is starvation mode a myth?

sem41278

I'm in the last week and a half of a weight loss competition and being very strict-- 1200 caories and carbs only from fruit. I'm not really getting the results that I would think I would. I'm exercising everyday-- pushing myself pretty well.

I'm seriously considering eating a couple pieces of pizza today to say what happens...

Any advice? Thanks!

Elizabeth_C34

I was stuck at 190 for two months because I was not eating my exercise calories and only 1200 calories per day. I started eating 1400-1500 and dropped 6 lbs in one week. I've had a steady 0.5-1 lb loss per week ever since.

Eat more.

Toddrific

I'd say if you are going to eat more calories, pizza would be a bad choice, due to it likely having high sodium.
That is if you are trying to lose the most weight by day X.

sem41278

very true-- maybe more protein? good carbs?

Elizabeth_C34

very true-- maybe more protein? good carbs?

Both are excellent. You can add a lot of good lean meats and even more fats. Go have a steak!

SHBoss1673

no, starvation mode is NOT a myth.

BUT!!!!!!!!!

Many people on here use it as a bludgeon and a blanket statement.
There are very specific technical qualifications to entering, maintaining, and removing oneself from starvation mode (otherwise known as LTU or Long Term Underfeeding and sometimes the famine response)

Please note: Starvation mode and starvation are NOT NOT NOT the same thing.

I have done a ton of research into starvation mode (5 plus years on MFP will do that to a person, especially one with advanced chemistry knowledge).

Feel free to PM me if you are interested in the details. There's some relatively easy ways to figure out if you are in starvation mode.

juliekaiser1988

And the firestorm shall commence in 5...4...3...2...1...

juliekaiser1988

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/546227-for-the-500-000-time-eating-more-works

TheWinman

Not a myth as others have explained, but most people working out who may feel their body is in starvation mode, are usually wrong.

composerclark

If you Google "starvation mode myth" you will find lots of info on this topic, both pro and con, but most of what you find are opinions based on personal experience; not exactly hard science.

I found an article that actually does cite scientific research at Weight Watchers, which states: "While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced." Here's a link if you want to read more: http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

Our metabolism slows as we lose weight, according to the article above, "because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss." But this is not the same as saying that a slowing metabolism is due to the body going into "starvation mode." If you weigh less, your body uses fewer calories to do the same things you used to do when you weighed more.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in counting calories expended and ingested is the fact that we're estimating most of the time. Unless we eat nothing but prepackaged food with accurate calorie counts (which is probably not very healthy, and difficult to maintain), it's hard to know how accurate our estimates are for calorie intake.

Even more challenging, for me anyway, is knowing how many calories I expend during a given day… There are plenty of on-line calculators that figure out your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) — the number of calories you'd burn if you stayed in bed all day — but (a) these are someone blunt instruments (it's not the same for everyone of similar height, weight, and gender), and (b) I don't stay in bed all day. So how useful is this number? I can go to the gym and burn 500 calories on a cardio machine, but (a) how accurate is that, and (b) how much would I have burned if I were out shopping with my kids in the same period of time? And what net gain would there be if I worked out for an hour but felt so worn out that I went home and napped for two hours?

If you're working out every day, your cardiovascular health is undoubtedly improving dramatically, and that's at least as important as your rate of weight loss.

SHBoss1673

the best research (real research, I've read that weight watchers article, it's brutally bad and confusing IMHO) I've read about starvation mode (or more accurately Long Term Underfeeding) is here:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/PNS/PNS54_01/S0029665195000255a.pdf&code=378df818cc0cb3017fc0936b8a4b398c

now, this article is very technical, but I would say focus on the section titled "Energy Metabolism in Starvation and Underfeeding"

it's very very good. Other research has confirmed much of this (but not all in one place like this one) and this one draws on other research to support or refute conclusions given, which is why I like it so much, it's not a "vacuum" study.

composerclark

In what way is the Weight Watchers article "brutally bad," and in what way is saying that something is "brutally bad" a humble opinion?

