Starvation mode hysteria

grinch031

More than likely starvation mode on MFP = underestimating calories consumed, overestimating calories burned

MrsLVF

info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541

"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."

Starvation, yes.

Starvation mode, no.

Let's clarify.

Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.

Also, if someone was in the above scenario and the actually ate less, even much less, or even fasted, we all know they would start to lose weight. Yet, according to their reasoning behind the starvation mode, they should actually go further into this mode and not lose anymore weight at all.

Now, if someone consistently consumes a low calorie intake, or is in a negative calorie balance, and gets to a point where they have used up all their reserves of essential fats, they will enter what is known as "starvation" and not "starvation mode". And, they must eat at this time or they will soon die. This is not a weight issue but a life and death issue. And, we know that if they do eat, they will gain weight, not lose weight, as hypothesized in the starvation mode theory.

So, starvation mode does not exist. Starvation does and anyone can reach that point.

In starvation mode, they say you must eat more than you are, so you will lose more weight, which is absolutely incorrect.

In starvation, you must eat or you will die and you will gain weight as a result of eating.

You can see how they have completely misrepresented the actual issue of starvation into their crazy theory of the starvation mode."

shanahan_09

...

shanahan_09

If you're not losing weight, eat less or move more.

The problem is this blanket statement doesn't apply to all situations (the inherent danger of blanket statements). While I think there is a bit of hysteria revolving around "starvation mode" and exercise calories on MFP, I think the most dangerous thing someone can do is drop blanket statements everywhere on the message boards.

If you aren't losing weight the only solution is to eat less.

You absolutely need to eat more to lose.

Never eat your exercise calories.

Always eat your exercise calories.

No wonder newbies here are overwhelmed. I prefer to take a "hey, this works for some, but it may not work for you" approach. There is no one size fits all when it comes to weight loss. These boards would be a little more friendly if people were a little less opinionated and a little more open. People lose a couple of pounds and suddenly we are all weight loss and nutrition experts.

You stated this perfectly! Thank you!!

Melanie12081

Would you feel better if we said people were bringing themselves to a point of "inadequate overall nutrition leading to the body's need to leach from itself, and insufficient metabolic support to encourage efficient mobilization of fat stores as fuel" ?

It's a lot longer, but if it would help.....

:flowerforyou:

I wish there was a "like" button for just such a post.

Matt_Wild

For all the guys I coach the method is clear.

We initially reduce calories to just below maintenance. We then factor in weights being lifted and 1 sessions of cardio per day for 50 mins, 6 days a week and a second bit of cardio on a weights day, which is usually 4 days a week for 20 mins. If they plateau I'll add in a second 30-50 min section of cardio and chart weight loss. If it stalls, only at this point will I remove calories from the diet. At no point will I ever increase calories.

Every person I've coached gets to sub 10% body fat, men and women. The process is easy, people simply over estimate how many calories they need and over estimates how much calories their workouts burn.

CyberEd312

info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541

"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."

Starvation, yes.

Starvation mode, no.

Let's clarify.

Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.

I'll bet you my 302 lbs. lost this statement is DEAD WRONG...........

Matt_Wild

]Would you feel better if we said people were bringing themselves to a point of "inadequate overall nutrition leading to the body's need to leach from itself, and insufficient metabolic support to encourage efficient mobilization of fat stores as fuel" ?

Essentially the science is - reduce your calories too low and leptin will not be released which on turn will slow your metabolism down by the body slowing the production and release of triiodothyronine (T3) which means your metabolism will slow to a crawl to preserve as much as it can.

However this level varies person to person so 800 calories could lead to weight loss (and muscle) in one person and in another they may need 1400-1600 calories to see the same - because of different muscle mass levels, fat levels, activity levels etc etc. For someone who cares about muscle mass I would never drop too low however.

kateroot

Amen, OP, amen. Starvation mode is such bull.

MJ7910

i don't know if anyone needs to get "alarmed" about it... but it does lower your metabolism in the long term to eat 1200 or fewer calories. if you eat more and lose more slowly you'll be more satisfied which seems better in my mind. also if you eat more, you preserve more of your muscle. sounds like a lot of reasons to not eat less. maybe it's just the term that you have a problem with, not the actual idea of it (which really does suck).

