Starvation mode?

verdammtwenig

So, I've heard differing opinions out there about the existence of starvation mode. It seems everyone here on MFP is on board that it exists, but on the other weight loss site that I frequent: www.reddit/com/r/loseit, everyone is adamant that survival mode does not exist. I wish I could get on reddit right now (at work/firewall) and see if I can find more information about this, but the studies that suggest that starvation mode exists were using people that were ACTUALLY starving (a few hundred calories a day for weeks and weeks at a time).

I'd like to my own life experience as an example of why I tend to agree with the folks over on reddit rather than the common opinion here.

When I first entered college, I went through a terrible bout of depression and anxiety. I was anxious most of the time, but it got especially bad whenever I sat down to eat a meal. My throat felt like it would close up, my stomach would start turning over. It was a terrible chore to force the food down my throat, and I never really ate more than 500-800 calories a day for about a month and a half (at which point I got put on an SSRI and the anxiety and depression quickly got better). Most people on here, I feel, would say that my body should have gone into "starvation mode" very quickly after I reduced my calorie intake so drastically. BUT, I lost 30 pounds in about a month and a half.

Can anyone explain how this happened if starvation mode actually exists?

chris1816

Starvation mode generally only happens when you are actually starving.

Like in a concentration/work camp or something (very low body fat etc).

I lost the link but there was a medical study where a kid that was in the 400lb range began a medically supervised fast where he literally ate nothing for months. He was in a hospital during this time, and provided potassium and b-vitamins among other things as needed. Only once was there a time where he experienced any kind of complications. His lean body mass losses were actually very minimal. This is not an endorsement of this, again this kid was basically part of a medical study.

The point though is that the whole "starvation mode" as people see it of, "like omg gurl you skipped breakfast you gonna go into starvation mode!!11" simply does not happen as easily as people think. Your existing body composition makes a huge difference as well. If you are lean already; yes, you can go catabolic over a period of extreme deficit/starvation and lose some lean mass. However, if you have a high amount of body fat; your body is going to go after that first. You might not feel the greatest but it is what will happen.

Intermittent fasting is actually an okay thing to do, and eating around 1000 calories or less on the odd occasion isn't going to kill you.

Unless you're already like anorexic.

And do lots of coke.

HonkyTonks

Starvation mode is something most people in my country will never have to worry about :P

LeoQuin

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/175608-starvation-mode-is-a-myth-the-science

badapdos

Chris said it all. I think starvation mode is only applied when you're eating nothing at all. Think of it as if you're stranded on an island. You'll start to lose weight rapidly. However, when you lose most of your body fat, that's when your body starts retaining it, and you will die.

Yep.

MamaDee2

Starvation mode is something most people in my country will never have to worry about :P

Amen!!

imtriagain

Bump to watch

verdammtwenig

I'm glad I've found some people on here who agree.

Looking through literature, I found this article conducted by Karl Friedl in which he did find a low enough calorie deficit at which lean muscle mass starts to be catabolised.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/77/2/933.short

In the 8 week study, the solidiers in this study were eating 1000-1200 calories a day, but were working out so much that they had a net calorie intake of -1200 calories. And real muscle loss didn't start happening until they were at 4-6% body fat.

verdammtwenig

Lol. Hoping for it to get a little heated in here soon?

chevy88grl

The way I look at this whole starvation thing?

I know what happened to my own body when I didn't eat enough. I don't need to read a study, article or whatever else to know that what I was doing to myself was basically starving. When your hair falls out, you can no longer sleep well, can't think, your heart rate is extremely slow, etc.. well, I don't need someone else to tell me that I'm not giving my body enough food.

I do think that the "starvation mode" that is thrown around on here is not all that accurate. Not eating enough food for a week or even a few weeks isn't going to cause starvation mode to kick in immediately. Yes, your body will adjust and adapt to the lower intake, but it isn't freaking out YET. When you severely restrict your calories for a long period of time, THAT is when you'll begin to see signs of "starvation".

JacksMom12

I think the term is thrown around a little too loosely, BUT I do believe people's metabolisms adjust to low caloric intakes. If someone is on an 800 calorie diet for an extended period of time, their body becomes used to losing at only 800 and that persons maintainence calorie level would be low as well (usually leading to regaining the weight). I lost slowly eating 1400-1600 calories a day and my metabolism knows it's being fed regularly and I'm able to maintain 117 lbs by eating 2000+ calories a day. I'm happy that I did it this way, because I know I can keep it off. Everyone is different but I've personal experienced it both ways and when I was on a low calorie diet, I lost the weight but as soon as I ate "normally"... BOOM the weight came back on.

chris1816

I think the term is thrown around a little too loosely, BUT I do believe people's metabolisms adjust to low caloric intakes. If someone is on an 800 calorie diet for an extended period of time, their body becomes used to losing at only 800 and that persons maintainence calorie level would be low as well (usually leading to regaining the weight). I lost slowly eating 1400-1600 calories a day and my metabolism knows it's being fed regularly and I'm able to maintain 117 lbs by eating 2000+ calories a day. I'm happy that I did it this way, because I know I can keep it off. Everyone is different but I've personal experienced it both ways and when I was on a low calorie diet, I lost the weight but as soon as I ate "normally"... BOOM the weight came back on.

No, not really.

If you eat 800 calories, and you have a lot of fat to lose; you will lose a lot of fat, very fast.

Your body does not become used to it, after maybe a week of it your metabolism may slow but by a marginal amount. Everyone is different yes but that statement is not the magic phrase that enables people to bend the laws of physics or ignore basic biological functions.

ttxqiu

I agree that "starvation mode" is tossed around too lightly, but that doesn't mean that people should actively decide to skip meals or severely restrict calories. Yeah, you'll lose a lot of weight really fast, but will you keep it off once you start eating normally again? Because let's face it, you WILL start eating normally again. It may be okay to live on 500 calories a day for a month or for however long it takes for you to get down to 4% body fat, but that's not going to fly for the rest of your life.

Also, I think the fact that I feel sluggish, lightheaded, and get dark circles under my eyes if I don't eat satisfying regular meals is incentive enough for me to not try skipping meals or restricting my calorie intake more than I already am, especially since I've increased the amount that I exercise.

Various fasting regimens definitely do work for people, but not for everyone, and it's something that you shouldn't undertake without a nutritionist's oversight, at least when you're first starting out. I don't feel the need to do any of those things despite the fact that there are a lot of testimonials about the results, because I'm not a fitness fanatic, and I'm not a bodybuilder -- I just want my body to feel good and for me to feel good about my body.

sparkle126

Stavation mode is crap, my friend put on 5 stone when pregnant then after pregnancy lost the 5 stone my simply eating 500-800 calories a day....wouldnt advice this, as healthy and slow is the best way. I think when your calorie intake is low ya just losing your lean muscle more than fat.

verdammtwenig

Stavation mode is crap, my friend put on 5 stone when pregnant then after pregnancy lost the 5 stone my simply eating 500-800 calories a day....wouldnt advice this, as healthy and slow is the best way. I think when your calorie intake is low ya just losing your lean muscle more than fat.

Look at the study I posted a little bit further up....they found that lean muscle was only really catabolised once a person reaches 4-6% body fat.

ttxqiu

Stavation mode is crap, my friend put on 5 stone when pregnant then after pregnancy lost the 5 stone my simply eating 500-800 calories a day....wouldnt advice this, as healthy and slow is the best way. I think when your calorie intake is low ya just losing your lean muscle more than fat.

Unless there's something wrong with your body's biochemistry, you WILL NOT start losing lean muscle before you start losing fat. Your body absolutely requires a minimum amount of fat to do things like cushion your organs and maintain proper neural signaling. Once your body has lost all of its fat except for the absolutely sheer minimum required to continue to survive, THEN your body starts breaking down lean muscle for energy.

chris1816

Stavation mode is crap, my friend put on 5 stone when pregnant then after pregnancy lost the 5 stone my simply eating 500-800 calories a day....wouldnt advice this, as healthy and slow is the best way. I think when your calorie intake is low ya just losing your lean muscle more than fat.

Look at the study I posted a little bit further up....they found that lean muscle was only really catabolised once a person reaches 4-6% body fat.

The best thing to look at (for people who like to ignore f*cking science).

Bears.

What do bears do? They hibernate, and before they do this they store up fat and as much mass as possible.

When they come out of hibernation sure they look leaner but do they look like they just spent a season in Auschwitz for bears?

No.

There you go, starvation mode explained.

verdammtwenig

Stavation mode is crap, my friend put on 5 stone when pregnant then after pregnancy lost the 5 stone my simply eating 500-800 calories a day....wouldnt advice this, as healthy and slow is the best way. I think when your calorie intake is low ya just losing your lean muscle more than fat.

Look at the study I posted a little bit further up....they found that lean muscle was only really catabolised once a person reaches 4-6% body fat.

The best thing to look at (for people who like to ignore f*cking science).

Bears.

What do bears do? They hibernate, and before they do this they store up fat and as much mass as possible.

When they come out of hibernation sure they look leaner but do they look like they just spent a season in Auschwitz for bears?

No.

There you go, starvation mode explained.

I lol'd. At work. Thanks.

Sarauk2sf

Did you check your metabolism and BF% before and after?

Annie_ga

Well said. Listen to your body for sure. I was a 137, am at 129 and am aiming for 120. See you there!

Azdak

The biggest problems is that, like so many of the topics discussed here and other fitness board, there is no common framework for discussion. People use the term "starvation mode" indiscriminately for a number of different physiological scenarios and other issues. The term and the explanation provide a nice, simple explanation with relatively easy rules to follow (don't eat less than 1200 calories !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) so it's an easy refuge in a swirling sea of discordant fitness and health information. Not to mention the fact that it is parroted ad nauseum by people who claim to be "experts" which just reinforces its ring of authority. Like a mutated form of the "telephone game", the concept has become distorted to the point where some people claim that every too little will cause you to GAIN weight and gain fat, which defies the laws of physics.

The problem is made worse by the fact that about 90% of the "evidence" cited one way or the other consists of individual anecdotes.

True starvation mode does exist, but most people (luckily) will never experience it. There are other instances where very low calorie intakes and combinations of low intake and a high volume of intense exercise can have adverse effects in some individuals, but that is not starvation mode.

The biggest reason to avoid low-calorie diets is not because of "starvation mode" but because they have a 95% long-term failure rate.

JacksMom12

Be right back... Must go hibernate all season long.

Oh wait, that's right I am a human, not a bear.

Back to discussing metabolic function of HUMANS now....

ZugTheMegasaurus

There's a big difference between "starvation" and "starvation mode," to respond to some of the concerns here. Of course starvation is real, and if you feel horrible and are having serious physical problems like weakness or hair falling out, then that's a signal something is really wrong. Starvation mode, on the other hand, is that whole, "You have to eat six small meals spaced out every two hours or else your metabolism shuts down and you'll never lose any weight" sort of thing. While it's popular and often thrown around, I see no evidence that it's a real phenomenon.

The last few times I tried losing weight, that's exactly the advice I followed. And I felt AWFUL. I was stressed and moody all the time, and barely lost any weight. This time around, I decided to just do what felt right. I usually don't eat until early afternoon, and don't eat a whole lot until about 8PM when I have the majority of my calories. If I feel hungry earlier, I eat earlier. If I don't, then I don't. I feel fantastic, lots of energy, steady good mood, and on top of that, the weight is flying off (and has been consistently for three months now). If my metabolism were going to start working against me, I think it would have happened by now.

As far as I can tell, everybody's different. Everybody has a different method that will work for them, different preferences and circumstances, different body issues and pressures. If following a particular plan or piece of advice makes you feel bad, don't do it. If it works and makes you feel better, then keep doing it, regardless of what conventional wisdom has to say about it.

sparkle126

lol i didnt read earlier posts. Fair point x

DigDougOK

I keep reading these posts about starvation mode......I haven't commented, but I will now. This is only my opinion based on nothing other than my personal experiences...and I'm no doctor or anything so....

I think "starvation" is an incorrect description. What I believe is when you cut way down on calories your body just gets more efficient on how it uses what you eat. Once it gets into that efficient mode if you do increase for a few days it is still being very efficient and will store up what it considers "extra" which may actually be what was only "sufficient" before. To actually be in some kind of "starvation" mode it would take days of very low food intake, or being anorexic or some kind of other issue in my opinion.

I think it's more about paying attention to eathing healthy...getting the correct mix of vitamins, nutrients, protein, etc than how much food or how may calories you eat. I occasionaly drop below 1000 calories, but only for a day or two at the most. I continue to lose weight when I eat my 1400 just the same. Even when I do drop below I am eating healthy food and I have not experienced any problems.

sparkle126

Be right back... Must go hibernate all season long.

Oh wait, that's right I am a human, not a bear.

Back to discussing metabolic function of HUMANS now....

This made me laugh :laugh:

chris1816

Be right back... Must go hibernate all season long.

Oh wait, that's right I am a human, not a bear.

Back to discussing metabolic function of HUMANS now....

Or you can understand the point being made there; no humans (outside of rare, isolated cases) do not have the ability to induce a reduced metabolic state as a whole.

However; if you have excess fat stores, guess what goes first.

I guess next time I'll clarify the points that should fall under implied understanding.

Aquaduckie

It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.

Sarauk2sf

It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.

While I am one that believes that you will suffer a reduced metabolism if you are on a VLCD for a length of time - it DOES NOT happen if you skip breakfast or even if you eat low calories for a few days. There is no evidence to suggest this.

chris1816

It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.

Your body does not magically require half as much energy to keep the involuntary action of your heart working and your relatively static volume of blood pumping.

Your body does not magically require half as much energy to keep cellular ATP production going.

Your body does not magically require half as much energy to keep the neurons in your brain firing.

Your body does not magically require half as much energy to keep producing new skill cells to replace dead ones or to keep your hair and fingernails going.

All these things are true. Your metabolism may slow; slightly.

However, to keep all those functions going your body will take anything it can to fuel them. Excess fat stores go first, then muscle, then your everything else. Then all the *kitten* I mentioned above stops happening and you die.

The whole thing of regularly spaced small meals will not play roulette with your metabolism, it's advice for fat people with no self control to keep themselves from being 'hungry" and going and buying a bag full of sliders from White Castle.

Your body has set input/output requirements and you cannot -substantially- change that by what you put in you and how often. If you be The White Whale o Legend and you start eating 500 calories, you will lose fat fast. You may not feel the best, you will probably be grouchy, but your body will keep doing what it is doing and oh baby you have buckets of effing oil to keep that fire burning.

verdammtwenig

It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.

Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.