call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL

heybales

I have been caloric restricting for a few years and my weight hasn't adapted, I have remained underweight..Although my body functioning as adapted.


Armaretta,

I'm not a 'troll' I am here to help people in the best way I can.

I want to dispel the myths... it seems many people are still cornered into believing them... they quicker they know the real solution, the quicker they can be happier!

You are on a site mainly used for weight loss, encouraging slowing the metabolism down for those wanting to lose weight fast.

Not the best context for your statement, even though true.

While true, you can live with a slower metabolism, for weight loss, not the smartest idea.

At goal weight such as yourself, no problem. In fact some studies have shown it to increase longetivity, and take care of a few other problems. But for probably the majority, the negatives outweigh the positives - namely that weigh part of it.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

an interesting paper, enjoyed that.

The "unexplained" metabolic reduction looks to be about 130 calories a day from Fig 4. Some of the reductions in activity energy were larger.

At least i don't have to worry that my metabolic rate will collapse while dieting, all of the TDEE values were over 2000 calories a day :-)

Your BMR dropping lower has nothing to do with where your estimated TDEE.

You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.

That your estimated TDEE is over 2000 is immaterial.

i guess this person assumes that 2000 is plenty to live on FOREVER irrespective of what SHOULD be maintenance. short-sighted...fallacious...and i think it's downright silly. but hey, people have some interesting ways of justifying unhealthy behaviors.

thegrainmaster

Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..

All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.

I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.

However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.

yarwell

You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.

Is there a paper that I can read that shows me this ?

I understand what you're saying, it's just when you listen to some people on here you would think that eating (say) 1100 calories will result in your TDEE becoming 1100 calories and your weight loss stopping. In the OP's linked paper show's how the Caloric Restriction (CR) group dropped to a sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) of about 1474 calories per day which still leaves an ample scope for a deficit to provide weight loss.

The CR group were being fed 25% less calories than their 24h sedentary energy expenditure which was about equal to their SMR, not sure if this was accident or design. The SMR then reduced with weight loss.

The LCD group were being fed 890 kcal/day and they achieved the biggest weight loss at 3 months and were still ahead at 6 months after 3 months of weight maintenance. Yes there was a metabolic rate reduction or "starvation effect" but, crucially, it did not impair their weight loss.

yarwell

i guess this person assumes that 2000 is plenty to live on FOREVER irrespective of what SHOULD be maintenance. short-sighted...fallacious...and i think it's downright silly.

Well you imagined it so if it's silly you can only blame yourself.

2000 calories probably is enough to live on forever for a fair proportion of the population. Currently I'm interested in losing weight so I'm eating a lot less than that and consuming the rest of my needs from fat reserves.

As I approach target weight I expect to eat more, and may end up at 1500, 2000 or 2500 for all I know. We'll see when we get there.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..

All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.

I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.

However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.

please do your research and stop spewing half truths. 35% of the reduction in BMR was due to metabolic adaptation...that's about 1/3 of the decline not accounted for by a loss in body weight. other studies show even more dramatic results.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tdO73FzMpr4C&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=minnesota+starvation+reduction+in+bmr&source=bl&ots=ZufTplugpI&sig=ctcvkuYViaaYedMTsl0pJk4CTiU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=67CNT_r6HKPf0QGYy5mpDw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=minnesota starvation reduction in bmr&f=false


Here you are...some research you may not be aware of...


"In the first part of the study, subjects' resting metabolic rate decreased to a greater extent than their weight or fat-free mass. This excessive reduction is most likely attributable to the degree of calorie restriction, and therefore cannot be completely explained by the reduction in fat-free mass. Wadden and colleagues have concluded that short-term changes in resting metabolic rate are best predicted by baseline resting metabolic rate and degree of calorie restriction, whereas long-term changes in resting metabolic rate are best predicted by baseline resting metabolic rate and fat-free mass.4 Therefore, during and immediately after a hypocaloric period, resting metabolic rate is likely to be suppressed."

Ballor DL, Harvey-Berino JR, Ades PA et al. Decrease in fat oxidation following a meal in weight-reduced individuals: a possible mechanism for weight recidivism. Metabolism 1996; 45(2): 174–178.

Ballor DL, Harvey-Berino JR, Ades PA et al. Contrasting effects of resistance and aerobic training on body composition and metabolism after diet-induced weight loss. Metabolism 1996; 45(2): 179–183.

armaretta

Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..

All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.

I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.

However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.

My self-worth and no one else's should be defined by how many pounds of mass you weigh, gain or lose.

Why are you even posting on this subject. You are underweight from what you said and always have been, or at least have been for several years. Are you trying to lose weight while already being underweight?

Weight loss in the course of the diet is not always fat. There is also muscle loss. Diets such as what you described cause muscle loss. Too much muscle loss is bad. That's not rocket science.

You CAN eat more than starvation levels to lose more weight. You MUST eat LESS than TDEE to lose weight, but that is not groundbreaking news.

No one is claiming you will lose weight eating more than TDEE. That's ludicrous and makes me question how much of the thread you actually bothered to read.

Your suggestion of "The Minnesota Starvation Experiment" makes me question your mental health. That experiment starved healthy men who then went through psychological and physical ailments as a results of the ridiculous diet. They developed obsessive tendencies, eat disorders, and behavioral problems.

For one thing, that was done in to test the effects of starvation and famine, not to promote the use of it to lose weight. Loss of body mass at all costs is a horrible example to set forth. I hope that no one impressionable stumbles upon what you wrote and is unfortunate enough to try it.

It is completely irresponsible. You should be ashamed.

heybales

You NET eating below your BMR constantly is what will effect your real BMR, and therefore lower your real TDEE.

Is there a paper that I can read that shows me this ?

I understand what you're saying, it's just when you listen to some people on here you would think that eating (say) 1100 calories will result in your TDEE becoming 1100 calories and your weight loss stopping. In the OP's linked paper show's how the Caloric Restriction (CR) group dropped to a sleeping metabolic rate (SMR) of about 1474 calories per day which still leaves an ample scope for a deficit to provide weight loss.

The CR group were being fed 25% less calories than their 24h sedentary energy expenditure which was about equal to their SMR, not sure if this was accident or design. The SMR then reduced with weight loss.

The LCD group were being fed 890 kcal/day and they achieved the biggest weight loss at 3 months and were still ahead at 6 months after 3 months of weight maintenance. Yes there was a metabolic rate reduction or "starvation effect" but, crucially, it did not impair their weight loss.

If you eat at 1100, and rest of your activities can be fed mainly by fat (no exercise usually), your BMR (not TDEE), will find it's way down to 1100 or less. The TDEE that may have been at 1800 then of course lowers, because your body is slower.

And the body composition of that weight loss in that study?

Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#T2

heybales

Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..

You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.

Both statements false.

You look at the end of the study, where indeed their BMR matched (actually a tad lower) expected BMR for their new weight.

No one is denying you can lose weight with slower metabolism - slower.

But why. True, it's going to slow down as weight comes off, but why suppress it before that happens, making it take longer.

That's just stupid, if the desire is weight loss.

So how does eating more help you lose more? The difference between weight loss speed at suppressed BMR, compared to expected BMR at current weight loss.

Since your metabolism is faster and burning more, all your daily activity also burns more. There can be a 200 cal difference easy between those extreme's easily. And who would NOT want an extra 200 cal burn each day, AND get to eat 300 cal more to get it!

Educate yourself on basic physiology and studies on what happens on severly restricted diets.

Perhaps you missed the thrust of the OP, and what was being claimed, jumping on the terms used in the Topic.

Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#T2

Mgrogers09

I had to

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

I had to

rude!

thegrainmaster

Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..

All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.

I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.

However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.

My self-worth and no one else's should be defined by how many pounds of mass you weigh, gain or lose.

Why are you even posting on this subject. You are underweight from what you said and always have been, or at least have been for several years. Are you trying to lose weight while already being underweight?

Weight loss in the course of the diet is not always fat. There is also muscle loss. Diets such as what you described cause muscle loss. Too much muscle loss is bad. That's not rocket science.

You CAN eat more than starvation levels to lose more weight. You MUST eat LESS than TDEE to lose weight, but that is not groundbreaking news.

No one is claiming you will lose weight eating more than TDEE. That's ludicrous and makes me question how much of the thread you actually bothered to read.

Your suggestion of "The Minnesota Starvation Experiment" makes me question your mental health. That experiment starved healthy men who then went through psychological and physical ailments as a results of the ridiculous diet. They developed obsessive tendencies, eat disorders, and behavioral problems.

For one thing, that was done in to test the effects of starvation and famine, not to promote the use of it to lose weight. Loss of body mass at all costs is a horrible example to set forth. I hope that no one impressionable stumbles upon what you wrote and is unfortunate enough to try it.

It is completely irresponsible. You should be ashamed.

Quit being a drama queen!

If you read the final paragraph of my comment, you would see I recommended against it...

Mgrogers09

It's not a commentary on this specific thread...just realize that people have opinions on the issue. You can pull a study from the thousands done to prove which ever point you want. Out of most of the research quoted on the numerous "starvation mode" threads yours seems pretty legit as compared to some ive seen

thegrainmaster

Do you believe in it's real?

armaretta

Any slow in metabolism would be neglible and WOULD correlate with your weight loss..

All people who are starved, consistently loose weight..... You cannot eat more to loose more, it is a fallacy.

I suggest you look up 'The Minnesota Starvation Experiment' is was a study in which a few healthy men were subjected to a calorie restricted diet - they lost 25% of their body weight. Their RMR did decrease, but so did their mass.

However, although the 'starvation mode' theory is a myth... It is still not very wise idea to follow extremely low calorie diets. As seen in the experiment, they men developed OCD like symptoms around food which lasted for many years after restoration.

My self-worth and no one else's should be defined by how many pounds of mass you weigh, gain or lose.

Why are you even posting on this subject. You are underweight from what you said and always have been, or at least have been for several years. Are you trying to lose weight while already being underweight?

Weight loss in the course of the diet is not always fat. There is also muscle loss. Diets such as what you described cause muscle loss. Too much muscle loss is bad. That's not rocket science.

You CAN eat more than starvation levels to lose more weight. You MUST eat LESS than TDEE to lose weight, but that is not groundbreaking news.

No one is claiming you will lose weight eating more than TDEE. That's ludicrous and makes me question how much of the thread you actually bothered to read.

Your suggestion of "The Minnesota Starvation Experiment" makes me question your mental health. That experiment starved healthy men who then went through psychological and physical ailments as a results of the ridiculous diet. They developed obsessive tendencies, eat disorders, and behavioral problems.

For one thing, that was done in to test the effects of starvation and famine, not to promote the use of it to lose weight. Loss of body mass at all costs is a horrible example to set forth. I hope that no one impressionable stumbles upon what you wrote and is unfortunate enough to try it.

It is completely irresponsible. You should be ashamed.

Quit being a drama queen!

If you read the final paragraph of my comment, you would see I recommended against it...

Quit using dated and improper studies on actual starvation to refute legitimate metabolic slowdown. If you read the thread, you'd realize it's about metabolic slowdown, not starvation.

Mgrogers09

Yes....If you create a deficit over a certain amount (depending on your body weight) then yes your metabolism slows- this is fact. However I think that the extent to which your metabolism slows is overstated on most thread relating to starvation mode. The truth is that a 500 cal/day deficit will should (all other things being equal) result in a 1 pound/week weight loss- accordingly a 1000 cal/day deficit should result in a 2 pound/week weight loss--- here is where the so called "starvation mode" comes in- you would think that if i cut down to a 1500 cal/day deficit I would lose 3 pounds/week...but actually weight loss at this type of deficit would be around 2.5 pounds/week. There are also tons of other factors that play in - are your exercising? what are the calories that you are eating coming from? I personally maintain a calorie deficit over 1000 calories/day- i exercise daily and the calories i do eat are super clean. My personal preference is to lose more than two pounds per week....and yes i do know that i will be losing some muscle mass in addition to the fat...and so far of the 39 pound i have lost about 31 have been fat---if the BF% calculations are correct

So its not whether i beleive in it or not- "starvation mode" does exist- I just think that it should be called something different- "starvation mode" has negative connotations and makes it seem like people that do it have an eating disorder- I do it and I am happy balanced and don't obsess over food

milove1029

So far I can say that I am mostly following the recommended calories for my bmi and I am losing without exercising! I walk now and then and I clean the house, run behind my grandkids, but I do not have a routine work out. I sometime close below my calories but not alot and I still enjoy my food I just cut down on the amount. I am so happy with this system. I have lost 16lbs and I am a 1 month and 1/2 into thism but to answer the one who says who would want to cut their calories to lose weight, one should get off their rear end and exercise I would think it's a matter of choice whatever works for your lifestyle. I use to work out when I was younger and I loved it.

countrygirlproud

frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...

otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...

why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...

countrygirlproud

frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...

otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...

why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...

I agree fully with the weight training!!! I dragged my size 14 butt into the gym a year ago and though it was the most humiliating experience I think I have ever gone through- squating 20 lbs on a barbell in the middle of a bunch of men that were lifting 45 lb dumbbells :huh: BUT, I wouldn't change that experience for anything in the world. I had been working out every day, several hours at a time, like crazy, eating a very restrictive diet for several weeks when I first began my weight lose journey and the weight just hung around (literally, around the middle!!)- free weights was the link I needed to drop the fat and flab when it seemed I coudn't do that with aerobics and diet. Plus, with the weight training I seem to focus more on what shape I am in instead of what number I am at...

watboy

I dont believe in starvation mode. I'll tell you Ive lost 60 lbs i didnt have a plateu nor any physical changes except losing weight and gaining some muscle tone. But I will say this my body is not as aesthetically pleasing as I'd like. So I lost weight , I look and feel better but not exactly at the muscle tone I would like. Starting this week I will add more calories and start the 5 x 5 stronglift suggested by helloitsdan. If it helps with toning and stregnth great. If it doesnt I would just gain more insight into my body.