Starvation mode is a myth, so why do we keep saying it exist

KathyChampi

That makes sense!

warmachinejt

starvation mode is real

watboy

I have done it. Sooo ummm what now?

We fatties can also supply part of the daily fuel from the fat reserves we put on eating too much fuel in the past.

Hence we don't need to put gas in the tank and the same rate as the motor burns it 'cos we're running down a big tank too.

Prove it, eat VLCD then say that again.

watboy

4 years now. Was also told I wouldnt have any muscles.... Weird....

Here's some advice, if you haven't done it, eaten VLC for more than a month, you really can't say if it exist or doesn't.

ninerbuff

Can you cite any scientific study that demonstrates the extent of adaptive themogenesis is directly correlated to the size of calorie restriction? I have been unable to find one.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/abs/0803523a.html


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

Jessamine

I'm starting to think that critical reading of scientific studies should be a mandatory subject in PRIMARY school and not something that only ppl in science grad schools are thought.

I agree. This is why I am so enthusiastic about homeschooling my children.

Scientific publications and studies are good to read, but you should not automatically believe them. Just because ONE or TWO studies were done doesn't mean that it's findings should be taken as truth.

ninerbuff

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.).

This about covers it.


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

ChelseaM18

Oh My God, FINALLY!! Someone who also believes this starvation mode is a big wobbly myth. We are a generation of very well-fed humans, we are not going to starve or waste away into nothing or have our body go into an overdrive of panic if we haven't eaten in several hours. If this happened then we would disintegrate in our sleep when we decide to sleep those extra few hours.

ninerbuff

I'm starting to think that critical reading of scientific studies should be a mandatory subject in PRIMARY school and not something that only ppl in science grad schools are thought.

I agree. This is why I am so enthusiastic about homeschooling my children.

Scientific publications and studies are good to read, but you should not automatically believe them. Just because ONE or TWO studies were done doesn't mean that it's findings should be taken as truth.

Which is why they are peer reviewed and can be refuted. But much better to have an actual peer reviewed study done than to just trust anecdotes and opinions.


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

Fit4_Life

I eat 1000 Cal a day. I have hypothyroid. Aunt Flo comes and visits regularly. I have been on a 1000 Cal's a day for 9 months now..and lost 66 lbs. So I do not consider myself starvation mode. I feel just fine! Everyone should mind their own business!

ninerbuff

Your body is extremely adaptable- if you drop your calories to an amount that the body cannot handle, it will stop burning fat because it knows that it has to preserve every bit of energy that it can get!! If you don't fuel your body right your metabolism immediately slows down as a way to keep energy levels up. Of course you will lose weight eventually, but to punish your body like that is something that isn't maintainable, and will just result in a sad and even unhealthier lifestyle in the long run!!!!

Also to note, that if restriction is long enough, then the body will rid itself of higher energy burning tissue in response to survival. Namely lean muscle tissue.


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

monty619

why cant people just eat with moderation? its all about calories and macros but why go to extremes such as intermittent fasting, and ketogenic diets just eat with a caloric defecit and you find success in losing body weight, however without sufficient protein and fats the human body will lose lean muscle tissue and slow down your metabolic rate... food is the key to success so stop starving ur selves!

opus649

Can you cite any scientific study that demonstrates the extent of adaptive themogenesis is directly correlated to the size of calorie restriction? I have been unable to find one.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/abs/0803523a.html

Not to be a jerk, but did you actually read the study? Because I did, and it doesn't say anything about the size of the calorie restriction having a direct correlation to the size of adaptive thermogenesis.

Here is a key excerpt from the study:

"In conclusion, based on studies that have shown a greater than predicted decrease in EE under energy restriction circumstances, this review presented arguments in support of the potential of adaptive thermogenesis to impede obesity treatment on a short- and long-term basis, at least in some individuals."

Note the inclusion of "at least in some individuals." That means even in the study, not all of the subjects had extra drops in metabolism, even at very low calorie levels.

Here's another key excerpt that I really, really, really hope people will read:

"Indeed, it has been well demonstrated that the decrease in EE during energy restriction and weight loss programs can be greater than expected from the decrease in fat mass and fat-free mass,3, 4, 5 despite these two variables accounting for over 82% of the variance in EE."

