This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

AmyP619

So, all I feel like I ever hear on this site is that if you don't eat enough your body is going to go into starvation mode. My sister just started doing the Ideal Protein diet, which they tell you not to worry about the "Starvation Mode" thing. She only eats like 600-800 calories a day on this, and she's been losing weight quite rapidly. They told her that as long as your body has fat stores to rely on, you don't have to worry about hitting a certain number of calories in a day. Mostly, it's just about getting the proper nutrients that your body needs. So, with all of this starvation mode stuff flying around and after I talked to her, I decided to look it up. How true is it? Am I not going to lose weight by eating under 1200 calories a day because I'm starving myself?

Read this.
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

Quite interesting really!

lstnlondry

I went to my husband's endocrinologist appointment and heard from his mouth that he could survive off 800 calories. He's lost 50 pounds so far.

Di3012

Some people eat 1200 calories per day of rubbish, others eat 1000 calories per day of nothing but good food - guess which one will become nutritionally deficient.

If a person is going to go on 1200 calories per day, they cannot afford to waste any of the calories on crap. It depends on WHAT you eat as to how healthy a person's diet is. People take figures and numbers far too literally and forget the quality of the food and drink consumed.

looseweightnow2012

of course you loose lots fast if you don't eat enough, but then when you try to stop "dieting" and go back to eating healthy normal portions your body goes into overdrive storage mode in order to prepare for the next time it wont get enough.
Simply it's a short term solution but you put on more afterwards. That's what people call jojo diet.
Besides your body doesn't get the nutrions it needs to function normaly which will not only impact on your physical functioning but also your mental health e.g. really crumpy "no eaters".

But... if you eat enough e.g. 1200 at least a day, you get used to eating healthy making good choices and you loose weight and when you feel like a treat or are going out with friends your body will not go into storage mode.

keep happy

yarwell

of course you loose lots fast if you don't eat enough, but then when you try to stop "dieting" and go back to eating healthy normal portions your body goes into overdrive storage mode in order to prepare for the next time it wont get enough.

This happens with most dieters, it isn't a function of how much they eat while dieting it's the giving up and retuning to old habits that gets them.

jjelizalde

So you eat 1000 calories a day and lose weight like crazy. Is that sustainable? Can you eat like that the rest of your life? Obviously not. As soon as you try to maintain that loss you'll gain weight. You haven't learned how to eat properly or make good nutritional choices. Put simply, its not real life and doesn't work for the long run.

andreabrightside

But if you have like 300 lbs to lose (or whatever, pick a big number), and use a big deficit to lose that weight, you CAN keep it off. But it means you can't go back to your old habits when you're done. You're going to have to slowly build up eating good foods until you find a level that you can maintain your weight. And you'll have to add exercise in to balance it all out.

You don't accidentally become a 300-400lb person. You got there somehow and you certainly weren't jogging 10k/week and eating 1400-1600cals/day. However, if you can make those lifestyle changes and resist temptation of a lot of foods that you used to eat, you can maintain yourself at a healthy weight. (Please note that I do understand that in rare cases, people are obese because of medication or illness, and they are mostly excluded from what I just wrote.)

Also Starvation Mode is stupid. What's the point of fat in nature? It's to a) keep you warm and b) provide fuel when there IS NO FOOD. Look at a polar bear. One will gain hundreds of pounds of fat when food is abundant. As the year goes on and food is scarce, the bear will lose the fat to fuel itself. Don't believe me? Watch the Attenborough documentary about polar bears (I can't remember what it's called at the moment). Starvation mode lasts a relatively short period of time but then your body adapts and starts burning fat. You may also lose muscle mass if you stay sedentary and don't eat enough protein (not really a problem for a polar bear).

There have also been case studies done where they took an extremely obese person (400+lbs overweight) and gave him nothing but water and vitamins. He lost like 300lbs on this "diet" over the course of a year. I would never recommend doing this without supervision from qualified doctors and scientists, but it does prove that starvation mode is crap.

focus4fitness

ITA with this lady but I am glad she made the point of saying that she has to eat pretty close to perfect and she is always getting tests done by a doctor, because her calories were really low. I personally do not buy into the magic 1200 number, that is a number that could mean different things to different people, it doesn't even make sense. My dad is almost 6'2 and my mom is 4'11 and when they diet together one clearly loses weight faster than the other lol There is no generic number that is going to fit both of those people.

yarwell

So you eat 1000 calories a day and lose weight like crazy. Is that sustainable?

