starvation mode myth
Replies
-
Society world has people brainwashed that if they eat less and workout more they will lose weight.
Care to elaborate? What's the alternative to a caloric deficit?0 -
I love this topic. It always gets everyone all rialed up.0
-
The Starvation Myth
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
You won't stop losing weight in starvation mode, but what you are completely missing the point on is what starvation mode means. It means your body begins breaking down more muscle instead of primarily fat, in order to try to give you the caloric energy you usually metabolize through eating food. Your body can only break down a certain amount of fat in one day. If that is not enough to keep up the calories needed, it also begins to break down muscle to make up the caloric difference.As you begin to "eat your own muscles" you still lose weight, simply because you are losing muscle mass. So yeah, starvation mode is great if you want to have no muscle tone, no strength, no energy, and still look flabby when you are underweight.
This is exactly what happened to me...... I destroyed my body. : ( I regret it....0 -
It's not about a starvation mode that your body goes through.
It's more your body being able to be more efficient at storing fat for energy with what little food that it gets
Our bodies are so well at adapting to the point that it's almost stupid
Is starvation mode a myth? in the general sense, yes.
But it is more a poorly worded phrase or whatever you call it then anything else.
Perhaps we should call it a "highly efficient fat storing mode"
Could not have said it better myself... Society puts to much on the wording over the actual results..... but if some wants to believe that eating less and exercising more will get them to their goal then goodluck with that... But I will continuing to take my 500 calorie deficit to lose a pound a week off my BMR and continue to eat 800-1000 calories over that same BMR (2160) and yes that is eating back my exercise calories and I will continue to add to my weight loss ticker below.... Good Luck......
^^ Both of these
0 -
I dont mean to sound arrogant, but I can only go by my own experiences.
I am down 81lbs eating at a 700-1000 kcal deficit a day (I eat around 1900-2000 now). Any lower than that and I do not have the energy to work out and my weight loss slows down. I have lost an average of 3lbs per week with this method. I am not the only person who has done so either. I would put my method up against anyone doing a VLC diet and gladly compare. Bet I would win...
The only thing that would be arrogant is that you would dare to talk sense in the LCD echo chamber where the logic is all circular and all the proff sources are somehow twisted to say just eat fewer calorie. I think 400 would be good for you, don't you think?
Keep on keepin on brother!0 -
I believe in it. Oh no, am I going to make someone angry or annoyed because I believe in it and they don't? Lol This topic is everywhere.0
-
These types of studies are so inconclusive. They don't take in to account if someone has a thyroid problem, age, different metabolism types, menopause, if they are lifting heavy weights, light weights, doing aerobics etc. So for the 10% (+/- 9.9%) it may represent, yes it's true.0
-
I believe in it. Oh no, am I going to make someone angry or annoyed because I believe in it and they don't? Lol This topic is everywhere.
I can help you.
PM me.0 -
The Starvation Myth
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
You won't stop losing weight in starvation mode, but what you are completely missing the point on is what starvation mode means. It means your body begins breaking down more muscle instead of primarily fat, in order to try to give you the caloric energy you usually metabolize through eating food. Your body can only break down a certain amount of fat in one day. If that is not enough to keep up the calories needed, it also begins to break down muscle to make up the caloric difference.As you begin to "eat your own muscles" you still lose weight, simply because you are losing muscle mass. So yeah, starvation mode is great if you want to have no muscle tone, no strength, no energy, and still look flabby when you are underweight.
This is exactly what happened to me...... I destroyed my body. : ( I regret it....
Thanks for posting. I have seen many other posts like this. The advocates of VLCD just ignore this kind of thing and cherrie pick info to substantiate thier preformed conclusion. Heck I've even seen some posters on this thread take a post that disproved thier point and tried to twist it to say it actually supported thier misinformed conclusions. What ever! That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.
I hope with time, a good eating plan and the right workout plan, you can reverse the damage!0 -
My point was !!!! don't use the "starvation mode theory" to up your calories.....stick to HEALTHY lifestyle plan and over time the weight will come off...don't tell me that you ate 300 calories more of potato chips and it fooled your body into losing weight. it's not rocket science....weight =calories consumed - calories expended over LONG TERM.....and getting the most out of the plan requires insuring you body gets the minimum requirements ....
The simple mathematical equation of weight gain or weight loss. Thanks for sharing it. I've lost 5lbs in 3 weeks and ~15lbs in 2 months using that simple equation.0 -
The Starvation Myth
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
You won't stop losing weight in starvation mode, but what you are completely missing the point on is what starvation mode means. It means your body begins breaking down more muscle instead of primarily fat, in order to try to give you the caloric energy you usually metabolize through eating food. Your body can only break down a certain amount of fat in one day. If that is not enough to keep up the calories needed, it also begins to break down muscle to make up the caloric difference.As you begin to "eat your own muscles" you still lose weight, simply because you are losing muscle mass. So yeah, starvation mode is great if you want to have no muscle tone, no strength, no energy, and still look flabby when you are underweight.