JennetteMac

Would you feel better if we said people were bringing themselves to a point of "inadequate overall nutrition leading to the body's need to leach from itself, and insufficient metabolic support to encourage efficient mobilization of fat stores as fuel" ?

It's a lot longer, but if it would help.....

:flowerforyou:

Actually, you putting it like that has explained it beautifully. Thanks!!:happy:

jasonr1442

Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim? Those people twittering on about starvation mode need to get a life, start losing weight, and stop scaremongering. I don't advocate starving as a weight-loss method, but fasting for a day or two never did anyone harm. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the SM term used on here, and feel it is a popular phrase used by people who eat too much...

Sorry for the short rant, but this has bugged me for a while. Feel free to crucify me...

Regards, David

Awesome article!!

I know, right. Metabolic slowdown does occur when going on a hypocaloric diets, but the term starvation mode is used way too often. Basically, it's used here so much as a scare tactic to keep the idiots from killing themselves.

Read this here people

http://muscleevo.com/lyle-mcdonald-interview-one/

yesthistime

bump.

get_fit_Milena

yes, thank you for the level headed response, that is what I think too, as a newbie it is confusing to read all those.
also, some people have medical conditions etc.

tigersword

"Starvation Mode," is the wrong term. It's actually called "famine response," and it's a hormonal and metabolic shift that puts your body in a state of conservation. The body is always looking for homeostasis, and fat is an extremely important tissue, thatthe body will make every attempt to hold onto in times of fasting. We evolved eating large meals, and then fasting for extended periods while searching for more food. Chronic undereating shifts the body into a conservation mode, as a survival instinct. It will burn as little fat as possible, to make it last as long as possible, to keep you alive as long as possible.

When you stop losing weight, it's because your body has slowed your metabolism to match what you are eating. Eating more breaks this, because it resets your hormone levels and responses, kicking your body out of conservation mode, and back into normal fat burning mode.

ahinski

There is a difference between eating 900 calories a day, and then binging once a week on 3,000 calories, (which is what many people "dieting" do) and eating 200 calories a day with limited fresh water and lack of vitamins (which is what starving people do).

kennethmgreen

I think the term is used for lack of a better word.... No one is using the term starvation mode in the context of not eating food for days on end, or some sort of famine diet..... They are basically using this term in the form when you run a large caloric deficit for sometime that it eventually will cause your metabolism to slow to the point that your weightloss stalls and you hit weeks of plateau's. That is the way I have used the term in the past and will continue too for lack of a better one....... And I don't use it because I eat to much but through trial and error I can tell you for me now I have to eat more to lose weight. I am in the camp of eating to fuel my workouts and I am losing a pound a week 32 months and 302 lbs. lost into this journey..... Just my 2 cents.......

Exactly. Your post is worth a lot more than 2 cents.

greasygriddle_wechnage

thank you

DahnaK

I don't know you, but am definitely inspired! You go dude! I am trying to lose 112 pds...can't even imagine what you have done! Good job!

russellma

I think the term is used for lack of a better word.... No one is using the term starvation mode in the context of not eating food for days on end, or some sort of famine diet..... They are basically using this term in the form when you run a large caloric deficit for sometime that it eventually will cause your metabolism to slow to the point that your weightloss stalls and you hit weeks of plateau's. That is the way I have used the term in the past and will continue too for lack of a better one....... And I don't use it because I eat to much but through trial and error I can tell you for me now I have to eat more to lose weight. I am in the camp of eating to fuel my workouts and I am losing a pound a week 32 months and 302 lbs. lost into this journey..... Just my 2 cents.......

^^^This.

I'm not sure that everyone works the same, but, for me, there was a fine balance between eating too little (effectively causing my body to resist losing fat) and eating too much (causing an excess that my body stored as fat).

1200 calories was too low for me, without even factoring in exercise calories. When I started eating more and utilizing the exercise calories that I earned, my body rewarded me with weight loss. Hurrah!