The starvation mode lie

HeidiHoMom

Also, on 1200 calories I was losing hair, not sleeping, had chronic constipation (regardless of eating 35 grams of fibre a day), was hungry and miserable.

Now I eat 2000 calories, I'm losing more weight than on 1200, mot importantly the chronic constipation is gone (after 15 years of dealing with it and relying on laxatives)...I now go every day without assistance, I am sleeping better and deeper, I am happier and stronger, my workouts are so much better.

In general the quality of my life has vastly improved.

chris1816

You won't feel great, but extremely obese people can eat at an extremely low calorie intake or even fast and be metabolically fine.

What absurdity.....Does this sound like fun to anybody?
No wonder people fail so miserable on crash diets.
Smarten up!
Think 1 lb per week, and for those of you on the fence here? Wondering?
The fast path always looks like the easy route until you get on it.
When it comes to weight loss, those in a race with nature finish last.
Follow the MFP recommendations for steady, lasting and healthy fat loss.
For those interested in leaning the truth about how to win this fight, go here:
Read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/23912-links-in-mfp-you-want-to-read-again-and-again
And this"
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
Learn all you can.
Track your diet and exercises - again simple.
You will do fine - ALL IS POSSIBLE:flowerforyou:

You mistake clarification of facts with me advocating voluntary anorexia.

My issue with starvation mode being thrown around is that it is just that; thrown around freely without anyone wanting to actually have an even basic understanding of biology or physics.

I think crash diets are stupid, cleanses are crap, and all it takes is persistence/focus/calorie restriction/exercise.

HOWEVER.

People look at folks who "net" 200 calories, or fast for a day, or skip breakfast and are immediately like, "GURL YOU GONNA GO INTO DAT STARVATION MODE". The point I am trying to make is that people need to understand even just a little bit how the body works, how "metabolism" actually functions and what happens in certain situations with x or y factors in play. To say that the metabolism is "stifled" (which is what you emphasised before staying simply slowed down) in the case of an extreme calorie deficit is simply wrong.

You can eat almost nothing, you can fast intermittantly, and you will not starve, your body will not consume 2lbs of muscle in a day.

It becomes one more thing to freak people out on if they are just not hungry, or panicking about eating back exercise calories. I am eating at a 1000 calorie deficit every day. Most days I increase that deficit by heavy weight lifting and cardio, once a week I do martial arts. Being an obese person I have plenty of reserve energy to use. Simple as that.

Di3012

It's not a lie. Yes, when you are excessively overweight your body will compensate for short periods of time of very low calorie intake by consuming body fat and some muscle. That is the whole reason for your body storing body fat. However the key is SHORT TERM. As this period of very low calorie intake continues, your body reacts and starts trying to store most calories as fat and slowly limiting bodily functions.

I agree this term gets thrown around very loosely and improperly here. It takes a good amount of time to drop into starvation mode as long as you haven't completely stopped eating and some time to climb back out of it.

It cannot store most calories as fat, because those on low calorie diets use up their calories, it stores nothing.

kmm7309

I think there is some truth to it *provided* that you are starving for weeks at a time. If it's a day or two at a time, I don't think it'll kick in that quickly. Besides, I think everyone's "minimum" calorie needs are going to be different at different weight intervals. I think they probably did several studies that concluded that the average starvation mode for most people was 1200, but somebody's could be much lower or higher.

I also think that the biggest issue with starvation mode is that if you lose your weight starving, then when you start to eat again, you might gain some of it back, which is an undesirable result.

HeidiHoMom

But you're eating like 2400 calories a day which is a reasonable amount of food.

When someone is netting 200 calories do you really think that isn't going to have a negative impact on their weight loss and overall well being?

Di3012

Okay, someone in starvation mode will continue to lose weight. But it will be a very slow process and it will probably cause rapid weight gain once they end calorie-restriction. Why are those desirable outcomes, people who think starvation mode is silly?

FWIW, I do actually know two people who were overweight *because* they were not eating enough. They had eating disorders, and when they were put by their dietitians on a diet they felt was way too much food, the pounds dropped off.

They were overweight BECAUSE they were not eating enough?? This defies all logic and physics.