Also, I'd be happy to read the cambridge journal article that you cite, but the link isn't working for me; I get a "file not found" error message.

nwg74

Starvation mode is a myth for most people. You would have to be eating absolutely nothing for days and days to get into it. Just doing less calories in a day would not put a person into starvation mode. Make sure most or all exercise calories are eaten back so the deficit is not to far below BMR/TDEE. Every now and then would be ok but not if someone is doing exercise every or most days.

SHBoss1673

In what way is the Weight Watchers article "brutally bad," and in what way is saying that something is "brutally bad" a humble opinion?

Also, I'd be happy to read the cambridge journal article that you cite, but the link isn't working for me; I get a "file not found" error message.

lets start with the title. "The starvation myth" is just bad editing, nowhere in this article do they discuss starvation. It's Starvation MODE which is the myth they are trying to dispel, not starvation. I seriously doubt anyone would attempt to disprove starvation.

OK next the author cites sources for 1 side of the argument and states the other side but doesn't provide any citation.

Next the author incorrectly states that 3500 calories = 1 lb. But this is incorrect by omission. 3500 calories of WHAT is a pound? I can tell you 3500 calories of muscle is far more than 1 lb, it's actually about 6 lbs. I know about 3500 calories of fat is equal to 1 lb, but not everyone knows that.

lastly, the author states "While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth..." when in fact there's plenty of biological evidence, there are hundreds of studies that prove that when we run out of glycogen our bodies metabolic hormone levels change to compensate for the lack of available energy (or else there would be no such thing as ketosis, and our bodies would never store fat when we receive extra energy).

the only thing I truly agree with about this article is near the end when they state that metabolic dips that starvation mode account for aren't permanent. In general the whole article is schizophrenic in my opinion, flopping back and forth between there being no such thing as starvation mode and that it's real, but misunderstood.
Finally, at the very end they talk about the weight watchers approach which is supposed to (paraphrasing) minimize the reduction in metabolism, but doesn't this just prove that if you don't eat enough you're reducing your metabolism? And isn't that the definition of starvation mode?

My opinion is humble in that I don't claim to be anything more than I am, a person who's done the research, proving that the MFP system can and will work for otherwise healthy overweight adults if followed correctly. I don't claim that my opinion is any better than any other individuals, but it is my opinion, and I while I don't really need MFP anymore for weight loss, I still enjoy coming on and lending my support and help when asked for.

as to that article, try this link instead.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=789556

And if that doesn't work, google "Feeding, fasting, and starvation: factors affecting fuel utilization" By L. A. MacDonald and J. Webber
it should be the 1st or 2nd link.

Masterdo

Next the author incorrectly states that 3500 calories = 1 lb. But this is incorrect by omission. 3500 calories of WHAT is a pound? I can tell you 3500 calories of muscle is far more than 1 lb, it's actually about 6 lbs. I know about 3500 calories of fat is equal to 1 lb, but not everyone knows that.

Calories of muscle or calories of fat ? o.O

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to see where most studies draw their conclusions from, check studies about metabolic damage from people with eating disorders. This is where they prove that starvation mode does exist in fact, the dangers of it, and sometimes even the long term consequences of it.

There are studies then that try to check in what conditions some of those symptoms can manifest when you just diet the wrong way. I remember reading the article linked too, but can't find the working link either atm. Browsing history is a mess... Still, in the past month I read well over 500 pages of health article from around the world, and even while trying, you will not find one study that concludes that eating below BMR and training hard will lead to sustainable weight loss. You find more stuff like that though : http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/2613427/reload=0;jsessionid=5SFMll0mfzfFv4NUh5xi.134

So if just for the scale's sake, you absolutely want to see a certain number, and don't care about your general health along the way or at the goal, then yeah, maybe low calories diet might work for you (but at this point, so does fasting...), but to reach and sustain fitness and health, it just does not work.

SHBoss1673

Calories of muscle or calories of fat ? o.O

That makes absolutely no sense.

why does that make no sense? It's true, 1 lb of muscle mass, when you burn it, yields approximately 600 Kcal of energy, 1 lb of adipose fat, when you burn it yields approximately 3500 Kcal of energy.
(for the record, burning energy sources is how science derives calorie totals), or more correctly, 1 calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

Masterdo

It's just the terminology that makes no sense. A calorie is a calorie, no matter where it comes from.

Now you are right that burning muscle gives out more, and it even prevents that muscle from then needing calories, thus reducing metabolic rate.

The famous 3500 number is given as a deficit that will lead to 1lbs of fat when you diet and exercise properly. It just seemed like you were mixing things, but it was just a weird formulation that seemed to hint at the fact you could eat calories of different kinds...

astrampe

:sad: :yawn: :sad: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

alisonwww

What I don't get is you'd think if you're in starvation mode, you'd start losing weight at some point. I mean people who are really starving do...right?

SHBoss1673

It's just the terminology that makes no sense. A calorie is a calorie, no matter where it comes from.

Now you are right that burning muscle gives out more, and it even prevents that muscle from then needing calories, thus reducing metabolic rate.

The famous 3500 number is given as a deficit that will lead to 1lbs of fat when you diet and exercise properly. It just seemed like you were mixing things, but it was just a weird formulation that seemed to hint at the fact you could eat calories of different kinds...

nope, wasn't mixing things at all. You just misunderstood my statement. It's all true and in the correct context. When a professional weight loss organization doesn't characterize the difference between 1 lb being 3500 calories, and 1 lb of FAT being 3500 calories, I consider that a misrepresentation. Simply because it's supposed to be a professional organization that would have nutrition professionals editing columns before it posts. Similar to how WebMD does it. They allow non-health professionals to post on their site, but they always state that it was reviewed by a health professional and who that professional was. If it was some random post on this website, then fine, I understand missing the "of fat" part, but not by Weight Watchers.

alison, not necessarily. When people are starving, they are literally at the point where they are eating their own muscle mass to subsist as fat stores have been depleted and there's nothing else to burn to keep the brain, liver, heart, lungs, and circulatory system going. In starvation mode, you are simply not meeting the amount of calories needed to keep NORMAL metabolic activity. In other words, your body will adjust down to burn less calories, but the problem with this is, in order to do this it needs to start removing muscle mass, reducing non-essential organ function, reducing immune system function, and deplete resources that would normally go towards other, secondary activity (like keeping hair, skin, and nails healthy, giving muscles extra energy in the form of glycogen, keeping your brain fully alert...etc.

SHBoss1673

It's just the terminology that makes no sense. A calorie is a calorie, no matter where it comes from.

Now you are right that burning muscle gives out more, and it even prevents that muscle from then needing calories, thus reducing metabolic rate.

The famous 3500 number is given as a deficit that will lead to 1lbs of fat when you diet and exercise properly. It just seemed like you were mixing things, but it was just a weird formulation that seemed to hint at the fact you could eat calories of different kinds...

Oh and just so everyone's clear, it's a good point he makes, people often just catagorize weight loss with 3500 calories = to 1 lb of weight loss. When in reality, almost nobody (there are exceptions of course) loses 100% fat when they strive for a calorie deficit, if done correctly a good percentage is 10% lean mass loss and 90% fat loss, which would equal out to about 3150 calories from fat and about 350 calories from lean mass, someone who does a super large deficit might lose up to 20% lean mass, especially if they do no exercise while in the deficit and are lightly active or sedentary, someone in starvation mode can lose upwards of 35% lean mass, I.E. for every 10 lbs lost, they may be losing 3.5 lbs of lean tissue. This is bad news guys. It's a main reason why we are so against this idea. Even if you're not losing weight at starvation mode, I can (in most cases) bet you're losing lean mass and replacing that weight with fat mass.

sem41278

well I ate 1400 calories yesterdayand worked hard on the treadmill and elliptical again. will do it today and tomorrow and next weigh in is wednesday--- crossing my fingers!!!! for the long haul I absolutely am more interested in health but for the next 1.5 weeks we have a chance of $500 or $200 each-- we are crrently 3rd place in about 50 teams! )

sar123bear

Great post / topic - thank you for the great info