing 1 lbs loss ... a single cheat meal. 3 lbs gain for 4 days (not just water). That continued... I was up down, up down, up down.

Everyone was telling me..."Massive, your not eating enough! You are starving yourself!" I bought a BodyMedia Fit about a week ago and basically what I've found is that my daily TDEE is at or exceeds 3000+ Calories a day without exercise. So If I'm only eating 1500 calories a day my body, without exercise, is at a 1500 calorie per day Deficit, add a 1000 calorie workout in there and your looking at some serious nutrition issues. A week before I got my Bodymedia fit I started eating a total of 2000 cals ( or trying to make sure I ate that minimum) That wasn't my net but just a total and The last 2 days Ive been eating more. Today I lost 2 lbs biggest loss Ive had in a long while.

Is starvation mode real?

lodro

I guess I'll come out with it: I think "starvation mode" is silly.

I watched a documentary about anorexia and the doc (world-renowned researcher too) explained "starvation mode", saying there is some truth to lowered calories and poor weight loss because of a "crashed" system (he didn't put it quite like that). However, he said the body burns fewer calories than expected at certain low calorie levels, not that it stops altogether and actually conserves (which is what I've typically heard from SM proponents). From an endocrine standpoint, fat cells may indeed conserve fat in response to lowered fat/calorie intake but it wont last long. When faced with "lose muscle" vs "lose fat", the body will prefer fat if it's available. It wont stop releasing glucose from muscles but it will reduce that release - the "conservation of metabolism" factor.

I have a conspiracy that "starvation mode" is a plan to keep the 1st world fat so we'll survive armageddon.

This. People need to read some peer reviewed, scientific journals before making false statements. The human body is an amazing and complex system. I recall a study on starvation mode that showed lean muscle mass was only burned after body fat percentage reached <5%.

I doubt that.
Cite the study.

there you go

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf

bcattoes

I'm still Starvation Mode Agnostic....

"Starvation Mode Agnostic". I like that.

But it sounds like maybe she's talking more about breaking a plateau than starvation mode. Starvation mode doesn't keep you from losing weight, it simply slows it by slowing your metabolism.

I think I am a non-believer that simply upping calories will break a plateau. I suspect that most people sho say they break a plateau by eating more increase their workouts. It simply makes no sense that burning the exact same amount of calories while eating more calories will cause you to lose more weight.

Reducing calories and/or increasing exercise is also the advice of the Mayo Clinic for breaking a plateau. Though they do warn not to drop below 1200 calories per day.

btdublin

This. People need to read some peer reviewed, scientific journals before making false statements. The human body is an amazing and complex system. I recall a study on starvation mode that showed lean muscle mass was only burned after body fat percentage reached <5%.

I doubt that.
Cite the study.

there you go

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf

BOOM! Good call, makes sense too. I am still at 30% fat so not too worried!

MaximalLife

I guess I'll come out with it: I think "starvation mode" is silly.

I watched a documentary about anorexia and the doc (world-renowned researcher too) explained "starvation mode", saying there is some truth to lowered calories and poor weight loss because of a "crashed" system (he didn't put it quite like that). However, he said the body burns fewer calories than expected at certain low calorie levels, not that it stops altogether and actually conserves (which is what I've typically heard from SM proponents). From an endocrine standpoint, fat cells may indeed conserve fat in response to lowered fat/calorie intake but it wont last long. When faced with "lose muscle" vs "lose fat", the body will prefer fat if it's available. It wont stop releasing glucose from muscles but it will reduce that release - the "conservation of metabolism" factor.

I have a conspiracy that "starvation mode" is a plan to keep the 1st world fat so we'll survive armageddon.

This. People need to read some peer reviewed, scientific journals before making false statements. The human body is an amazing and complex system. I recall a study on starvation mode that showed lean muscle mass was only burned after body fat percentage reached <5%.

I doubt that.
Cite the study.

there you go

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf

The cited study admits that restricted diets stifle metabolism.
That's what I said earlier.
As for lean body mass cannibalism, that happens EVERY TIME YOU LOSE ANY WEIGHT.
You always lose muscle.
You can't lose weight and have it only be fat.

