starvation mode myth

JenMull44

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.

LIKE IT !

mmapags

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.

What Dan said. Additionally, those who have been the vocal advocates of the VLCD on this thread have had the rationale explained to them over and over. They aren't interested in logic and health. Take a look at the posts from alexbusnello. This is what happens when the path of continually reducing calories is followed. I agree that the automatic answer should not be "eat more to lose." As Dan ahs said above, it all depends on your height, current weight and other factors.

I am a firm believer in improving health and not just losing weight. You can improve you health and eat in a healthy way. But it is not a case of less is more. Sometiems a little less combined with some strength training protocols and some cardio are the answer. Matter of fact, there is a body of data that says that can be the answer most of the time.

Helloitsdan

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.

I have a study showing that people believe in magic as long as its a complex ritual.
You can show me study apon study if you want but the truth is most people enjoy food and if I can show them results, science or not, then to hell with your studies!
Go find a small group of practicing ED people and work with them!

If you want to lose weight and eat the foods you like then dont cut cals so deep!

I know you love these so heres another one for you Mcarter!

"I cannot thank you enough! I saw your post at the beginning of July about the road map and decided on a whim to follow your guideline. I upped my calorie intake from 1200 a day to what ended up being recommended to me at 1790. At first I saw nothing move, but then 1.5 weeks into the change I saw the scale moving. In a month's time, I have lost a total of 7 lbs! I am so beyond thrilled right now! I'm full now and not starving, I'm still able to have my glass of wine or adult beverage AND STILL LOSE WEIGHT! Thank you so much Dan for your thread! I don't think that I would have been this successful, would have ended up burnt out and given up. I'm at 45 lbs lost as of today and I've got another 15 lbs to go until I'm at my pre-pregnancy weight (I just gave birth a little over 2 months ago). I'll have another small goal to reach until my final goal weigh and I just cannot tell you THANK YOU enough! I am your champion, I post a link to that thread any chance I can get. Thanks again! Kari"

So here we have a 7lb change in a month eating almost 1800 cals.
Thats 1.75lb per week if you divide it out.

To hell with your math and science.
Get your body in harmony with your food and routine and the sky is the limit.

Helloitsdan

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/07/26/repetitious-magical-rituals-more-effective-study/.

Heres a study to keep you busy Mcarter.

yarwell

To hell with your math and science.

Apocryphal half tales win every time for me.

almc170

I've posted this before, but here's my experience:

I did a VLCD about 15 years ago. When I started, I was at a normal weight but decided to go for that "French supermodel" look, and ate accordingly (cigarettes, caffeine, ~800 cals a day). I rapidly lost weight, got my BMI down to 18.2. But I also lost hair, stopped getting my periods, was cold all the time, etc. Once I started eating semi-normally again, I quickly regained the weight I had lost plus about another 50lbs (making me overweight for the first time in my life).

Call it "starvation mode" or something else, but the consequences of long-term extreme dieting are very real. Your body can and will fight back.

Helloitsdan

To hell with your math and science.

Apocryphal half tales win every time for me.

Always room for 1 more brother!
This organism we know as earth has many important parts including you!

PS I have tons of these PMs.
I'm a believer!

mmapags

I've posted this before, but here's my experience:

I did a VLCD about 15 years ago. When I started, I was at a normal weight but decided to go for that "French supermodel" look, and ate accordingly (cigarettes, caffeine, ~800 cals a day). I rapidly lost weight, got my BMI down to 18.2. But I also lost hair, stopped getting my periods, was cold all the time, etc. Once I started eating semi-normally again, I quickly regained the weight I had lost plus about another 50lbs (making me overweight for the first time in my life).

Call it "starvation mode" or something else, but the consequences of long-term extreme dieting are very real. Your body can and will fight back.

My gut instinct is to say 2 things. First sorry that this is what you went through. I sincerely hope you can find the right combination of eating plan and exercise to restore youself to both a health weight and a healthy relationship to food.

Second, thank you so much for putting your story out there so that others can see what the VLCD can do if it is any more than a very short term thing.

Again, thank you and hopefully others will learn from your experience!

yarwell

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

What works for a big guy exercising a lot falls over with someone who uses half the calories. If your TDEE was only 1800 your 700-1000 deficit would have all the banshees wailing at you for eating less than 1200, or less than your BMR, or some other magic number.

If you're a short fat woman that can't or doesn't want to exercise the approach has to be different.

Helloitsdan

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

What works for a big guy exercising a lot falls over with someone who uses half the calories. If your TDEE was only 1800 your 700-1000 deficit would have all the banshees wailing at you for eating less than 1200, or less than your BMR, or some other magic number.

If you're a short fat woman that can't or doesn't want to exercise the approach has to be different.

I agree with Yarwell on this.

I did numbers for a lady today whos 4'11" but her body fat falls within a normal range.
She can eat 1600 and lose.
If she was obese II or even obese III she would probably do well at 1200 (below TDEE 1381) for a while.
Once the leptin bottoms out then she can come up for breath for a week or so then resume the diet with full effect.
This is why the Body Fat% is so important to know when asking for advice!

msstuard

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

If you're going to post stupid ****, at least post pictures of kittens or something.

what he said,

mmapags

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

What works for a big guy exercising a lot falls over with someone who uses half the calories. If your TDEE was only 1800 your 700-1000 deficit would have all the banshees wailing at you for eating less than 1200, or less than your BMR, or some other magic number.

If you're a short fat woman that can't or doesn't want to exercise the approach has to be different.

I agree with Yarwell on this.

I did numbers for a lady today whos 4'11" but her body fat falls within a normal range.
She can eat 1600 and lose.
If she was obese II or even obese III she would probably do well at 1200 (below TDEE 1381) for a while.
Once the leptin bottoms out then she can come up for breath for a week or so then resume the diet with full effect.
This is why the Body Fat% is so important to know when asking for advice!

Totally agree with both of you.

hothodgie

Dan broke my plateau! The man knows his stuff. I am almost 5 ft 4 in. I weigh 177.8 as of the end of last week. I read some of Dan's post and after following it for a few days, I went from 14 lbs lost for 3 weeks straight to 17 lbs lost, then 19 lbs lost for in two consecutive weeks. I eat close to 1790 calories, occasionally more, and have been working out about 3 or 4 days a week, both strength and cardio. Prior to reading Dan's "in place of a roadmap" I was working out 6 days a week and eating 1300 to 1540 per day, but often netting 1000 to 1100. For me it worked.

dhakiyya

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.

Exactly.

We are all descended from the survivors of famines, and our bodies have various behavioural and metabolic adaptations to enable us to survive as long as possible in famines. I don't like the term "starvation mode" because it implies an on/off switch in the head. However the changes that occur are real and have been demonstrated in scientific studies, and the changes are found in people who are involuntarily subjected to insufficient food and those who deliberately undereat. Adaptive thermogenesis is one, this is a slowing of the metabolism that's not related to body composition, and some studies have shown that in some people this can cause the metabolism to be up to 30% slower (it varies from individual to individual and people who find it hardest to diet probably are experiencing more adaptive thermogensis than others, and from comparatively less calorie restriction). There's also the fact that in a food shortage our bodies will prefer to burn muscle instead of fat because muscle is a liability and fat is an asset when it comes to surviving famines as long as possible. Muscle is a liability in a famine as muscle cells need a lot of energy just to stay alive, while fat cells need very little. By burning muscle cells your body isn't only getting the energy from metabolising the muscle cell, it's also saving energy for the rest of the famine, by not having to keep so many muscle cells alive any more.

These changes will take a while to kick in, i.e. prolonged undereating, they don't start (as some seem to think) after a day or two of insufficient calories. What sabotages most people though is the behavioural/psychological changes; undereating leads to excessive hunger, cravings, obsessing about food and bingeing. This is the same regardless whether the person is undereating voluntarily or because they've been deprived of sufficient food against their will. It's a very basic survival mechanism to make you keep on seeking out and eating food as the more you do that, the more likely you are to survive the food shortage. These changes kick in quite early on when you undereat, because your body wants to make you stop undereating.

I've heard it said a lot that you only "go into starvation mode" (or you only burn muscle instead of fat) when you're really thin and your fat stores are very low... that's not true, and if your body did that in a famine you'd be one of the first to die. It is true that those with a LOT of fat to lose (e.g. morbidly obese) are less at risk of these changes, but they still can be affected by them if they really cut the calories very low or stay in too big a deficit for too long. Your body wants the best chance possible of surviving, so if it gets wind that there's a prolonged food shortage, it will start adapting to have a better chance of surviving.

And as I said, none of this is an on/off switch, it's more like dials that can be turned up higher or lower. So the more you deprive yourself of enough food, the more your body will be adjusting your metabolism and behaviour to ensure that you can continue to survive while food supplies are low. And if you give in to the desire to binge (which is in itself a mechanism to increase the chances of surviving the food shortage), your body's going to store the excess as fat, because it doesn't know when the next big intake of calories is coming along, so it wants to store them as fat because that's what's going to keep you alive for longer. That is what your body is adapted to do, if it wasn't the human race would not have survived.

Yes there is a point where someone is eating low enough calories that their body won't ever adapt, so they end up looking like nothing but skin and bones and eventually dying of multiple organ failure when all the fat and skeletal muscle has run out (because at that point the body starts metabolising the tissue the organs are made of in a last ditch attempt to survive). If you undereat, you will continue to lose weight until either you die, or the calories you are eating equal the calories you are burning. If the latter happens your weight loss stalls even though you're eating very little, and you will not look fit or sexy, you'll look half starved and skinny-fat (because your body's burned muscle while trying to make your fat stores last as long as possible, and if you've given in to bingeing along the way, then that will have been stored as fat, making you all the more skinny-fat and less skin and bones skinny)

So while there's a lot of rubbish posted about starvation mode (including claims that the body will start to break the laws of physics and fail to lose even when you're eating at a deficit), our bodies are very well adapted to survive famines and aren't going to risk waiting for you to be on the point of running out of fat altogether before setting into motion any adaptations for protecting you against what it sees as an impending famine.

So the way to stop this all from sabotaging your progress is to feed your body properly and aim for slow and sustainable fat loss (i.e. a small deficit e.g. 15-20% less than your TDEE (30% is okay if you have a lot of fat to lose) including your exercise calories), and to have refeed days/meals i.e. spike your calories up to your TDEE every now and then so your body is reassured that there's no shortage, and will happily burn fat because there's no reason to cling onto it if food is plentiful. So long as you're eating below your TDEE for most days of the week, and no higher than your TDEE on refeed days, you will continue to lose fat. Also watch out for the behavioural/psychological changes associated with undereating, such as cravings, obsessing about food and bingeing. If you're starting to get like that around food, then recalculate your TDEE and and increase your calories.

yarwell

If she was obese II or even obese III she would probably do well at 1200 (below TDEE 1381) for a while.

Let's hope she is a patient lady.

Of passing interest, effect of a 30 day 500 calorie intervention in obese women ( BMI 35) :

Weight (kg) 91±11 85±10
Energetic expenditure (kcal per day) 1603±189 1473±185
Leptin (μg l−1) 45.2±13.0 20.0±9.2

Leptin in lean (21 BMI) subjects ~8 for comparison. Leptin & EE both increased back towards baseline when calories increased to 1200 for 30 days then to maintenance.

"Adaptive thermogenesis" was on average130 calories/day reduction.

yarwell

have been working out about 3 or 4 days a week, both strength and cardio. Prior to reading Dan's "in place of a roadmap" I was working out 6 days a week

Thanks for sharing your "exercise less to lose more" experience.

What was your 6 day regime compared to the new one ?

hothodgie

have been working out about 3 or 4 days a week, both strength and cardio. Prior to reading Dan's "in place of a roadmap" I was working out 6 days a week

Thanks for sharing your "exercise less to lose more" experience.

What was your 6 day regime compared to the new one ?

You are welcome. Prior I did 3 days cardio for hour each time (arc trainer, swimming, biking) alternated with 3 days at 45 to 60 minutes of strength training on weight machines. The past two weeks I have been doing 1 day of interval training on arc trainer, swimming etc, 2 days of weight training, and this week I added a day of cardio/strength together. I did 30 minutes on arc trainer and 30 minutes of weights on the same day. I don't attribute breaking the plateau to "exercising less to lose more". I attribute that to increasing my calories and not dropping below net. The working out 6 days a week isn't convenient at this time as I have been studying for a certification exam for work and don't have the time to dedicate 6 hours to working out.

ETA: The days of exercise the past two weeks have been an hour each time. So I was doing 6 hours and now I am doing 3 to 4 hours.

amjare09

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.

Can you help me too? I want to be able to figure out what I SHOULD be eating not to starve myself compared to what my calories are set at.

I looked at your roadmap thread..and everytime I try and configure it, I'm getting different things?

This shouldn't be so hard. I think I'm making things too difficult. >__<

Irish_eyes75

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.

"F U pay me" he he he love "Goodfellas"

ahlani

Society world has people brainwashed that if they eat less and workout more they will lose weight.

I was just thinking about that this morning, it seems simple advice that is usually given by doctors: "just eat less and exercise more".

In reality there needs to be a caveat or two to the "eat less" portion of that statement after reaching a certain point, so that you can continue to "exercise more".

I experienced it, I've been fairly content (I'm not thin/skinny by any definition, but I did get within "normal" BMI) with my size after losing a lot of weight over the years, but .. and here's the but.. to me, in terms of living, becoming a 130 lb lump on the couch is not really any different than being a 230 lb lump on the couch. Activity = Life.

I do think there is a "starvation mode" point to our metabolism, where your body just does not get the necessary calories to fuel or boost activity.

