Starvation mode is a myth, so why do we keep saying it exist
Options
Replies
-
Also, your except is quoting a study published in the journal 'Nature' - I am not sure that this is the best evidence to indicate the accuracy of Wikipedia for everything.
Nature and Science are the most prestigious scientific journals, period. If it's in Nature, it's the beans.
If it's in Nature, it's the best of our current understanding.0 -
Also, your except is quoting a study published in the journal 'Nature' - I am not sure that this is the best evidence to indicate the accuracy of Wikipedia for everything.
Nature and Science are the most prestigious scientific journals, period. If it's in Nature, it's the beans.
If it's in Nature, it's the best of our current understanding.
I was making the point about it being about 'everything' - but thanks for the clarification about the source in relation to science.0 -
whether starvation mode is a myth or not won't be decided on MFP. I'm finding it a lil hard to believe that the site doesn't have moderators?
If I type starvation mode/1200 calories into the search bar countless posts will come up and it's essentially all the same information.
If MFP does have moderators my suggestion is this can we have one topic locked onto the Post menu where people can post relevant sources for and against this "myth" so that the message board doesn't get clogged up with topics like this because its quite clear to me that this argument has and will be a recurring theme on here.
There are more credible sources then wiki that states there is no such mode and I'm sure vice versa. If the moderators are open to the suggestion of creating a locked topic all people who feel strongly for and against can compile a short summary as to their beliefs and links with multiple sources that led them to that belief.
On a personal note people are not created the same! Yes we all belong to the same species, but that doesn't mean our bodies will react the same way to everything. There are too many factors involved to determine the magical "1200", now I'm not saying we can't share our experiences with each other this is a message board after all, but just because you went into what you consider "starvation mode" is not to say the next person will experience the same thing with "-1200".
Of course your body will shut down when it doesn't get enough nutrients and you can die from not eating. Consult a doctor or a professional if you really worried that you eating too lil or not enough of one particular thing. At the very least do your own research on "1200" and get sources that's not just MFP.0 -
'Nature' is about 'everything', that is, it publishes studies from all fields of research, not just natural sciences. (what I mean is, if the mentioned study was published in Nature that doesn't mean that only science articles on wiki were assessed).Also, your except is quoting a study published in the journal 'Nature' - I am not sure that this is the best evidence to indicate the accuracy of Wikipedia for everything.
Nature and Science are the most prestigious scientific journals, period. If it's in Nature, it's the beans.
If it's in Nature, it's the best of our current understanding.
I was making the point about it being about 'everything' - but thanks for the clarification about the source in relation to science.0 -
take away the fuel and your body will become super efficient and not burn calories
So if I don't eat I'm going to drop dead ? That's the only way my body isn't going to burn calories. How long does this take - minutes, hours, days, months - just so I know and can adjust my eating frequency to match.0 -
I was eating 1200 and lost nothing for 3 months!!!! Needless to say how frustrated I was. Then I read here that I have to up my calories and calculated an amount that gave me a higher calorie goal. I started on that and guess what?!!! I started putting on a lot!!!! of weight.
Now I eat 1000 calories a day and started losing weight like crazy. So, no I don't believe in that either!
Maybe that's because you are already skin and bones!! In order for you to lose more weight your gonna have to cut off a limb!!
That picture is taken a few years back, put on 15 kilograms since then.
I am not here for getting insect thin, even though I might not weigh as much as others in here. That doesn't mean I can't be here on this site and get fit, log in my exercise and food intake. People are here for different reasons. Your point is irrelevant!0 -
Guidelines say the average woman should consume 2000 calories a day to stay healthy, the lowest recommended calorie intake is 1200 a day. Over a week that's 14000 - 8400 = 5600 deficit. Why would you want to go any lower than that? My diet has took me from 900 cals per day to 1600 calories per day and guess what? I'm losing MORE eating the 1600. Anyone who eats less than 1200 calories is kidding themselves that they are being healthy, even medically supervised. But it's amazing how often someone will post this topic to try to justify their bad eating habits0
-
Wiki? Are you serious?
This!!!!
0 -
If MFP does have moderators my suggestion is this can we have one topic locked onto the Post menu where people can post relevant sources for and against this "myth" so that the message board doesn't get clogged up with topics like this because its quite clear to me that this argument has and will be a recurring theme on here.
This topic ("eat more not less" or "Starvation mode" - same topic) and "do I eat back my exercise calories back?" - Both are the daily debate topics.0 -
This about covers it.Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").
Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.
In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.
And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.
Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.0 -
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
This.
The number of calories calculated for me by MFP seems to be too high, especially when one factors in the difficulty of correct accounting. As I've pointed out before, the calorie estimates on the labels are not always accurate, companies are allowed a margin of error of +/- 15 (or maybe it's 20)%. So even if you measure every single thing you eat you could still be off significantly. I'm recovering from an injury and cannot do heavy cardio so I've set my activity level as "sedentary."