In other words, 82% of energy expenditure drop is caused by a loss of mass (i.e. when you lose weight, you burn less calories). 82%. The vast majority of your BMR drop is expected and caused by having less mass, not by any "starvation mode" or "survival response" or whatever. So actually, the study you linked kinda disproves your argument rather than supports it.

1sweetpea70

QUOTE:

If I'm not hungry, I'm not going to eat. Plain and simple. Eating when you are not hungry is a big no no, so if I'm below whatever calorie goal I may be pursuing....i don't really give a flying f**k
......yup....same.

watboy

Word.

Oh My God, FINALLY!! Someone who also believes this starvation mode is a big wobbly myth. We are a generation of very well-fed humans, we are not going to starve or waste away into nothing or have our body go into an overdrive of panic if we haven't eaten in several hours. If this happened then we would disintegrate in our sleep when we decide to sleep those extra few hours.

Rach_Gem_n_Disguise

I eat 1000 Cal a day. I have hypothyroid. Aunt Flo comes and visits regularly. I have been on a 1000 Cal's a day for 9 months now..and lost 66 lbs. So I do not consider myself starvation mode. I feel just fine! Everyone should mind their own business!

LOL Love it!!

watboy

Opus649 i'd kiss you if you weren't a dude.

Can you cite any scientific study that demonstrates the extent of adaptive themogenesis is directly correlated to the size of calorie restriction? I have been unable to find one.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/abs/0803523a.html

Not to be a jerk, but did you actually read the study? Because I did, and it doesn't say anything about the size of the calorie restriction having a direct correlation to the size of adaptive thermogenesis.

Here is a key excerpt from the study:

"In conclusion, based on studies that have shown a greater than predicted decrease in EE under energy restriction circumstances, this review presented arguments in support of the potential of adaptive thermogenesis to impede obesity treatment on a short- and long-term basis, at least in some individuals."

Note the inclusion of "at least in some individuals." That means even in the study, not all of the subjects had extra drops in metabolism, even at very low calorie levels.

Here's another key excerpt that I really, really, really hope people will read:

"Indeed, it has been well demonstrated that the decrease in EE during energy restriction and weight loss programs can be greater than expected from the decrease in fat mass and fat-free mass,3, 4, 5 despite these two variables accounting for over 82% of the variance in EE."

In other words, 82% of energy expenditure drop is caused by a loss of mass (i.e. when you lose weight, you burn less calories). 82%. The vast majority of your BMR drop is expected and caused by having less mass, not by any "starvation mode" or "survival response" or whatever. So actually, the study you linked kinda disproves your argument rather than supports it.

opus649

Also to note, that if restriction is long enough, then the body will rid itself of higher energy burning tissue in response to survival.

The idea that muscle burns significantly more calories than fat is also often overstated by (some) health professionals. Muscle burns 7-10 kcal/day while fat burns 2-3 kcal/day.

Source(s):

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/16/health/la-he-fitness-muscle-myth-20110516
http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

Britt2Fitjrny

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!!

cassietn

Be healthy and happy, listen to your body, calculate your BMR and don't go under it, and if you have any questions ask your doctor and not wikipedia

watboy

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone really. Prove starvation mode.

I have done it. Sooo ummm what now?

We fatties can also supply part of the daily fuel from the fat reserves we put on eating too much fuel in the past.

Hence we don't need to put gas in the tank and the same rate as the motor burns it 'cos we're running down a big tank too.

Prove it, eat VLCD then say that again.

Open your diary, and show us.

ninerbuff

Can you cite any scientific study that demonstrates the extent of adaptive themogenesis is directly correlated to the size of calorie restriction? I have been unable to find one.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n2/abs/0803523a.html

Not to be a jerk, but did you actually read the study? Because I did, and it doesn't say anything about the size of the calorie restriction having a direct correlation to the size of adaptive thermogenesis.

Here is a key excerpt from the study:

"In conclusion, based on studies that have shown a greater than predicted decrease in EE under energy restriction circumstances, this review presented arguments in support of the potential of adaptive thermogenesis to impede obesity treatment on a short- and long-term basis, at least in some individuals."