It doesn't need to be, because once you are at target you can eat at maintenance. Same with any deficit based strategy - you can't keep losing forever.

I could actually sustain eating 1000, but that's not really relevant. Thing is the ability to keep weight off is a problem to all dieters.

focus4fitness

So you eat 1000 calories a day and lose weight like crazy. Is that sustainable?

It doesn't need to be, because once you are at target you can eat at maintenance. Same with any deficit based strategy - you can't keep losing forever.

I could actually sustain eating 1000, but that's not really relevant. Thing is the ability to keep weight off is a problem to all dieters.

I agree with this.

hsnider29

The bottom line is that in response to an extended low calorie intake, the body adapts by lowering it's metabolic rate. Of course you can survive off of eating 800 calories a day but as soon as you start eating more than that you will regain the weight because your body has reduced it's metabolism to accomadate the lower calories.

mcarter99

The bottom line is that in response to an extended low calorie intake, the body adapts by lowering it's metabolic rate. Of course you can survive off of eating 800 calories a day but as soon as you start eating more than that you will regain the weight because your body has reduced it's metabolism to accomadate the lower calories.

This isn't true, though. Your body does get more efficient (reduced calories needed for BMR) but it's temporary and it's small. People act like your body drops down to half its prior BMR and stays that way for life. As soon as your calorie intake goes back up, your BMR does, too.

Maybe my body's normal BMR is 1500/calories/day. If I start eating 800/calories/day, my body might shift into low gear and learn to live off of 1400/calories/day until I go back to normal eating. I'm still going to lose twice as fast at that 600 calorie day/deficit (1400-800, ignoring activity calories) than at 1200 calories/day, which would be a 300/day deficit (1500-1200). Will I be more comfortable eating 1200 than 800? Probably. But some people would prefer to lose their excess weight faster and they're ok with a little discomfort along the way. It's not dangerous if you get your basic nutritional needs met, which isn't that hard for a healthy eater.

The whole issue is terribly overblown and misunderstood here.

hsnider29

The bottom line is that in response to an extended low calorie intake, the body adapts by lowering it's metabolic rate. Of course you can survive off of eating 800 calories a day but as soon as you start eating more than that you will regain the weight because your body has reduced it's metabolism to accomadate the lower calories.

This isn't true, though. Your body does get more efficient (reduced calories needed for BMR) but it's temporary and it's small. People act like your body drops down to half its prior BMR and stays that way for life. As soon as your calorie intake goes back up, your BMR does, too.

Maybe my body's normal BMR is 1500/calories/day. If I start eating 800/calories/day, my body might shift into low gear and learn to live off of 1400/calories/day until I go back to normal eating. I'm still going to lose twice as fast at that 600 calorie day/deficit (1400-800, ignoring activity calories) than at 1200 calories/day, which would be a 300/day deficit (1500-1200). Will I be more comfortable eating 1200 than 800? Probably. But some people would prefer to lose their excess weight faster and they're ok with a little discomfort along the way. It's not dangerous if you get your basic nutritional needs met, which isn't that hard for a healthy eater.

The whole issue is terribly overblown and misunderstood here.

It is true. Basic anatomy and physiology of the human body. I don't think starvation mode exists as it is touted on this site but a lowered metabolic rate isn't fiction or misunderstood by most.

mcarter99

The only reason for a permanent lower BMR is if your lean body mass was reduced. That's not inevitable.

tlc12078

When I was younger, I was really active, ate lots of meat, I lost a considerable amount of weight. Once I got into a relationship I became sedentary Think thats how you spell it lol. Well, I believe you should watch how much you eat, but I honestly think being active is the key. I mean not just doing 20 minutes of cardio a bit of weight training, but being really active and eating everything in moderation. Its working for me. I burn over a 1000 cals a day, sometimes more, sometimes less. But I feel like a million bucks I dont think the 800 cals a day wont do it, if you work out, you'll start feeling dizzy. I tried this already, felt like crap.. I believe you will lose weight but your not gonna have any energy unless you remain sedentary. And in college, they said you need to build muscle, muscle burns fat. Its important, cardio makes your heart race which burns cals. Makes sense to me. I also notice when I eat high amounts of protein, I also lose weight. Actually before I came to this site, I had already lost 30 pounds, no working out, I ate mostly high protein foods, like yogurt, meat, cottage cheese, stuff like that and I still lost. I think sometimes too, it also depends on your body n how you produce chemicals. No one is the same.

bubblie117

Thank you for posting this! I have been kind of worried about it lately!

hsnider29

The only reason for a permanent lower BMR is if your lean body mass was reduced. That's not inevitable.