Where is the world did you get that?
You said " I recall a study on starvation mode that showed lean muscle mass was only burned after body fat percentage reached <5%"
Anyway, you have lost all credibility with such an absurd claim.

littlemsmuffet

That's interesting. I've participated in a study that showed that lean muscle mass is burned if complex carbs are not present when working out.

Which one is right?

This is the typical, frustrating result of many studies (I'm a science major). For a visual example of your question, think about a circle. That circle is "the human body". Now, picture a small box within the circle. That small box represents the factors that were manipulated for the particular study of the human body. It leaves quite a bit of circle left over! That's the frustrating part - scientists can't possibly control all variables, but we can chase the rabbit down the hole so to speak. One might conclude from the study that humans need oatmeal before working out if they want to maintain their lean...but is that really the bottom line? What constituents are in oatmeal that make it so valuable? What might the body be preferring over muscles? What are muscles, then? What is the body taking from muscles when oatmeal isn't ingested pre-workout? Critical thinking is required to get a real conclusion. From what has already been established from other studies and physical research, muscles (proteins, actually) can be converted to glucose. Interestingly enough, carbohydrates provide glucose. And the brain "eats" glucose. So, maybe the bottom line is glucose for working muscles? Then there are the rest of the questions - what's the best source of glucose, how much glucose, etc. etc.

It appears as though the conclusion may be more along the lines of: "the body needs more glucose during exercise" than "working muscles need carbohydrates to function during exercise". So it might have very little to do with what you eat - just as long as you have enough glucose in your system when you workout.

DQMD

I will admit that I keep my exercise to a moderate level. Like there is no spin class, aerobics, or biking right now. It is 40-45 minute every other day on a machine. I wear a HRM and that tells me the calories I burn..not the machine.

I am planning on transistioning no matter what weight I am at in April. I will continue to lose weight as I ramp up my exercise and fitness.

lodro

You asked for a study, there you have it. Note how this study (including a very welcome re-analysis of data from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) proposes a correlation between fat stores and metabolic rate.

The extent to which fat mass and FFM depletion were determinants of the change in adjusted BMR (total thermogenic economy) was then examined during the dynamic phases of weight
loss (S12) and during weight recovery (R12). As shown in Figure
2, the change in adjusted BMR plotted against the deviation in
body fat revealed a positive relation both during the dynamic
phase of semistarvation and at the end of restricted refeeding: the
greater the percentage reduction in body fat, the greater the
reduction in adjusted BMR and hence the greater the total thermogenic economy.

So, maybe it's not weight loss per se that is a factor in what is taken to be "starvation mode" on these messageboards, it's fat loss. I see a lot of deprecating comments about how one shouldn't be "skinny fat", and I see women striving for body fat percentages that are - in my opinion - too low. Then, when they refeed, fat is the first thing they'll gain.

lodro

Bro, you're addressing someone else. Please show some civility. Thank you.

JennC831

I don't believe that eating very little can make you GAIN weight, but I have found that eating very little was counterproductive. Weight loss was painfully slow, and losing so much muscle mass meant that I looked heavier and flabbier than I was.

Eating more, my weight loss was on target (If I ate to lose a half pound a week, that's what I lost), I kept my lean muscle mass, and I'm much smaller at the same weight. Eating under 1000 calories a day, I was a size 8 at 130#. Eating around 2000 calories a day, I'm a size 2 or 4 at 130#. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/449570-mfp-mythbusters-losing-weight-fast-exercise-calories-girl

This woman here is such an inspiration.... I love her story and how she lost weight... She's fit, not skinny and she gets to enjoy food... This is the level of fitness I'm trying to achieve... Sure, I'd lose weight at first eating 1200 calories or less, but who want s to survive on 1200 or less calories for the rest of their life??? Not me...

To each their own... Do what works for you... For me I'm looking at long term habits that I can maintain a lifetime...

MaximalLife

I don't believe that eating very little can make you GAIN weight, but I have found that eating very little was counterproductive. Weight loss was painfully slow, and losing so much muscle mass meant that I looked heavier and flabbier than I was.