This is exactly what happened to me...... I destroyed my body. : ( I regret it....
Thanks for posting. I have seen many other posts like this. The advocates of VLCD just ignore this kind of thing and cherrie pick info to substantiate thier preformed conclusion. Heck I've even seen some posters on this thread take a post that disproved thier point and tried to twist it to say it actually supported thier misinformed conclusions. What ever! That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.
I hope with time, a good eating plan and the right workout plan, you can reverse the damage!
Me too : (0 -
((((alexbusnello)))) Thanks for using your story as a warning marker. Hopefully, it will reach some people and some good can come of your struggle.0
-
These types of studies are so inconclusive. They don't take in to account if someone has a thyroid problem, age, different metabolism types, menopause, if they are lifting heavy weights, light weights, doing aerobics etc. So for the 10% (+/- 9.9%) it may represent, yes it's true.
THANK YOU!. This, this, this comment.0 -
It's not about a starvation mode that your body goes through.
It's more your body being able to be more efficient at storing fat for energy with what little food that it gets
Our bodies are so well at adapting to the point that it's almost stupid
Is starvation mode a myth? in the general sense, yes.
But it is more a poorly worded phrase or whatever you call it then anything else.
Perhaps we should call it a "highly efficient fat storing mode"
Could not have said it better myself... Society puts to much on the wording over the actual results..... but if some wants to believe that eating less and exercising more will get them to their goal then goodluck with that... But I will continuing to take my 500 calorie deficit to lose a pound a week off my BMR and continue to eat 800-1000 calories over that same BMR (2160) and yes that is eating back my exercise calories and I will continue to add to my weight loss ticker below.... Good Luck......
^^ Both of these
Yes.
Too many people don't understand that Starvation Mode isn't some invention of the diet industry... it's biology. In a sense, it's what keeps bears from dying while they hibernate. Their bodies slow down so they don't lose too much weight over the winter. They still lose, but not at the rate you'd assume a creature that hasn't eaten in months would lose.
Similarly, it's what kept the human race alive during times of famine. The body adapts. And the body doesn't "know" if the lack of food is because you want to drop a few pounds or that there's a rough winter with crop failure. Give it an extreme situation and it's going to react the same way... by slowing down it's processes so you don't lose as much as "the math" suggests you would.
And then, there's the folks who brag that they lost more pounds. Again, big frickin' whoop. On low calories, I lost a lot of pounds, too. I got to 130 pounds... and I still had a muffin top, back fat rolls, double chin, etc. I'm much, much smaller now at 135 pounds achieved with a modest calorie deficit. Then? Size 8 at 130 pounds. Now? Size 4 at 135 pounds. Yeah, you might lose more pounds, but what are those pounds made of?!0 -
I hate the phrase starvation mode. I prefer to call it "sure, you'll still lose pounds, but a disproportionate amount will be from muscle mass so you'll look a lot worse when you get to your goal weight than you would have if you ate a little bit more and weren't so focused on the damn scale, not to mention that you're training your body to survive on a small amount of food, so you're going to be stuck 'dieting' just to maintain a healthy weight" mode.
But it's a bit wordy.
LOVE THIS!!!0 -
"...Most dieters tend to drop calories extremely low based on the idea that the greater the deficit, the more weight that will be lost. Up to a point this appears to be true, in that greater caloric restriction yields greater fat loss. However this ignores the potential effects of extreme caloric restriction on metabolic rate, muscle loss, etc. A recent review of twenty-two studies found that extremely low calorie levels, below 1000 calories/day, caused a much greater drop in metabolic rate than even 1200 calories/day. So, there appears to be a threshold level of caloric intake where metabolic rate is more greatly affected."
Credit:
Lyle McDonald, The Ketogenic Diet
Physiological responses to slimming. Proc Nutr Soc (1991) 50:441-458.0 -
"...Most dieters tend to drop calories extremely low based on the idea that the greater the deficit, the more weight that will be lost. Up to a point this appears to be true, in that greater caloric restriction yields greater fat loss. However this ignores the potential effects of extreme caloric restriction on metabolic rate, muscle loss, etc. A recent review of twenty-two studies found that extremely low calorie levels, below 1000 calories/day, caused a much greater drop in metabolic rate than even 1200 calories/day. So, there appears to be a threshold level of caloric intake where metabolic rate is more greatly affected."
Credit:
Lyle McDonald, The Ketogenic Diet
Physiological responses to slimming. Proc Nutr Soc (1991) 50:441-458.
Yup! And how about:
Why Take a Full Diet Break: Physiological Reasons
The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.
By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.
Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do.
This is also the rationale behind the duration, thyroid hormones and the effects that they exert aren’t immediate. It may take 7 days of eating at maintenance for thyroid levels to come back to normal, but you need at least another week to get many of their effects to max out. So in answer to the question “Can I make the break shorter?”, the answer is “No.” I know that everyone wants to GET LEAN NOW but unless you are a contest dieting bodybuilder or figure chick and there’s no real-time constraint, what’s the hurry?
There are other effects as well. Hormones like testosterone often go down during dieting and female hormones can be whacked out too. Cortisol generally goes up when you diet and raising calories and carbs helps shut that off for a bit.
I’d note in this regards that many find that, after a period of hard dieting, they often keep leaning out into the first week of a planned break. As I discussed in the article Of Whooshes and Squishy Fat, some of it may simply be dropping water.
But some of it does seem to be true fat loss. People keep bugging me for the mechanism and my current best-answer is “Magic!”. At some point, I might throw out some of my theories on it. Not today.
As well, for leaner individuals, even if they do everything ‘right’, there is often a loss of performance or muscle mass during a diet. The two weeks with raised calories gives them the capacity to train a bit more and recover what they’ve lost before moving into the next stage of dieting.
Full text here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html
Yeah, no scientific evidence at all.0 -
Also from Lyle McDonald, discussing his 400-800 calorie fat loss plan, which he says is safe to stay on as long as you like if you're comfortable:
"I want to mention that the adaptive metabolic rate is never sufficient to completely eliminate weight loss, it simply reduces the effective daily deficit
(which may slow weight loss). Perhaps the largest reduction in metabolic rate recorded is on the order of
30% (and that was seen in relatively lean men who underwent semi-starvation for months). Considering
that the daily deficit on the crash diet will be 50% or more of daily energy expenditure, the slowing of
metabolic rate will not be able to eliminate weight/fat loss, only slow it.
I should mention that the adaptive component tends to be quite variable and several factors
affect it. One is bodyfatness, generally the fatter you are, the less of a problem it is. Tangentially, this
probably explains why some studies don’t find an adaptive component, they are looking at extremely
obese individuals."
"Since the crash diet is mostly short-term only (the only people who might stay on it longer than a
few weeks are category 3 dieters for whom the adaptive component isn’t as big of a deal in the first
place), the only system we are going to concern ourselves with is SNS output. Since, short of using
thyroid drugs (or hoping that one of the thyroid boosting supplements on the market actually works) you
can’t do anything about thyroid anyhow (well, see next chapter), there’s nothing to be gained worrying
about it."
P. 39: http://www.files.failedmiserably.com/data/aironz/The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook.pdf0 -
That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.
What do you consider a VLCD? For me, 1200 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit from my TDEE. While it may be VLC for a different person, it's certainly not for me. I think medically, VLCD is defined as around 800 calories or less.
But in any case, I'm not sure it's fair to call people who are not fans of the eat more method "the echo chamber." I don't see much difference between the two camps in the way they discuss/debate/argue except for the details. I see many people immediately say to posters, "Maybe you need to eat more" or "Eat more! You need to fuel your body" to a lightly active female eating 1700 + calories a day.
I don't dispute the "Eat Enough." I do dispute that 1200 is not enough for some of us.
Also, if you truly care about the people believing the dangerous things, not calling them the echo chamber may help them hear something you have to say.0 -
That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.
What do you consider a VLCD? For me, 1200 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit from my TDEE. While it may be VLC for a different person, it's certainly not for me. I think medically, VLCD is defined as around 800 calories or less.
But in any case, I'm not sure it's fair to call people who are not fans of the eat more method "the echo chamber." I don't see much difference between the two camps in the way they discuss/debate/argue except for the details. I see many people immediately say to posters, "Maybe you need to eat more" or "Eat more! You need to fuel your body" to a lightly active female eating 1700 + calories a day.
I don't dispute the "Eat Enough." I do dispute that 1200 is not enough for some of us.
Also, if you truly care about the people believing the dangerous things, not calling them the echo chamber may help them hear something you have to say.
Its not about 1200 cals.
Its about setting up calories according to age, height, weight, body fat and activity.
If you fit the bill and 1200 doesnt slow donw your results.
If you stay strong and continue to stay strong while leaning out.
If you still lose the appropriate amount of weight per month.
Do it by all means!
If 1200 fits you then make it happen!
Sadly it doesnt work for a lot of people.
Science and math just fails.0 -
Oh boy, I don't really know why I'm even replying to this thread but here it goes:
Starvation mode: No (wrong terminology)
Conservation mode: YES
I am 5'5 and currently 177 lbs. Very active. Just a short while ago I was consuming a mere 1300 calories max a day for an extended period of time. After a while my body went into CONSERVATION mode. No matter what I ate, how little or how much I exercised I lost NOTHING. My body did not believe that I was going to feed it again because I drastically changed my intake and it held onto everything. Check out the 'Eat more to weigh less' forums. It will explain EVERYTHING! I am now eating 1750 caloires a day (to lose 1 lb. per week) and losing weight steadily.
The end0 -
If 1200 fits you then make it happen!
Sadly it doesnt work for a lot of people.
Science and math just fails.
But see, a lot of people make really condescending comments about people on 1200 calories a day. (I know not everyone in the eat more/eat enough group do.) I'd love to eat more than 1200--I unfortunately just don't lose weight when I do. I do agree that there is no reason for some people to eat that low. It makes more sense to me to eat at your 500 calorie deficit and then keep dropping as you need to so your body doesn't get too used to the low numbers and then have nothing to drop to.0 -
Oh boy, I don't really know why I'm even replying to this thread but here it goes:
Starvation mode: No (wrong terminology)
Conservation mode: YES
I am 5'5 and currently 177 lbs. Very active. Just a short while ago I was consuming a mere 1300 calories max a day for an extended period of time. After a while my body went into CONSERVATION mode. No matter what I ate, how little or how much I exercised I lost NOTHING. My body did not believe that I was going to feed it again because I drastically changed my intake and it held onto everything. Check out the 'Eat more to weigh less' forums. It will explain EVERYTHING! I am now eating 1750 caloires a day (to lose 1 lb. per week) and losing weight steadily.
The end
Did science and math fail you?
How much do you eat now to lose weight?0 -
I'm not in the 1200 club. I'm in the "give people objective, authoritative info so they can make their own decisions" club. Which also happens to be the science club.
A subset of people here choose to believe that mountains of studies, the overwhelming predominance of studies, are wrong and that they're right. And if people want to believe them that's they're prerogative. But half of what you read here is physically impossible. Sure, people believe the hell out of it. But they're wrong. They have taken a kernel of truth and blown it out of proportion. It's a fascinating case of groupthink here. And terrifying. Do your own independent reading, people.0 -
OK, here's my deal. My weight is too much for me to handle cardio right now, I do not have a trainer or belong to a gym for financial reasons, but I believe I am educated enough to lose weight. Here's what I have seen with me personally:
My goal calorie limit is 1200 per day (I am basically in active person for now til I drop 10 more pound at which I can add some low cardio. I have been under my 1200 caloric allowance on most days by 200-300-- calories. i have had slow but steady weight loss. Now, i felt it wasn't coming off fast enough and decided to give my body a "boost" of some sort. I had 20 grapes in 4 days and actually gained 2 pounds!!! It scared me to death. Went right back to my little stay under 1200 calories each day, but still eat between 800 and 900. The weight started to come off again. This is me knowing what works for me and seeing the warning signs of my body holding on to what it can because it thinks I am starving. I am so ecited to start some cardio and up some calories and see how that works. I think I have 10 more pounds before my knees can handle the impact of cardio!!! I am determined and will play with this program and find what works for me!!! Any thoughts are welcome!!0 -
it's not a myth. plenty of science to back up all the harmful things not eating enough does to your body, and PLENTY of personal experiences to show that not eating will eventually slow down your metabolism to the point you will stop losing weight.
not only that, but when you lose weight from not eating enough you are not only losing fat but muscle as well.
you need to read more than one article from weight watchers!0 -
Jokes! I upped mine and started to lose again too. 1200 is too little, body is not getting fuel, so it stalls.
Weight Watchers makes money off keeping people fat. Lose 1 lbs eating our crap food? Sweet! Gain 2 lbs? Your fault. Eat more of our food and come to more of our meetings. BTW, your fees are due. Pay me.
^^^this0 -
Has anyone ever thought that most of this argument really just boils down to muscle composition of the person in particular (regarding weight loss success?)
I'm a new member (only been on the community board for a couple of days) but it seems to me a much higher percentage of the people whom believe that "starvation mode is a myth" tend to be mostly (not all) women or lighter women or males with lighter body frames, whereas the ones whom have lost substantial weight (35+ lbs. or more) whom tend to re-clarify the issue on the often-queried "starvation mode" tend to have more muscular frames (which contrasts directly with the first group as a good number of these are men).
This would make sense as --an earlier poster stated that --a person with less muscle mass would not have the metabolism to burn calories at a rate as fast as when they drop to lower levels of eating (hence weight gain or stall when going above that threshold). Whereas the person with the greater muscle mass- as muscle is metabolically active--would only be invigorated when using a deficit not as exaggerated, enhancing their muscle's ability to work that much harder as well as adding in a psychological component as they would be less likely to stray from the "plan" as the change in their diet isn't so drastic.
Just a theory. Take it easy on me.0 -
I LIKE TO EAT FOOD0
-
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.
Much like people who have gastric bypass surgery. The mind is programmed to eat but the body is now programmed for
portion control.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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