In a week or two, I may try using Fitbit's calculation, which is around 1,000.0 -
If we are to go by just testimonies, then yes it's BS, but Azdak is one that doesn't comment from anecdotal information. I agree with him on this because being in the actual business (like he is) where we deal with people on a day to day basis, we actually not only have to keep up with research, but also actually see what he has posted with many many clients.
This about covers it.Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").
Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.
In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.
And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.
Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
I am daily bombarded with members of our Wellness center coming in and asking for help and when I sit down and evaluate them, much of what he has posted is true. Many members have issues with hormones they weren't aware of. Many have reduced activity because calorie deficit made them feel weaker.
That's not to say what you're stating isn't relevant either because I also come across the valid issues you brought up. I do have members that totally overestimate their burn and eat much more than they think.
All in all, there is no one way with the exception that we know that to lose weight, a calorie deficit has to be the focus. How much and for how long will always be debated.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
If we are to go by just testimonies, then yes it's BS, but Azdak is one that doesn't comment from anecdotal information. I agree with him on this because being in the actual business (like he is) where we deal with people on a day to day basis, we actually not only have to keep up with research, but also actually see what he has posted with many many clients.
This about covers it.Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").
Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.
In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.
And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.
Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
I am daily bombarded with members of our Wellness center coming in and asking for help and when I sit down and evaluate them, much of what he has posted is true. Many members have issues with hormones they weren't aware of. Many have reduced activity because calorie deficit made them feel weaker.
That's not to say what you're stating isn't relevant either because I also come across the valid issues you brought up. I do have members that totally overestimate their burn and eat much more than they think.
All in all, there is no one way with the exception that we know that to lose weight, a calorie deficit has to be the focus. How much and for how long will always be debated.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I actually believe that hormones play a HUGE role in determining whether someone is lean or obese. But its not by slowing down their BMR or allowing them to do endless amount of work without burning any calories. Basically hormones make you overeat and they make you lethargic. When someone is eating 1200 calories/day and working out for 5 hours a week and not losing weight, then they are defying the laws of physics. If they had hormone problems, then they are either stuffing their faces with food and not logging it, or they are sitting home because they are too tired to go to the gym.0 -
This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...0
-
This about covers it.Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").
Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.
In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.
And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.
Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
????? Curious choice of words since nothing you wrote is related to anything that I wrote.
What you are describing (accurately) is a different part of the discussion than what I was addressing.0 -
This about covers it.Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").
Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.
In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.
And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.
Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
????? Curious choice of words since nothing you wrote is related to anything that I wrote.
What you are describing (accurately) is a different part of the discussion than what I was addressing.
I think it did relate. You're saying its mainly individual variances, and I think its mainly inability to properly account for caloric intake and expenditure.0 -
This about covers it.Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").
Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.
In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.
And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.
Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.
????? Curious choice of words since nothing you wrote is related to anything that I wrote.
What you are describing (accurately) is a different part of the discussion than what I was addressing.
I think it did relate. You're saying its mainly individual variances, and I think its mainly inability to properly account for caloric intake and expenditure.
No, I said individual variances contribute to the confusion and to the varied responses that people experience. Because they are unaware of the variances, people insist their experience is "true" and is the standard for others. That's just one reason of several for the confusion that people have about this subject.
Another one is in the area that you described--i.e. (and I hope I characterize your words correctly) that people tend to be poor record-keepers/estimators and thus what they perceived as "slowed metabolic rate/starvation mode" is actually unrealized increased eating.
A third reason is the fact that, over time, people subconsciously tend to fall into a new balance in their TEE. It's often a combination of small increases in food intake + small decreases in casual activity + getting into a habitual exercise routine + decreased REE due to decreased mass (weight).
And a fourth reason is that a combination of large-calorie deficits and high volumes of intense exercise can lead to chronically increased levels of stress hormones that inhibit fat loss.
A combination of these reasons is likely the culprit in about 95% of the cases in which people say they are in "starvation mode" which is why I never use the term (except to say that it's mis- and overused).0 -
Have to partially disagree here. Insulin resistance has a direct effect on metabolism due to how fat is stored and utilized. Effects on T3 and T4 also have a direct effect on metabolism.I actually believe that hormones play a HUGE role in determining whether someone is lean or obese. But its not by slowing down their BMR or allowing them to do endless amount of work without burning any calories. Basically hormones make you overeat and they make you lethargic. When someone is eating 1200 calories/day and working out for 5 hours a week and not losing weight, then they are defying the laws of physics. If they had hormone problems, then they are either stuffing their faces with food and not logging it, or they are sitting home because they are too tired to go to the gym.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...
118 lbs and 5'-9" ? That's low body fat and BMI of 17.4
http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator for a calculator
From a quick squint at your diary you need to get some more protein into your diet to build yourself up.0 -
This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...
118 lbs and 5'-9" ? That's low body fat and BMI of 17.4
http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator for a calculator
From a quick squint at your diary you need to get some more protein into your diet to build yourself up.
Not necessarily. Those numbers jump out because there is someone in our center who started with those exact measurements--her body fat is about 27%. She looks pretty normal, a little on the thin side (although not as much as you'd think). She eats normally, follows a typical recreational workout program, lifts weights--she's just built like a bird.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 994 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions