Another non-believer of "starvation mode"?

heybales

On the topic of getting into conservation mode and desiring to get back out to full healthy burning BMR.

Don't be fueled by the link name, btw.

http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender). After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

---

So her BMR went up over 300 calories. Each and every day. 2100 calories of free burn had been lost each week at the lowered BMR level.

6 weeks to get out, wow. But even during that time, lost 5 lbs weight, and a greater part of it fat.

becjerami

On the topic of getting into conservation mode and desiring to get back out to full healthy burning BMR.

Don't be fueled by the link name, btw.

http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender). After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

---

So her BMR went up over 300 calories. Each and every day. 2100 calories of free burn had been lost each week at the lowered BMR level.

6 weeks to get out, wow. But even during that time, lost 5 lbs weight, and a greater part of it fat.

Encouraging to see there's still hope for people who have been regularly underfeeding themselves. The body is pretty amazing, I say.

littlemsmuffet

^^^ Good illustration and study! The body is so adaptable - that's why starvation "mode" strikes a strange note with me. There are definitely responses of the body to starvation but I think "mode" should be replaced with something more fitting ("effect", "response", "dynamic").

Eating fewer calories...I'm not even sure that it necessarily means the body is truly "starving". If restricted conditions are low but low enough for the body to adapt to (even 950 calories in the case of this study), the individual wouldn't be "starving", per ce, because their cells ARE making use of their resources and have simply lowered their demand...I would think the individual could continue to live on ~950 calories and may even seem/be healthy because of cellular adaptation. Am on the right track or just running in circles?

I always thought true starvation was lowering energy so much that the ultimate end was death by catabolism :huh:

stormieweather

Starvation "mode" and actual "starvation" are NOT the same thing. Starvation "mode" is when your body begins to adapt to the reduced caloric intake. It always happens when you eat at a deficit. BUT, it is generally only harmful when the intake is much too low (less than 50% of needed calories-ie: VLCD) AND happens for long periods of time (weeks or months). The "mode" indicates a a "condition of functioning", ie: an overall change in metabolism, that of conservation...why do people ignore that part of the phrase?

LorinaLynn

Instead of calling it "Starvation Mode," how about "Compromised Metabolism?" That's what underfeeding did for me.

minnesota_deere

starvation mode is another gimmic created by people who want to keep you fat so they can put more money in there pocket from the products they sell.

heybales

Eating fewer calories...I'm not even sure that it necessarily means the body is truly "starving". If restricted conditions are low but low enough for the body to adapt to (even 950 calories in the case of this study), the individual wouldn't be "starving", per ce, because their cells ARE making use of their resources and have simply lowered their demand...I would think the individual could continue to live on ~950 calories and may even seem/be healthy because of cellular adaptation. Am on the right track or just running in circles?

Not circles, correct.

Her concern was why had she gained 15 lbs despite working out so much, and couldn't lose it.

So that is what can happen on "conservation mode" living.

BMR was lowered so much by big calorie deficit, that despite those low numbers, it appears whenever she took the chance to eat more, her body kept it, and it appears kept it as fat, and refused to give it up.

I'm sure during that year she was probably not always eating 1000-1200. Either part of the year higher, or perhaps it was totally a few splurge weeks. I'm sure she had to get sick with that much training and undereating. 1 sick week of eating more could easily add 3-4 lbs to an underfed body. Or she had discouraged weeks and splurged, on it went.

MassiveDelta

starvation mode is another gimmic created by people who want to keep you fat so they can put more money in there pocket from the products they sell.

That's blatantly false

YukonJoy

scientists have proven that if you dont eat for 3 day/72 hours your metabolism starts to slow. thats starvation mode kicking in, the study also concluded that your metabolism didnt slow at all in the first 3 days in fact i think it said it went up as your survival mode kicks in which means you actually need to go get food! certain hormones are released to give you that energised feeling
i believe many people dont track truly what they are eating. ohh that looks like 100g of rice, when actually it was closer to 140 now do this on most things you home prepare and it mounts up! also i believe people that dont lose, but i think more then likely they are dropping lbs of fat of slowly and replacing them slowly with muscles. your body has so many muscles in it and most people dont have all of them to a descent level. i certainly dont.
the muscle gains would purely be newbie gains for actually making the muscle work.

Omg I heart it so much when people say "scientists say/have proven" and don't back up their statement with research links.

It's so awesome. :flowerforyou: Go you.

uncbluegirl

I'm still Starvation Mode Agnostic....

.....


I have been on about 1200-1400 per day net since 1st Jan and am still losing well. I feel like i'd be surprised if I plateaued, it seems counter-intuitive, but we shall see.

^^^this is exactly my stance on the matter...if i end up plateauing, and can't break it, then my view might change if upping the calories a bit ends up working. but for now, time will tell!!

DatEpicChick

my issue with this topic is that i am taking nutrition right now in college, and it clearly states that:

YOUR MUSCLES WILL BE THE LAST THING THAT GIVES UP ITS NUTRIENTS TO SUPPLY THE BODY.
Your liver hold 3-4 hours worth of nutrients (which is why you should eat incrementally)
and then the fat cells will begin to release the stored fat.

My feeling is that if you are working out and eating whole foods consistently throughout the day,
and drinking a minimum of 50 oz of water, there is no reason to gorge yourself, or starve yourself.

I have been consistant with eating throughout the day, i burn 500 calories every morning on my treadmill AND i got to the gym for 2 hours daily, and i have been losing TONS of weight. I am currently on day twelve of this activity, so i guess i will let you know.

But instead of eating SO LITTLE and then ALWAYS thinking about food, i have supplemented with homework, exercise, and LOTS of water. Not only that, but cutting up a fuji apple, and eating that 41 calories over a ten minute period gives me something to snack on instead of wolfing down a hostess snack in 3 seconds and wishing i had more.

Everything isnt going to work for everybody, but this is working for me. I'm not 'starving' myself, but i dont know if i believe you can starve yourself if you eat every 2-4 hours, even just a snack, simply because,

the body knows how to adapt, it knows how to adjust, and it knows how to let you know if something is wrong.

It takes time, effort, and ALOT of self control, but i no longer stare at the kitchen and cry, so i've adjusted to this.

BTW, BRINGING UP STARVATION MODE:

Have you ever thought about the fact that if the government said that the best way to lose weight is to NOT eat more young girls would do just that? Think about how many girls are literally starving themselves for days right now, taking laxatives, and throwing their food up, WITH the 'starvation mode' controversy. Now think of how many pudgy high school girls would join that crowd if society stood up and legitly told them not eating was the best way to go about. I think there is a part of this controversy that is just politics, but i could be wrong.

melrose09

After 31 months and losing 295 lbs. and all the trial and error that I have went through and I am speaking from my own experience of course there is such a think as creating such a huge deficit between your diet and exercise that your body responds by slowing down your metabolism and start retaining nutrition that you are feeding it because with the deficit you are giving it , it has no idea when the next meal is going to come hence the term starvation mode effect get thrown around. I don't necessarily like the term in its general form but the effects are real.. believe me..... I have lived and learned the hard way. just my 2 cents........

295 lbs down! You are awesome! Whatever you did obviously works wonders for you! WTG!

CallmeSbo

bump

retrochick65

I beleive that if you plateau then your body is trying to hold on to food as you may be on too few calories. This happened to my friends son. He upped his calories by 100 calories per day and the weight started to come off again. It may also mean that the exercise you are doing ne eds to be tweaked as your body changes as you lose weight. I for one think that the trainers on the biggest loser seem to be there to compete against each other and not care about the contestents. It seems rather extreme to me.

littlemsmuffet

BTW, BRINGING UP STARVATION MODE:

Have you ever thought about the fact that if the government said that the best way to lose weight is to NOT eat more young girls would do just that? Think about how many girls are literally starving themselves for days right now, taking laxatives, and throwing their food up, WITH the 'starvation mode' controversy. Now think of how many pudgy high school girls would join that crowd if society stood up and legitly told them not eating was the best way to go about. I think there is a part of this controversy that is just politics, but i could be wrong.

I think our government shouldn't lie to us.
It doesn't take "the government" to stop anorexia. Eating less IS a good way to lose weight. Counting calories is a good way to eat less. Individuals make choices and I am extremely grateful for that.

allisonmrichard

I have found that I lose the most (about two pounds) when I stick to a diet of 1000 - 1200 calories a week. Some days, I am as low as 800 when you take into account my exercise and total calories consumed. But I only eat when I'm hungry and I only eat healthy foods. I continue to lose weight and I feel great. I'm still technically overweight and still have fat stores have more than enough energy stored. So no, I do not believe it starvation mode either.

savage22hp

Instead of calling it "Starvation Mode," how about "Compromised Metabolism?" That's what underfeeding did for me.

I like this ,it doesn't immediately bring to mind zero loss with zero calorie intake which I think may be the problem some have with the starvation mode terminology .

minnesota_deere

starvation mode is another gimmic created by people who want to keep you fat so they can put more money in there pocket from the products they sell.

That's blatantly false

i dont' believe any of this krap, you eat less , be active, you lose weight, simple common sense. all the BS propaganda out there is just krap to sell more krap to you, some scientist/doctor needs to justify there education and the tax payers money they piss away. if you want to lose weight, STOP STUFFING YOUR FACE WITH JUNK FOOD!!!!!

mom2jjl

I have found that I lose the most (about two pounds) when I stick to a diet of 1000 - 1200 calories a week. Some days, I am as low as 800 when you take into account my exercise and total calories consumed. But I only eat when I'm hungry and I only eat healthy foods. I continue to lose weight and I feel great. I'm still technically overweight and still have fat stores have more than enough energy stored. So no, I do not believe it starvation mode either.

AGREED!!!

auroranflash

I think I will listen to the guy that lost 300lbs. 0_0

Congratulations!