Your BMR will reduce with a loss of fat mass also. Fat mass is metabolically active, just not as active as muscle.

mcarter99

The only reason for a permanent lower BMR is if your lean body mass was reduced. That's not inevitable.

Your BMR will reduce with a loss of fat mass also. Fat mass is metabolically active, just not as active as muscle.

Yes, but that's not 'damaging your metabolism'. Anyone with weight loss at any speed is going to have a reduced BMR.

Sarauk2sf

The term starvation mode is probably the most mis-used term on this site.

Basically, there are two versions of 'starvation mode'. There is a metabolic adaptation (slowdown) and the point where your body starts burning muscle instead of fat. Neither occur at one specific point of calorific intake.

Metabolic slowdown: as you lose weight, your BMR decreases naturally. However, at significant deficits, it will reduce in excess of a decrease solely due to weight loss. How much by is subject to wide debate and conflicting studies. It is also a function of how long someone is on a deficit for and by how much. The only permanent decrease, assuming someone eats at what should be maintenance for them after the weight loss, is that occuring due to the decrease in BMR as a result of weighing less. The issue is that is someone's metabolism had adapted, maintenance is no longer maintenance and eating enough to get them back to what their maintenance should be without the suppressed metabolism will actually make them gain some weight.

Muscle v fat. When someone loses weight, they will never only lose fat. LBM is made up of anything not fat and as such includes water, bone, organs and muscle etc etc. Eating at a deficit will reduce LBM. The challenge is to keep the muscle mass as high as possible and reduce fat. There are a number of factors that determine how much fat you will be losing v muscle and other LBM. These include the size of the deficit and the macros in your diet as well as amount and type of exercise. There have also been some conflicting studies as to how much muscle people lose on a significant deficit.

One of the main issues with a VLCD (except for the rather large one of sustainability) is the ability to get enough protein to maintain as much muscle as possible, fats to help you body function effectively and carbs (incl. fiber) to give yourself energy and to help your body function effectively. Only being able to eat say 1,000 calories makes the already hard balancing act even harder. In addition, a body needs a minimum amount of micronutrients to function properly.

Using myself as an example, to get the minimum recommended amount of protein and fat, I need to eat approx.1,000 calories. This leaves no room for carbs and I would need to get all on my micronutrients from that. The math just does not work in order to get the approrpriate macros to minimize muscle loss and to have a healthh functioning body. Bear in mind, the way to minimize muscle loss is to strength train - which needs to be fueled.

Keeping appopriate muscle mass, bone density and fueling workouts is very important, especially as you get older.

ETA: the link is a blog so is just someones opinion.

hsnider29

The term starvation mode is probably the most mis-used term on this site.

Basically, there are two versions of 'starvation mode'. There is a metabolic adaptation (slowdown) and the point where your body starts burning muscle instead of fat. Neither occur at one specific point of calorific intake.

Metabolic slowdown: as you lose weight, your BMR decreases naturally. However, at significant deficits, it will reduce in excess of a decrease solely due to weight loss. How much by is subject to wide debate and conflicting studies. It is also a function of how long someone is on a deficit for and by how much. The only permanent decrease, assuming someone eats at what should be maintenance for them after the weight loss, is that occuring due to the decrease in BMR as a result of weighing less. The issue is that is someone's metabolism had adapted, maintenance is no longer maintenance and eating enough to get them back to what their maintenance should be without the suppressed metabolism will actually make them gain some weight.

Muscle v fat. When someone loses weight, they will never only lose fat. LBM is made up of anything not fat and as such includes water, bone, organs and muscle etc etc. Eating at a deficit will reduce LBM. The challenge is to keep the muscle mass as high as possible and reduce fat. There are a number of factors that determine how much fat you will be losing v muscle and other LBM. These include the size of the deficit and the macros in your diet as well as amount and type of exercise. There have also been some conflicting studies as to how much muscle people lose on a significant deficit.

One of the main issues with a VLCD (except for the rather large one of sustainability) is the ability to get enough protein to maintain as much muscle as possible, fats to help you body function effectively and carbs (incl. fiber) to give yourself energy and to help your body function effectively. Only being able to eat say 1,000 calories makes the already hard balancing act even harder. In addition, a body needs a minimum amount of micronutrients to function properly.