I am currently trying to get out of it and I feel soooo much better already for doing the things I love to do, even after only a week of slowly increasing the calorie intake. I've lost a couple of pounds in the past week, too.

Yes, I continued to slowly lose weight, be it muscle or fat, during severely restricted intake over an extended period of months, but I started to feel like crud. I became easily fatigued, exhausted all the time with no energy available to do much, so I could not continue to complete the "exercise more" portion of that standard advice. I felt it totally undermined the entire point of all the efforts I put forth to date in losing the weight; to feel better and to be more active, more alive.

Just my own experience with my own metabolism, and it does not apply to anyone else.

beachlover317

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.

Can you help me too? I want to be able to figure out what I SHOULD be eating not to starve myself compared to what my calories are set at.

I looked at your roadmap thread..and everytime I try and configure it, I'm getting different things?

This shouldn't be so hard. I think I'm making things too difficult. >__<

Here you go. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You need to read this first. Run your numbers and then pm Dan and see if you're on the right track. Good luck. It worked for me and I hope you have success too!

Dudagarcia

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.

Oh my I used to go to WW years ago and this ^ is exactly what happended in my case . I always thought it was me . I'm so glad to be here at mfp. I've learned so much

darias_mommy

There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

True, but what if at the end of the day, you didn't hit the calories because you weren't hungry??? What then? Am I supposed to force myself to eat something because i didn't hit a calorie goal? Seems confusing.

ahlani

Oh my I used to go to WW years ago and this ^ is exactly what happended in my case . I always thought it was me . I'm so glad to be here at mfp. I've learned so much

Isn't that the truth! If you think about it, most diet books and plans are issued for one purpose: the authors of the books and plans will make money off of our desperate desire to rectify our situation. It's not in their best financial interests for us to reach and maintain our goals, if we do succeed then they lose future revenue.

Realizing the marketing strategy and the likely financial motives casts a light on some of the "fad diets" and their claims.

We're not infinite sources of revenue, we're humans.

LoraF83

bump to read later

amjare09

Here you go. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
You need to read this first. Run your numbers and then pm Dan and see if you're on the right track. Good luck. It worked for me and I hope you have success too!

I read that already. I'll look at it again, though. Thank you.

I hope I have success too. After I read this thread I realized I wasn't eating enough at all.

sedatsedat

I think the 1200 limit is used because thats the minimum amount of calories you should be eating to get the nutrients you need to survive(more or less, even 1200 is probably not enough for an adult, depending on what you eat). BUT fortunately you will be able to survive even if you eat less than that, our bodies aren`t as frail as we think they are.
As for the whole starvation mode thing, I don`t believe it either. I`ve gone through periods where I have had extreme caloric deficiencies, and I have lost weight all the time. That is however hard to sustain over long periods of time. The only reason people put on lots of weight after restricting their calories to an extreme level is because they start binging when they start eating "normally" again.
As for losing muscle, I exercised all the time during those diets and I felt stronger, but I didn`t really want to die of heart failure at an age of 20 so I started eating more(and am losing weight slower!!!!!!!!!111111111111).
You will probably die if you eat 500 calories a day for months(if you`re even able to eat that little for so long) but thats because you won`t be getting enough vitamins and minerals to keep your organs and nervous system functioning.

Oh and by the way, you`re not anorexic before your weight hits a certain point where you`re considered severely underweight. You don`t just get an eating disorder for a few weeks and then snap out of it.

I don`t get why you get all worked up over this though(although I know trolling forums is quite fun sometimes), if you`re convinced that us VLCD people will die obese with bloated stomachs then so be it. I`ll do what works for me, you do whatever you want to.
personal experience>what some random on on a forum says

LorinaLynn

Oh and by the way, you`re not anorexic before your weight hits a certain point where you`re considered severely underweight.

Anorexia is a behavior, not a weight.

My mother was considered anorexic because she wasn't eating (as a symptom of an illness... she wasn't trying to lose and actually believed she was eating plenty) and was malnourished. She was still technically overweight.

invictus8

Anorexia is a behavior, not a weight.

I disagree -- anorexia is a mental condition, not a behavior. You can have severe caloric restriction -- google Roy Walford, a proponent of steep caloric restriction for longevity -- and have no underlying mental disorder at all. So it's not caloric restriction, it's the underlying mental state that defines anorexia. That's why it's so intractable.

LokiOfAsgard

As far as I can tell The starvation mode is a myth.... for a while.
Eat too little for too long you WILL not lose and you may start gaining. (depending how long you keep eating too little)

Same for the opposite. After eating too little, you start eating too much you WILL loose again. But after a while you WILL stop and you may gain. (depending how long you eat too much)

So point here, don't eat too little and don't eat too much. You'll be just fine.