call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL

Sarauk2sf

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

I agree in that whenever the term 'starvation mode' is used, people automatically reply...I am not starving...which is NOT what people are getting at - but using the term 'starvation' causes all sorts of semantics problems. Which was actually the jist of the original post.

I also think that there are different factors that play in exactly when metabolic slowdown of any significance happens. When people start agruing that it you do not eat every 3 hours you will go into starvation mode I cringe....folks use IFand I do not believe that there is any noticable negative impact to their metabolism if used in an appropriate way (note, I use the term appropriate).

However, as someone who has had a metabolic slowdown due to very low calorie intake (due to illness) for a period, I absolutely agree that it happens and can have a serious impact on peoples lives.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

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

I've already conceded in the initial post that the terminology isn't correct but the phenomenon IS. Metabolic slowdown...sucks and can lead people to regain lost weight without being incredibly diligent once they reach their goals.

Sarauk2sf

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.

So you think that all your weight loss is coming from fat reserves? Hmmm

Elibasia

BUMP:flowerforyou:

yarwell

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.

Can you show me where this happened in the paper please ?

The SMR fell by less than 400 cals/day to ~1470 cals a day. The 890 cal/day LCD group and the 25% CR group had intake below this level, certainly the LCD group were well below. I don't think the paper shows us the SMR of the LCD group separately, which is a shame.

yarwell

So you think that all your weight loss is coming from fat reserves?

Most of it, but not all. There'll be some water and a bit of muscle too. I can now feel the muscles in my thighs because the fat has largely gone.

From what I've read I would expect about 70% will be fat loss. That's what usually happens with calorie restriction at adequate protein levels, PSMF style.

With less weight to haul a bit less muscle wouldn't be the end of the world.

Sarauk2sf

So you think that all your weight loss is coming from fat reserves?

Most of it, but not all. There'll be some water and a bit of muscle too. I can now feel the muscles in my thighs because the fat has largely gone.

From what I've read I would expect about 70% will be fat loss. That's what usually happens with calorie restriction at adequate protein levels, PSMF style.

With less weight to haul a bit less muscle wouldn't be the end of the world.

I made the comment in response to your comment "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." and wanted to clarify as there will be lean body mass loss also - which it is clear you are obviously aware of.

I think I have seen 75% as the estimate (I am not sure if the difference is due to the 'PSMF style' you mention or just because they are estimates which are inherently well....estimates) - the actual % obviously depends on a bunch of factors, including amount of calorific deficit someone has, amount of strength training they do, macronutrient levels and so forth.

MoreBean13

I just want to throw in my two cents here- I'm going to call what has been referred to here as "starvation mode" 'metabolic slowdown' for clarity-there are very few overweight or obese people at actual risk of starvation.

My opinion is that our bodies are extremely resilient and will eventually adapt to just about any situation we give it- whether that be creating a calorie deficit or even a calorie surplus. Fat people get fatter by eating too many calories, but not quite at the rate we might predict by the calories in = calories out equation. Same thing happens with weight loss - we cut calories, add exercise and eventually our bodies will come to an equilibrium, what I am calling metabolic slowdown. To me, this slowdown can be approached from VLCD or you can arrive there and call it a plateau. Whatever it is, we need a change to break free from the metabolic slowdown. For some people this means adding back calories- which makes a lot of long term sense because if you recognize that this WILL happen again you don't want to keep cutting and cutting and cutting calories.

For other people the solution might be a workout makeover. Weights in place of cardio. Vise versa. I think some people really do get to a metabolic slowdown by miscalculating calories in. Start weighing your food if you don't already.

The major major problem I have with the concept of "starvation mode" is I think TONS of people use the idea of it as a crutch to not progress. An excuse to not work hard....I apologize to the people that have had a really hard time getting through one of these, but you especially should be offended by all the people that don't try as hard as they could because they're afraid of "starvation mode". It drives me crazy to hear about it . Makes me want to yell "You WILL go through a metabolic slowdown! Don't let the fear of it hold you back! If and when you get there, you need to view it as a speedbump and accelerate appropriately to get through it!!!"

I too often hear of it from people who really really need to lose weight to be healthy, and it makes me think of a poor person who doesn't want to work because they don't want to get too rich and snobby.

I want to reiterate that this really does happen and it is worse for some people than others- and I am in NO way trying to offend people who have had a significant metabolic slowdown. The people that use it as a crutch are people who are nowhere near getting to this point but use it as an excuse to eat poorly or not exercise.

watboy

It seems that people who hit a plateua think they are in starvation mode people who never hit it don't believe it.

wackyfunster

I think people who get upset at a slower metabolism are ignorant. Slow metabolism means improved health in virtually every measurable way, including longer lifespan. You just can't eat quite as much food. Oh noes!

watboy

Dang lol. I know metabolism goes down as you lose weight. Makes me think the body figures it out.

I think people who get upset at a slower metabolism are ignorant. Slow metabolism means improved health in virtually every measurable way, including longer lifespan. You just can't eat quite as much food. Oh noes!

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

It seems that people who hit a plateua think they are in starvation mode people who never hit it don't believe it.

not so--quite the observation though.

watboy

Lol just the way it seems. Of course I know that's not 100% accurate to say.

It seems that people who hit a plateua think they are in starvation mode people who never hit it don't believe it.

not so--quite the observation though.

wolftrax

On another forum, this guy was worried about going into starvation mode if he didn't eat breakfast before working out...He weighed 320#...

paudes2003

Ok first and foremost forget about BMI as there have been countless studies to prove that these reading are often not accurate.

Use the Katch-McArdle Formula or the Harris Benedict Formula.

Drop your calorie intake by 30% for 3 days and then go back to the normal calorie intake for 1 day and then go back for 3 days, keep this system all the way and you will never enter "Survival mode" as I like to call it.

IMPORTANTLY, make sure you eact good clean nutritious food over 5-6 meals a day (to keep the metabolism working overtime) together with a cardio workout of a minimum 30 mins per day 4-5 times per week plus a weight training workout 3 times per week.

Do this and you will lose weight and survival mode is something you will never have to worry about.

When you do plateau just work harder on the cario side..

Cheers and good luck people.

watboy

Lol oh dear. See why I hate the starvation mode posted research. There is also research disproving it but it seems most people lean towards believing it.

On another forum, this guy was worried about going into starvation mode if he didn't eat breakfast before working out...He weighed 320#...

Sarauk2sf

On another forum, this guy was worried about going into starvation mode if he didn't eat breakfast before working out...He weighed 320#...

While I do believe that metabolisms slow down on a VLCD, I agree that folks take the concept a bit too far to say the least. I have seen a few posts where folks tell people they will go into starvation mode if they do not eat lunch/breakfast etc etc.

This type of commentary does not help with the discussion based on posts by folks citing valid research showing it does exist (with a VLCD of more than a few hours!)

suziecue66

Ok first and foremost forget about BMI as there have been countless studies to prove that these reading are often not accurate.

Use the Katch-McArdle Formula or the Harris Benedict Formula.

Drop your calorie intake by 30% for 3 days and then go back to the normal calorie intake for 1 day and then go back for 3 days, keep this system all the way and you will never enter "Survival mode" as I like to call it.

IMPORTANTLY, make sure you eact good clean nutritious food over 5-6 meals a day (to keep the metabolism working overtime) together with a cardio workout of a minimum 30 mins per day 4-5 times per week plus a weight training workout 3 times per week.

Do this and you will lose weight and survival mode is something you will never have to worry about.

When you do plateau just work harder on the cario side..

Cheers and good luck people.

I like the eating below 30% for 3 days then back to normal for 1 day. Don't think there is much to any difference eating 6 meals vs 3.

Aineko

Lol oh dear. See why I hate the starvation mode posted research. There is also research disproving it but it seems most people lean towards believing it.

actually, it seems to me that you are mixing research and anecdotal examples. I mean, I do get your very valid point that ppl through around "starvation mode" far too lightly and think that if they skip breakfast or go without food for 36h - that's it, they are causing 'starvation mode'. but I'm really not aware of any research claiming such things . on the other side 'choosing not believe' that a prolonged, very high calorie restriction (CR) will change your body's hormonal response and induce metabolism slow down which cannot be accounted for only by the loss of body mass - that's a completely different story. I've seen few studies showing that a prolonged CR did not do things like slow down metabolism nor induced loss of a lean body mass, but - the first study was done on menopausal women, a population that already has slower metabolism, and the second one was done on army recruits put through extreme training, again a group that is not exactly directly comparable to the majority of us here (I gave my opinion about this on one of the starvation mode threads in the intermittent fasting group). On the other hand - I've seen a lot of studies showing prolonged effects of CR on metabolic rate.

Aineko

I think people who get upset at a slower metabolism are ignorant. Slow metabolism means improved health in virtually every measurable way, including longer lifespan. You just can't eat quite as much food. Oh noes!

I'm not sure this is as simple as "If I lower my metabolic rate I might live longer.".
while we can (temporally - seen from the perspective of a total life time) change our MR in both direction, real low/high MR predispositions are most likely genetic and our bodies will (might?) eventually reverse to were we were. what I mean is, for example, genetic differences in TSH production dictate low MR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795660/?tool=pmcentrez). How much we can do about this, I don't know (haven't really done much reading on this).
Another thing is that our MR (the genetic one, not the one we get when we mess up with VLCD diets) does not seem to influence our body weight/body fat and what we can/cannot eat (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18070743). And I'm a living example of this. I've been told my whole life that I must have very high MR because I can eat whatever I want, whenever I want and as much as I want and not gain weight (I particularly started hearing this a lot when I moved from a country with very low obesity to a western country with the usual high obesity rate - speaking of excuses). Well, knowing my body for about 30 years now, I had my doubts about this - I suspected completely opposite. I had my resting MR tested yesterday by indirect calorimetry and it turned out my RMR is 30% lower than 'average' (expected) for someone my height/weight/age/gender. It is only 1037 Cal/day (so I were to eat 1200 Cal/day none would have right to tell me off lol - but I'm not going to do this, I don't think I need to to get to my goal body fat %). I should have made some bets with all those "high MR" ppl, starting with my partner .