Eating more, my weight loss was on target (If I ate to lose a half pound a week, that's what I lost), I kept my lean muscle mass, and I'm much smaller at the same weight. Eating under 1000 calories a day, I was a size 8 at 130#. Eating around 2000 calories a day, I'm a size 2 or 4 at 130#. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/449570-mfp-mythbusters-losing-weight-fast-exercise-calories-girl

This woman here is such an inspiration.... I love her story and how she lost weight... She's fit, not skinny and she gets to enjoy food... This is the level of fitness I'm trying to achieve... Sure, I'd lose weight at first eating 1200 calories or less, but who want s to survive on 1200 or less calories for the rest of their life??? Not me...

To each their own... Do what works for you... For me I'm looking at long term habits that I can maintain a lifetime...

People might just need to go down that road of self-sabotage before reason invades their senses.
You want to eat below 1000 calories per day?
GO FOR IT!
If you want lasting, healthy results, follow the MFP recommendations.
It's just that simple.

littlemsmuffet

For pretty much anyone on this thread:

A lot of my confusion about "starvation mode" was put to rest when I picked up a couple of biochemistry texts and found the chapters on ketosis and starvation. Regardless of diet, what actually happens during starvation? Check your library or Google books for biochem texts and read up on it. Anyone has access to it - find the facts.

Studies are not always conclusive. Physical science (biochemistry and physics) usually is. I'd go with the physical science first, just saying.

hpsnickers1

This was in the comments of an IF article at Mark's Daily Apple. I thought it was interesting.

The decrease in absorption and production of testosterone would be after hunger for well more than 72 hours to the order of weeks. Unfortunately people have allowed semantics to cloud the issue.

When we are hungry we say we are starving because we feel ravenous. In reality this is just somatic hunger which has little to do with our actual needs, just a time conditioned digestive tract trigger. The real hunger is limbic, real hunger effects energy production and has real noticeable physical costs other than grumbling stomachs (which are meant to be a conditioning response to make you eat.) Note that stomach grumbling vanishes within 2 to 30 minutes and will not return for hours sometimes (till your next conditioned eating window).

Now I mention this because medically, starvation is what you found in the survivors of Auschwitz. Their bodies were literally feeding on themselves. Starvation is what you see in those pictures and videos of famine in Africa. Starvation is what you see in a long term anorexics. This often requires weeks and months to achieve. When starvation is reached, everything that is said about “famine mode” is true. In real terms your metabolism will not slow down until you have gone approximately 72 hours without food. Intermittent fasting is at most 24 hours (though I’ve heard of 48 hours periodically).

If you are doing intense work then you will need a few more carbs than usual. Remember that the fasting depletes some of the natural dangers of carb overload (just don’t gorge), but it also depletes the muscle. as my trainer proved to me one day. If you haven’t eaten in 24 hours and your workout is suffering… it’s all in your head, and you need to stop making excuses to yourself. Evolutionarily speaking, it makes little to no sense for the body to slow down in the early part of hunger or even famine. it needs to speed up because, that is when you need the most energy, most desperately to hunt.

Another approach is the eat stop eat approach which is just 2 24 hour fasts a week. You won’t even notice those and can plan your workouts around the other 4 days you are eating if you feel you cannot bring it on a fast day.

When you come out of a fast, eat a regular meal, don’t eat a whole day’s supply of food. That is a pointless exercise.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/feast-or-famine-diet/#ixzz1l936Yoe0

kcmg0730

The thing is...being on a calorie restrictive diet of any kind IS putting your body into starvation mode, to some degree, and it didn't take me too long to find that little fact in the literature about the myth of starvation mode. Google, or Google Scholar (if you want references) were pretty good places to start!

gypsybug

I think there is plenty of evidence out there in the forms of "study" after "study", articles, opinions and brochures ad nauseum. It is child's play to find something to support the argument either for or against the so-called starvation mode. For whatever it's worth, my opinion is that the actual term itself causes the controversy.

To me, starvation mode is a condition where you are unable to provide your own body with basic sustenance. In other words, you really are a starving person who does not know where his/her next meal is coming from and you spend your waking hours trying to obtain it. Period. If you are able to afford the luxury of an internet connection where you can access a site and log your food eaten, it's unlikely you are enduring this situation.

