Starvation Mode
LuciaLongIsland
Posts: 815 Member
There is a lot of discussion here on this topic. I have done a lot of research on google. I thought this article explains the truth about Starvation Mode. It is lengthy but informative.
Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?
Written by j.novick
Saturday, 03 January 2009 19:23
Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorders and saw this common dieting myth was in accurate. Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating to few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.
Really?
Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."
First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere and to maintain a certain level of weight, and equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.
Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.
Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30 and attempts to tract exercise and activities levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem tat people are not accurately determining their caloric intake and output.
Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".
In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.
Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they 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.
We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.
But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.
So, where did this myth come from?
There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that.
Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s. Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you then them, then neither are you
In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself and if it is not feed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.
This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually it is due to an inaccurate assesment of their energy balance.
Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it is easy to diagnose and can be easily treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.
So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and mantain a healthy level of activity.
In Health
Jeff
Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?
Written by j.novick
Saturday, 03 January 2009 19:23
Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorders and saw this common dieting myth was in accurate. Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating to few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.
Really?
Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."
First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere and to maintain a certain level of weight, and equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.
Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.
Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30 and attempts to tract exercise and activities levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem tat people are not accurately determining their caloric intake and output.
Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".
In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.
Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they 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.
We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.
But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.
So, where did this myth come from?
There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that.
Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s. Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you then them, then neither are you
In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself and if it is not feed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.
This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually it is due to an inaccurate assesment of their energy balance.
Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it is easy to diagnose and can be easily treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.
So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and mantain a healthy level of activity.
In Health
Jeff
0
Replies
-
Thank-you for this.0
-
Thank you for posting this!0
-
Hmm seems to partly right. Main issue is however that he does not take into account metabolic slowdown and the slower metabolism of overweight individuals that have lost weight.0
-
thank you. I had read those articles too. my weight was static. Many of my friends kept telling me 'I needed to eat more', especially as I was doing so much high impact cardio (up to 7 hours/wk) I was so fed up,........
i did eat more and put on 2lbs!!!!!!
I then spent a few days looking at all the research available on google...... same articles you have quoted.
I changed some of the foods I was eating regularly by experimenting with new recipes/foods etc but kept within my calorie allowance!
The weight is coming off again at approx 1-1.5lb/week.
i just wish well intentioned friends/colleagues would stop quoting about 'starvation mode'. it doesn't exist for overweight individuals!!!!!0 -
Agreed! "Starvation Mode" is a bit dramatic, and it really should be reserved to communicate a condition of those who are truly about to starve to death. I am guilty of using this term more liberally than I should. I guess I have a flare for the dramatic. HOWEVER, there is a sliver of truth to the theory that shouldn't be thrown out with the drama club. The tactic of "eat more to weigh less" can work to break plateaus, because of a real mode called "homeostasis." This little gem is built into our genetic code and has been preserving lives (and fat stores) for thousands of years. This isn't the fix all, because not everyone watching the scale stick is really in a state of homeostasis, and it certainly isn't an excuse to go on a Krispy Kreme bender.
I found this great article that looks scientifically sound, and is put more simply and clearly than anything else I've seen. It's a fantastic explanation with tips and tools to determine what is really going on when the scale won't budge AND HOW TO FIX IT. I will be referring to it when my plateau comes... and it will.
http://www.answerfitness.com/208/weight-loss-plateau-tactics-overcoming-weight-loss-plateau/0 -
Thanks for posting this article, it makes perfect sense to me! I've wondered over the very fact that people die from starvation all over the world and yet people here seem to be obsessed with eating more if your working out or exercising. I don't believe I could go into Starvation at all since my body has fat stores all over it ... By exercising more and eating good healthy food and staying within a reasonable calorie deficient to maintain the body. I will lose the fat all in good time. Good Article!0
-
In reality I just say it to stop people from doing something stupid like starve themselves0
-
Finally, someone sensible with great information.
Thanks for the article and for having common sense!0 -
Finally, someone sensible with great information.
Thanks for the article and for having common sense!
This.0 -
hmmm...interesting!0
-
Well here comes mister contrary and mr hates the fitness industry...
With all due respect....
Sounds clean cut and logical, but sense it makes absolutely no mention of what really matters, and that is hormonal interaction, I dismiss this as another article that wants to be contrary(kinda like me) . It's always useful to get a rise out of a populous by going against the grain or popular dogma and ritual. Like when I eat hot dogs and doughnuts and blog about it. Or I'm working on my six pack by squatting and how one doesn't need to do ab work. It gets attention. I mean we could throw in the thermic effect of food and be here all day debating how many calories one needs when 30% of it is merely released into the universe as heat.
The truth is one must manipulate the caloric intake, for some, rather, MANY individuals, by increasing caloric input in many cases. It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it's easier to sum it all up as that. I use the term metabolic damage often, but that makes people cringe and panic, and then you have to soften it up and re-explain. Noone wants to learn about beta receptors/oxidation, insulin sensitivity, leptin, cortisol, etc. 50% of my overweight clients that are on a "diet" are eating way too few calories when i find them. I tell them they need to eat more.
Now yes, is it tossed around a little too often, well it depends on who's doing the tossing I guess. I just don't think most people have a clue what the hell they are talking about anyways, have never studied real published work/research or taken a class, and are just regurgitating what joe trainer said at the gym, on the dvd, or what they read in the rag. I mean, sorry, but that's just the way it is, and it perpetuates, and it all works because sooner or later the subject, in desperation, eats so few calories and/or does so much extreme exercising , that they push past whatever plateau in all the wrong ways, while giving good graces to whoever/wherever they got their "plan of action" from. ...and that's part of the reason why I hate the industry in general. You can watch a bunch of doctors get on t.v. and lie to sell products, and it's no big deal. As far as eating too little, I mean heck I'll go all day without eating and throw in some fasting or like tonight, eat three hot dogs, fries and a twix and dare someone to criticize me.
And, again, with all due respect. Google is part of the problem! It's like "researching" on how to do exercises on youtube. Forget it. if you want peer reviewed, double blind studied, professional research, go to pub med, ajcn, Advances in nutrition, British journals of "fill in the blank" to name a few. Go to www.TheFitnessTutor.com and listen to that guy hem and haw, he's got alot of new updates, vids, skits, etc, coming up soon! Oh wait what, you're never heard of Reggie? I've never heard of J. Novick either. But he writes great catchy articles too!0 -
^^ This.
I see little science and lots of common sense. Shame common sense doesn't often work.
How many posts are on here of people incredibly frustrated because they're not losing weight? They eat 1200 calories. They measure. They exercise. HARD. Yet it's not budging. When you prod their Net is most often between 600-900. Yet according to this article they're just liars. Not measuring. Simple.
If you eat nothing of course you'll lose weight. You're getting no nutrients. But eating too little? Your body will hang on to what it can.
Ultimatly the people who wish to starve themselves will do so. They won't heed the advice. A lot of them will even lose weight. (not sure how many will keep it off though. Hope they do! They'll continue to be hungry, irritable and not enjoying their weight loss. I'll continue eating my 1600 calories plus whatever I burn and will continue losing weight. If it stops working I'll reevaluate. But until then I'll enjoy my food.0 -
Does he have any scientific backing (other than the law of thermodynamics) for this or is this article just bro science?
And as for the law of thermodynamics, it's not the only thing that affects how are bodies work. Something he seems to have missed completely.
Quite honestly, a lot of his 'common sense' is refuted by a lot of the posts in this forum where people are eating too little, start to eat more and start to lose weight again. Sometimes it's even more than when they were on a severe calorie deficit.
The bottom line is there is no one way that is right for everyone. So telling people to continue to starve themselves when it's clearly not working for them is completely irresponsible.0 -
Hmm seems to partly right. Main issue is however that he does not take into account metabolic slowdown and the slower metabolism of overweight individuals that have lost weight.
But isn't that readily explained by these individuals being physically smaller and thus requiring lower calories to sustain themselves?0 -
^^ Good point about being smaller in stature and build.0
-
Yes, because it was Googled it must be true.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions