starvation mode myth

funkycamper

I joined Mfp to try to get my body out of this" starvation mode". While mourning the death of a close loved one I could not eat. This went on for over three years. I literally ate less than 2000 calories a month. I'd go weeks without nothing but water and my parents had to try and force me to eat soup and Gatorade because I couldn't even sit up in the bed without passing out. I ruined my BMR and still after joining had to try hard to eat just a few hundred calories. My pals on here kept urging me to eat for my health and to feed my muscles. Slowly with the advise of my fitness pals I added protein shakes because I could down that and get it out of the way. I hated to eat. I still have many days I literally have to choke my food down. My diary is getting so much better and I'm gaining strength back along with my hair. I have been fluctuating in weight but I know this is the only healthy way to get my body back on track. My goals will just have to take a little longer but I'm doing myself a great service by being nutritionally contious and feed it to live healthy. Thankyou to all my fitness pals some of you have really had an impact on me. I love this site. Thanks Mfp !

I'm so glad that you're on the path toward improved health. Best wishes to you during this time.

Cwilliams8676

Is there another source? I dont trust WW for up to date info.

funkycamper

Starvation mode should be called metabolic slowdown, or something else similar to that as it's a more accurate description. If you're happy slowing down your metabolism, go for it. If you're happy doing it long-term so that your body starts cannibalizing your precious muscles to feed itself resulting in a mushier body and an even slower metabolism, go for it.

Speaking as someone with a damaged metabolism who has been working hard to repair it through exercise (heavy-lifting, cardio and HIIT) and by slowly upping my calories, I have no idea why anybody would choose to damage their metabolism. I did it through ignorance but the information is a lot easier to find now than it was 30+ years ago when I started doing it to myself. If I knew then, what I know now, I would not have damaged it in the first place.

As I continue to add calories and then, after my body has adjusted to more calories, continue to lose, I can only say it's a good thing and nothing will ever convince me to eat very low calorie again.

grassette

The government of Canada has a chart that recommends the amounts of calories people need according to age and activity levels: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-guide-aliment/basics-base/1_1_1-eng.php

Age Sedentary1 Low Active2 Active3
14-16 y 1750 - 2100 - 2350
17-18 y 1750 - 2100 - 2400
19-30 y 1900 - 2100 - 2350
31-50 y 1800 - 2000 - 2250
51-70 y 1650 - 1850 - 2100
71 y + 1550 - 1750 - 2000

The above data is for women. See link for the chart for men.

1 Sedentary: Your typical daily routine requires little physical movement (e.g., sitting for long periods, using a computer, relying primarily on motorized transportation) and you accumulate little physical activity in your leisure time.

2 Low Active: Your typical daily routine involves some physical activity (e.g., walking to bus, mowing the lawn, shoveling snow) and you accumulate some additional physical activity in your leisure time.

3 Active: Your typical daily tasks involve some physical activity and you accumulate at least 2 ½ hours of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity each week. Moderate- to vigorous- physical activity will make you breathe harder and your heart beat faster.

So you can see that eating 2000 cals is not right for some people, and if someone wants to loose weight, eating several hundred calories below their range and activity will result in weight loss.

StephEwell

Please read this:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

djkshdfd

I heard on NPR the other day that severe calorie restriction actually does permanently affect your metabolism.
It was a while back, so i can't provide a link.

The basic idea was, you had people that lost a large sum of weight quickly, a large sum slowly, and people that had been that weight normally. Those people that had lost a large sum quickly had to take in much less calories than the others to maintain the same weight.

This is because people who drop tons of weight quickly often lose their muscle mass thereby significantly reducing their BMR. It also makes them far more prone to gaining the weight back because it's so much harder to restrict when their metabolic rate is so low.

Take a bow. Well done!

jumperchick

Myth or not - my weight was stuck at exactly the same weight for three weeks whilst I was eating 1200 cals a day and working out, just increased calories to 1400 & lost a couple of pounds, no cheating or fiddling the figures I followed the same plan and had upto 200 cals extra a day.

No idea why it worked but it has

thats what happens to me too ! im pretty small [5ft2.5] andactive and i need to eat 1400-1600 cals/day to lose weight. if i constantly eat 1200 i will not lose.

Fit_Canuck

I'll continue eating 2500+ net calories a day and lose weight thank you very much, can't people stop beating this dead horse over and over again....please!!!

katemme

I'v noticed that starvation mode, does exist, but it works in the opposite way that people think.

People think that when you enter starvation mode you stop loosing weight.
But thats not the case, the less you eat, the more you loose.. And i know that is an unhealthy way to look at things, but people who suffer with things like anorexia, eat hardly anything and just keep loosing weight..
Whereas if you where a tiny size, and you ate your 1,200 calories a day to avoid starvation.. At best you can hope to stay the same weight.

But i have seen starvation mode, in the way that:
You dont stop loosing weight, but when you start eating normally again, you pile on the pounds..
And i also know this from having anorexic friends.. Iv seen them eat hardly anything, and the weight just melt away..
And then they start to make progress to become healthy, and eat more.. And because there like metabolism and stuff is so shot, ever little thing they eat will just be stored straight as fat..
And thats one of the reasons its so hard for anorexia to recover..

Its also the reason why "fad" diets, dont work.. Because you can loose pounds and pounds on these things, but at the end of it when you go back to eating normally, you will just pile back on the weight, and maybe more..

So when you eat below a certain point, yes you will get starvation mode, BUT it will only effect you if you increase the food you consume.. If you stay eating that amount, the weight will just continue to melt off until you hit a plateau..

This is what has happened to me. I can't eat 1000+cal on a normal basis or I will gain a lot of weight. My set intake is 800 cal, although I usually eat a bit more, but exercise to negate them every day. I don't mind restricting though. I have never felt like binging because I feel deprived, and the most I've gained back is 2-4 pounds. I'm still under 110 though.

wiscyproblems

http://www.wuphysicians.com/page.aspx?pageID=1260

shellsie_j

bump a

huntindawg1962

The one thing for sure you can see from all the respondents answers and likely the real data out there is that there is no "one magic" numeric point where this "starvation mode" kicks in for everyone (but you will always see responses where someone that has never met the other person already knows what the right number for them is or that they are at least doing it wrong). I suspect that the 1200 for females and 1600 or what ever it is listed for males is kind of a generic minimum with some safety factor built in to fit the masses. There is a lot more to daily minimum numbers for each individual than just some arbitrary number. Items like starting lean body mass, real daily activity levels and daily burn rates, other issues with the individual, etc.

Too, if you were on a plateau for a week and upped your calorie intake and it moved, that is not real evidence that the additional calories made it move. A plateau is not a one or two week stall on weight loss. Might it have also moved had you dropped your intake 200 for a couple days?

Otherwise this minimum daily number - it is just a number that everyone disagrees with.

Dawnie042

According to a Wiki (which I generally find to be a trustworthy source, although I note that this article requires further citation),

/Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of energy 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.[2]

Ordinarily, the body responds to reduced energy intake by burning fat reserves first, and only consumes muscle and other tissues when those reserves are exhausted. Specifically, the body burns fat after first exhausting the contents of the digestive tract along with glycogen reserves stored in muscle and liver cells.[3] After prolonged periods of starvation, the body will utilize the proteins within muscle tissue as a fuel source. People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue.[4] Resistance training (such as weight lifting) can also prevent the loss of muscle mass while a person is energy-restricted./

This casts doubt on the statement I have seen expressed several times on this forum that reduced calorific intake leads to reduction of muscle mass. Well, yes it does, but only after fat resources have become depleted to their minimum (less than 5% I believe).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response#section_1

Onesnap

Why is 1,200/day important: http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864

DanaDark

I'm sure I'll get a lot of " flak" from this one.....but....it is just a line we use to rationalize eating more....if it were true , the opposite should hold true. if we eat too much are body would go into " dump the fat mode ".... seems my body skipped the memo on that one !

I am eating 200 to 300 calories more a day than I have over the past 7 years. Over those 7 years I gained weight. I am now losing weight.

Onesnap

I heard on NPR the other day that severe calorie restriction actually does permanently affect your metabolism.
It was a while back, so i can't provide a link.

The basic idea was, you had people that lost a large sum of weight quickly, a large sum slowly, and people that had been that weight normally. Those people that had lost a large sum quickly had to take in much less calories than the others to maintain the same weight.

It's true. A great discussion of this was also featured in The Weight of The Nation.

Dawnie042

Furthermore,


/On average, the starvation response of the individuals after isolation was a 180 kcal reduction in daily total energy expenditure. 60 kcal of the starvation response was explained by a reduction in fat-free mass and fat mass. An additional 65 kcal was explained by a reduction in fidgeting, and the remaining 55 kcal was statistically insignificant./

So yes, after severe calorific reduction over extended periods, daily calorific requirements are reduced. But this was after 2 years and under extreme conditions, and yet the requirement reduction is still quite minimal.

cmpollard01

I think all this crap talk about starvation mode just sucks! http://tinyurl.com/3hdaywv

When are we going to learn to listen to our bodies vs listening to a forum or even a professional?

Thank you! Frankly, my body runs perfectly fine off of 1200 calories of food intake per day-it is rare that I feel hungry or unsatiated. Conversely, I have a coworker who can eat 1200 calories a day, excercise 4-5 times a week, and she doesn't lose at all (or sometimes gains!). We are all individuals, which means what works for my body isn't going to work for everyone! Honestly, I'm just glad I've developed better eating habits, which is leading me to a healthier life, which has an awesome side effect of helping me shed unwanted pounds!

Dawnie042

Also, many apologies for repeated posts.

Lesson learned, don't post from my mobile. :P

lizziebeth1028

Starvation mode = netting a bare minimum of calories which causes your body to become 'static' (not change). The metabolism slows down to accommodate 'X' number of calories causing weight loss to be difficult. You're not starving in the anorexic sense....you've just plateaued.