Using myself as an example, to get the minimum recommended amount of protein and fat, I need to eat approx.1,000 calories. This leaves no room for carbs and I would need to get all on my micronutrients from that. The math just does not work in order to get the approrpriate macros to minimize muscle loss and to have a healthh functioning body. Bear in mind, the way to minimize muscle loss is to strength train - which needs to be fueled.

Keeping appopriate muscle mass, bone density and fueling workouts is very important, especially as you get older.

ETA: the link is a blog so is just someones opinion.

Yes, thank you! Exactly what I was trying to say earlier.

mcarter99

I'm in agreement with that. I don't advocate people eating less than 1000 calories/day for long periods.

What I don't like seeing is someone morbidly obese get the advice here to eat their 2500 calorie BMR PLUS their exercise calories, or else they'll go into starvation mode and permanently damage their metabolism, gain weight, not lose weight, lose muscle, etc. And I have seen that. There is no reason someone obese can't eat below their BMR. The added YEARS of obesity from having a tiny deficit are, in my opinion, much worse for the body than losing at a healthy 2 lbs/week. Not to mention most people will not track calories for 3 years while losing a half pound a week. They will say, "It's not worth it" and give up.

There is no reason most of us can't eat well below our BMR. Most of us burn at least 1400 calories in BMR. Eating 1200 is not going to hurt anybody overweight. For most of us, 1000 is not going to hurt us. Some of us, 800 is not going to hurt us. As soon as the discussion gets into the 'below BMR' level, the starvation mode myth starts getting thrown around, it seems like.

Mrsbrandnewmeslimandtrim

Bump

sgthaggard

I would imagine if you couldn't lose weight by eating too few calories there wouldn't be so many people starving to death in this world.

rc8164

Agree with almost all of Sarauk2sf's posts above, and happy to see some good FACT-based info here.

I will disagree with you Sarauk2sf, on one point:
It IS possible to lose weight WITHOUT losing LBM.

It's working for me right now, and it's worked for me before...
Weight is down, body fat down, and LBM up!

It will NOT happen without good healthy diet combined with focused strength training, though.

Sarauk2sf

I'm in agreement with that. I don't advocate people eating less than 1000 calories/day for long periods.

What I don't like seeing is someone morbidly obese get the advice here to eat their 2500 calorie BMR PLUS their exercise calories, or else they'll go into starvation mode and permanently damage their metabolism, gain weight, not lose weight, lose muscle, etc. And I have seen that. There is no reason someone obese can't eat below their BMR. The added YEARS of obesity from having a tiny deficit are, in my opinion, much worse for the body than losing at a healthy 2 lbs/week. Not to mention most people will not track calories for 3 years while losing a half pound a week. They will say, "It's not worth it" and give up.

There is no reason most of us can't eat well below our BMR. Most of us burn at least 1400 calories in BMR. Eating 1200 is not going to hurt anybody overweight. For most of us, 1000 is not going to hurt us. Some of us, 800 is not going to hurt us. As soon as the discussion gets into the 'below BMR' level, the starvation mode myth starts getting thrown around, it seems like.

I totally agree with you regarding the morbidly obese - they can have significant deficits and not have any issues at all. And, as you mention, its weighing up the cost/benefit even if there was an slightly elevated impact to metabolism. The more overweight someone is, the more important that actual weigh loss is v metabolism.

The issue I have with people eating under their BMR - usually (and I am not saying always), this means that the deficit is too large for someone to have the most efficient way of fueling themselves and getting appropriate nutrients (talking about -morbidly obese here). Where I disagree, for someone who has say 30 lb to lose, eating at 800 for an extended period of time WILL hurt them as there is no way you can get the appropriate micro and macronutrients to lose weight healthily and to minimize muscle loss.

ETA: 1200 will hurt me - I do not have enough energy to strength train (= muscle loss), I would not stick to it, and I would not be able to get enough protein, fats, carbs and micronutrients to have my body working effectively

Sarauk2sf

Agree with almost all of this, and happy to see some good FACT-based info here.

I will disagree with you Sarauk2sf, on one point:
It IS possible to lose weight WITHOUT losing LBM.

It's working for me right now, and it's worked for me before...
Weight is down, body fat down, and LBM up!

It will NOT happen without good healthy diet combined with focused strength training, though.

Thank you - but sorry, I am gong to have to clarify one thing: It is not possible to have gained muscle. Unless you have newbie gains (a lb or 2 at the most) or are significantly overweight you CANNOT gain muscle on a deficit. This goes double for women.


How did you test your BF%.