Note the inclusion of "at least in some individuals." That means even in the study, not all of the subjects had extra drops in metabolism, even at very low calorie levels.

Here's another key excerpt that I really, really, really hope people will read:

"Indeed, it has been well demonstrated that the decrease in EE during energy restriction and weight loss programs can be greater than expected from the decrease in fat mass and fat-free mass,3, 4, 5 despite these two variables accounting for over 82% of the variance in EE."

In other words, 82% of energy expenditure drop is caused by a loss of mass (i.e. when you lose weight, you burn less calories). 82%. The vast majority of your BMR drop is expected and caused by having less mass, not by any "starvation mode" or "survival response" or whatever. So actually, the study you linked kinda disproves your argument rather than supports it.

I don't deny there was a variance and that not all individuals had the same result. But the study doesn't disregard what I stated earlier.
While I don't disagree that loss of body mass will reduce metabolism (that's pretty much a given) my emphasis is that high calorie restriction will slow down metabolism.
Here's another:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstractControlled trial of the metabolic effects of a very-low-calorie diet: short- and long-term effects

GD Foster, TA Wadden, ID Feurer, AS Jennings, AJ Stunkard, LO Crosby, J Ship and JL Mullen
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia.

Resting energy expenditure (REE), weight, and body composition were measured up to seven times in 13 obese women during a 24-wk study. Patients were randomly assigned to a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD, 500 kcal/d) or a balanced-deficit diet (BDD, 1200 kcal/d). After 8 wk of supplemented fasting, REE of the VLCD patients decreased by 17% whereas that of the BDD patients was virtually unchanged. REE of the VLCD patients increased during 12 subsequent weeks of realimentation such that differences in REE between the two groups were not statistically significant at week 24 (VLCD = -11%, BDD = -2%). Reductions in weight and fat-free mass (FFM) were 12.1% and 3.6% for the VLCD patients and 10.6% and 4.1% for the BDD patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in pre- to posttreatment changes in REE normalized to FFM. Results suggest that REE recovers partially after consumption of a VLCD. They also provide evidence of a possible metabolic advantage of weight loss by a more moderate restriction.

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

huntindawg1962

[/quote]

---

Yea, the diet turns you into a fat burning machine but you can eat a lot of protein/fat.

---

[/quote]

Yes - but not because of starvation mode. You eat less due to feeling satiated from the protein and fats.

huntindawg1962

We fatties can also supply part of the daily fuel from the fat reserves we put on eating too much fuel in the past.

Hence we don't need to put gas in the tank and the same rate as the motor burns it 'cos we're running down a big tank too.

Prove it, eat VLCD then say that again.

What about people that had the gastric bypass surgery and only eat 500-800 calories per day - usually mostly protein? There is one study out there that listed VLCD as <800 calories per day. Not my cup of tea!

Sarauk2sf

Oh My God, FINALLY!! Someone who also believes this starvation mode is a big wobbly myth. We are a generation of very well-fed humans, we are not going to starve or waste away into nothing or have our body go into an overdrive of panic if we haven't eaten in several hours. If this happened then we would disintegrate in our sleep when we decide to sleep those extra few hours.

Where has anyone here said you go into starvation mode after a few hours?

ninerbuff

Also to note, that if restriction is long enough, then the body will rid itself of higher energy burning tissue in response to survival.

The idea that muscle burns significantly more calories than fat is also often overstated by (some) health professionals. Muscle burns 7-10 kcal/day while fat burns 2-3 kcal/day.

Source(s):

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/16/health/la-he-fitness-muscle-myth-20110516
http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asp?post=how_many_calories_does_muscle_really_burn_not_as_much_as_you_think

So by the body reducing muscle tissue (which is double the burn of fat tissue) then isn't it prolonging energy stores and increasing chance of survival?


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

opus649

Resting energy expenditure (REE), weight, and body composition were measured up to seven times in 13 obese women during a 24-wk study. Patients were randomly assigned to a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD, 500 kcal/d) or a balanced-deficit diet (BDD, 1200 kcal/d). After 8 wk of supplemented fasting, REE of the VLCD patients decreased by 17% whereas that of the BDD patients was virtually unchanged. REE of the VLCD patients increased during 12 subsequent weeks of realimentation such that differences in REE between the two groups were not statistically significant at week 24 (VLCD = -11%, BDD = -2%). Reductions in weight and fat-free mass (FFM) were 12.1% and 3.6% for the VLCD patients and 10.6% and 4.1% for the BDD patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in pre- to posttreatment changes in REE normalized to FFM. Results suggest that REE recovers partially after consumption of a VLCD. They also provide evidence of a possible metabolic advantage of weight loss by a more moderate restriction.

Excellent. That really is the first study I've seen which suggests an increase in REE over what is expected based on the size of calorie restriction. However, this same study also said that those returning from VLCD (and wow, 500 kcal/d is really, really low) to a 1200 kcal/day diet did have a rebound in their REE.

Interestingly, the paper concludes with this: "We are unable to determine, at present, whether results for the BDD patients are an anomaly or evidence of a possible metabolic advantage for those who lose weight by a more moderate caloric restriction." So ultimately, it's inconclusive. The sample size was 16 people. And 500 kcal/day is crazy low. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time to find this article because it is by far the best evidence I've seen so far that supports an increase in AT based on size of restriction.

Kudos :drinker:

anna_lisa

Seriously, stop it.

Starvation mode ("Starvation response" if you want to research it) only exists for males with 5% body fat or less and females with 10% body fat or less.

A link with cited sources:

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

Via Wiki:

Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low caloric intake levels. During short periods of caloric abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has DEPLETED ITS BODY FAT and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source.

(emphasis mine).

You should eat a caloric deficit that's comfortable for you regardless of the numbers.

THANK YOU for this I study this stuff and this myth drives me crazy

theartichoke

Here is my experience of starvation mode.
I was anorexic for 3 years. Some days I ate an orange and a piece of toast and thought I was wonderful for it (more fool me)

In the short term (1-6) months eating under 800 or 900 cals a day:
Makes you irritable, grumpy and a pain to live with
Your breath will smell
Your face skin will dry out and/or you'll get spots
You will feel nauseous with hunger
You stomach will make noise all the time
You will lose hell of a lot of weight (up to 7lbs a week)

6 -12 months
Your period will stop
Your appetite will be gone.
You will have trained yourself to go without food.
Your energy will be non-existant
Your circle of friends will have whittered away as you fall out or cut out all of them in turn because of your eating
Your family will be in a panic about your appearance
Your weight loss will slow down to about 1lb a week (or less)
Your hair will thin

12-18 months
You are really ill now
You panic about your weight loss and drop down to 300-500 cals because some other anorexic on an internet forum said this worked for her
The other Anas on the forums are your only "friends" now
All your muscle has gone
The skin all over your body and your face will be in a shocking condition
You are cold all the time, a horrible soul sucking coldness that seems to come from within
Organ damage has started
Your hair will stop growing and may start to fall out

18 months +
As well as everything else above
The symptoms of mental illness appear (paranoia being the most common)
Irreversible organ damage may have started
Lumps of your hair will fall out leaving you with bald patches

After recovery:
Your body clings on to every calories like a dying man to a shipwreak and you put on weight. You think dropping back to your previous habits will lose it - it doesn't. What do you do then?

Those are the consequences of surviving on anorexic portions of food. Those are the ones I saw myself and others in real-life support groups go through. Some lived, some died. Those that lived took years to get over the consequences of our eating habits. That is the reality of eating half what a woman needs to survive on.

Do you know that anyone can edit wikipedia? Do you really want to ruin your life because someone thought it would be clever to justify their lifestyle choices by lying about the consequences of eating like this?

Is this really the path you want to go down? I am begging you now to stop before it is too late and you embark on a lifestyle that negatively shapes the rest of your life.

Right now, I am now losing 2lbs a week eating around about 2000 cals a day. I am happy, healthy and energetic.

Be smart before it is too late for you.

That was one of the best responses I've seen on MFP. Well done.

superstarcassie

Undereating is so silly- you CAN and WILL lose weight eating a healthy diet and exercising....I have NEVER eaten under 1200 calories a day unless I was sick and unable. Here's to my 2000 or more calories a day that keeps me feeling good, having enough fuel for workouts, preserving my muscle mass, and hopefully losing body fat!!