In the case of someone trying to learn the ropes of weight loss and giving different things a try, I believe it is possible to mess up your metabolism. It's a changeable thing, and it reacts to what you provide, by either revving up and stoking the fires or banking them and dropping down low.

Perhaps a change in terminology is called for. Rather than calling it "starvation mode" when used in the context of a dieting plateau, maybe it's more of a "CONSERVATION mode." Just a slow down of the old metabolism, not actual starvation.

2 cents spent.

CyberEd312

EdD,

Just read your profile. Amazing results - "half the man I was"!
Very impressive.

Did you find starvation mode was a problem when you were starting out and much higher BF %? I.e. where you eating much more when you were much bigger (say 2400-3000 cals NET per day) as supposed to or did you just drop straight down to 1500 cals NET?

I understand you must do alot of exercise to be still eating 3400 cals per day now but what is your NETs?

Cheers

Thanks and no not at all in the beginning but realize when I started I weighed 560 lbs, and was consuming over 6000+ calories a day. I was eating at McDonalds everyday (3 big mac's, 2 large fries, and a large shake) and that was a wait til my wife left for work and I waddled out to my truck and ran to the drive through) I did crap like that without blinking so when I finally had that AHA moment and met with my doctors and my dietician (I am a type 2 diabetic) we set my calorie intake at 2500 calories and roughly 240 grams of carbs a day and the first 4 weeks I drop 11, then 8, then 4, then 5 and finally crest off at 2 to 3 lbs. a week from there on. I could barely walk in the beginning so I had to do aquatic therapy for the first 1 1/2 years til I drop over 175 lbs. and was able to start getting out of the water and onto land base exercise. But in the beginning no absolutely no problems with plateau's and/or starvation mode, that all started about a year ago well after 230 lbs. lost mark... It started when my exercise had increased and i wasn't eating past my BMR because I thought why eat back those calories, isn't that why I just burned them up to lose weight... But after struggle for months I finally started working with a sport nutritionist and he told me I have to start fuel my body and at first that was really hard for me to grasp because I spent a couple years eating at a deficit to lose and now this guy wants me to eat more to lose but as soon as I gave into the idea within 2 weeks my metabolism fired back up and I was back to losing 1 to 2 lbs. a week... Heck my weigh in is tomorrow and as of yesterday I was down to 261 lbs. ( that would put me at 299 lbs. lost and 32 months into this journey pulling a 4 lbs. weightloss for this past week) so for me anyway this is working....... Thanks again................

littlemsmuffet

I think there is plenty of evidence out there in the forms of "study" after "study", articles, opinions and brochures ad nauseum. It is child's play to find something to support the argument either for or against the so-called starvation mode. For whatever it's worth, my opinion is that the actual term itself causes the controversy.

To me, starvation mode is a condition where you are unable to provide your own body with basic sustenance. In other words, you really are a starving person who does not know where his/her next meal is coming from and you spend your waking hours trying to obtain it. Period. If you are able to afford the luxury of an internet connection where you can access a site and log your food eaten, it's unlikely you are enduring this situation.

In the case of someone trying to learn the ropes of weight loss and giving different things a try, I believe it is possible to mess up your metabolism. It's a changeable thing, and it reacts to what you provide, by either revving up and stoking the fires or banking them and dropping down low.

Perhaps a change in terminology is called for. Rather than calling it "starvation mode" when used in the context of a dieting plateau, maybe it's more of a "CONSERVATION mode." Just a slow down of the old metabolism, not actual starvation.

2 cents spent.

Brilliant.

Collinsky

I don't necessarily believe in "starvation mode" as people talk about it here... but I absolutely 100% believe that if you go on a diet that is too calorie restrictive, that if you ever start eating at a normal amount (like, what you're supposed to eat) then there is a "bounceback" where you tend to regain that weight, plus more besides. Whatever the reason for it, it happens over, and over, and over. Long term health, and long term weight loss, matters more to me than trying to lose everything really quickly... so I'd rather take a slow and steady approach and avoid the risk of gaining back my weight plus extra when I'm done with my "diet."

Everyone's situation is different, but having seen it happen so many times, to so many people, makes me think it's more the rule than the exception.