Edited to be a bit clearer

rc8164

OK, sarauk2sf, went back and re-read what you posted rather than squabble lol,
(in case I missed a finesse point) but I'm still not convinced :-)
I will admit that my nutritional journaling didn't start until 2-3 months after my initial LBM gains--so
I can't say (with documented proof) that I was working at a deficit for the past two months, the real
truth in the pudding will come out with the next BOD POD on the 21st.

I am following a nutrutionist monitored diet (ha she set me up here so she could spy on me!) lol
Diet is healthy diet, with daily caloric target focused on overall fat/weight-loss,
based upon my exercise-adjusted BMR.

I am a 50yo woman, medical professional--10 yr hx of routine strength training, though had lost
my weigh (lol) dietarily over past 4 years and picked up significant body fat as well. I had continued to
strength train, though.

I had 3 lb LBM gain last month w/2% fat loss, though my weight wasn't coming down like I wanted.
II'm pretty sure from how I feel (easier to run) and what I see in the mirror, this month will be same or better,
WITH documented weight loss.

I'll let you know when I get my BOD POD results ;-)

I am just really glad she got me started journaling----WHOA what a difference!

Awkward30

OP didn;t say "Hey everyone, you should ALL eat 1200 cals or less!" So stop arguing about the ramifications. The OP is simply making people aware that they really be so tied to that magic number. At least 10 times a day there's somebody posting "I started eating healthier and I'm 5'0" and I can't net more than 1000 calories because I'm stuffed all the time. AM I GOING TO GO INTO STARVATION MODE?!?!?! Am I hurting myself?!" And the answer is no. People with a lot to lose and people that are already small may have to eat low calorie amounts. As long as they get the nutrients, it should be fine.

I have a feeling that a large portion of why eating more helps some people lose more is that they under-report more when they have a ridiculously low goal. If you only have 1200 calories it's easy to justify eating a small spoonful of peanut butter and not logging it. But it wasn't actually a negligible amount, so you ate 80 cals you didn't log. A bit of this and a bit of that can add up quite significantly. Also, people who feel restricted are generally more likely to binge or have cheat days which they may or may not log and which can easily knock out a lot of their hard earned deficit.

It's all about finding what works for you.

wackyfunster

Lol@damaging metabolism derp. A slow metabolism provides a ton of health advantages in terms of slower aging and senescence. Also, the lower core temp gives you better heat tolerance and endurance.

I have a slow metabolism (97.2-4 is my normal body temp, resting heart rate around 50) and maintain single digit body fat and am, as of my last physical, the "most disgustingly healthy" person my physician has seen.

It's not your metabolism that makes you fat, it's eating too much food.

Metabolic adaptation never exceeds caloric restriction, or it would be impossible to starve to death, and we could harness the zero-point energy being created by the obese to create matrix-like sustainable energy.

hcyndy

Some people eat 1200 calories per day of rubbish, others eat 1000 calories per day of nothing but good food - guess which one will become nutritionally deficient.

If a person is going to go on 1200 calories per day, they cannot afford to waste any of the calories on crap. It depends on WHAT you eat as to how healthy a person's diet is. People take figures and numbers far too literally and forget the quality of the food and drink consumed.

well said

Sarauk2sf

OP didn;t say "Hey everyone, you should ALL eat 1200 cals or less!" So stop arguing about the ramifications. The OP is simply making people aware that they really be so tied to that magic number. At least 10 times a day there's somebody posting "I started eating healthier and I'm 5'0" and I can't net more than 1000 calories because I'm stuffed all the time. AM I GOING TO GO INTO STARVATION MODE?!?!?! Am I hurting myself?!" And the answer is no. People with a lot to lose and people that are already small may have to eat low calorie amounts. As long as they get the nutrients, it should be fine.

I have a feeling that a large portion of why eating more helps some people lose more is that they under-report more when they have a ridiculously low goal. If you only have 1200 calories it's easy to justify eating a small spoonful of peanut butter and not logging it. But it wasn't actually a negligible amount, so you ate 80 cals you didn't log. A bit of this and a bit of that can add up quite significantly. Also, people who feel restricted are generally more likely to binge or have cheat days which they may or may not log and which can easily knock out a lot of their hard earned deficit.

It's all about finding what works for you.

People WERE expanding on the idea that 1200 is not a magic number - a discussion ensued - thats what happens in forums. And you added to that discussion.

ETA: we can discuss the ramifications as much as we want - it is on topic and actually a very civil debate (unlike most related to this topic are!)