Those eating disorders and the way the doctors dealt with it would have been to put them on more calories than they needed in order that their weight went ON, not came OFF. No doctor in his/her right mind would ever put somebody with a genuine ED on a weightloss diet - ever!

neanderthin

It's not a lie. Yes, when you are excessively overweight your body will compensate for short periods of time of very low calorie intake by consuming body fat and some muscle. That is the whole reason for your body storing body fat. However the key is SHORT TERM. As this period of very low calorie intake continues, your body reacts and starts trying to store most calories as fat and slowly limiting bodily functions.

I agree this term gets thrown around very loosely and improperly here. It takes a good amount of time to drop into starvation mode as long as you haven't completely stopped eating and some time to climb back out of it.

It cannot store most calories as fat, because those on low calorie diets use up their calories, it stores nothing.

Somehow people can't get this fact through their heads.

chris1816

Also, on 1200 calories I was losing hair, not sleeping, had chronic constipation (regardless of eating 35 grams of fibre a day), was hungry and miserable.

Now I eat 2000 calories, I'm losing more weight than on 1200, mot importantly the chronic constipation is gone (after 15 years of dealing with it and relying on laxatives)...I now go every day without assistance, I am sleeping better and deeper, I am happier and stronger, my workouts are so much better.

In general the quality of my life has vastly improved.

And yet at 380+lbs I ate 1000 calories a day for six months, medically supervised, supplementing only B Vitamins, potassium, but eating 1200 balanced calories, and I lost weight fast. I felt fine, didn't poop as much, which is expected. Slept fine, had a lot of energy (though I was not exercising). I lost about 40lbs. Was it unrealistic? Absolutely. I gained it back, and have since lost it again through eating 2500 calories a day and exercising.

Honestly your case sounds like there were some other issues there (especially 15 years relying on laxatives), sorry but that's not normal. Plenty of folks eat at that calorie level or slightly around it and do fine.

Di3012

So yes, please explain how my metabolism slows down if I stop eating and am classified as obese?

It's called adaptive thermogenesis.

Which is a theory related to supposed genetic set points related to weight gain in those who have lost weight.

I must have missed the pictures of the folks in Auschwitz who held onto all their fat and kept saying the scale just wouldn't budge.

Again, in the extremely obese your bodily functions have set energy costs that cannot be reduced beyond a certain point, period. Starvation mode does not happen unless you have zero excess body fat to consume for energy. Adaptive thermogenesis is a theory that loves to get trumped up by folks who hit weight loss plataeus or just don't have the persistince to keep at it.

The bolded bit above, this ^!!

I'm with you on this one, it's a wonder there are any starving people in the world really, all these third world countries whereby they have no food. BandAid, LiveAid, none of that was necessary really was it, after all, those that are starving in the third world countries, all they really needed to do was restrict their calories, they would have put on their weight and been absolutely fine!

NOW does all those that profess about starvation mode see? Or not?

BeckaT79

I haven't read all the posts so if I repeat someone I'm sorry. Every year at work we do a biggest loser competition and we have 3 ladies who always win. Let me just tell you that they always win because when we are done with the competition they go back to eating the same foods that they used to eat before and they put back on all of their weight plus some. I feel it is because they were depriving their bodies. "Starvation Mode" aside why not just eat at a semi normal calorie range and exercise. If you want to eat less to get the desired results and increase your calorie intake by 1000-2000 more a day when you finally hit your ultimate goal you may keep those results for very long. Eat sensibly and exercise.

chris1816

So yes, please explain how my metabolism slows down if I stop eating and am classified as obese?

It's called adaptive thermogenesis.

Which is a theory related to supposed genetic set points related to weight gain in those who have lost weight.

I must have missed the pictures of the folks in Auschwitz who held onto all their fat and kept saying the scale just wouldn't budge.

Again, in the extremely obese your bodily functions have set energy costs that cannot be reduced beyond a certain point, period. Starvation mode does not happen unless you have zero excess body fat to consume for energy. Adaptive thermogenesis is a theory that loves to get trumped up by folks who hit weight loss plataeus or just don't have the persistince to keep at it.

The bolded bit above, this ^!!

I'm with you on this one, it's a wonder there are any starving people in the world really, all these third world countries whereby they have no food. BandAid, LiveAid, none of that was necessary really was it, after all, those that are starving in the third world countries, all they really needed to do was restrict their calories, they would have put on their weight and been absolutely fine!

NOW does all those that profess about starvation mode see? Or not?

You're kind of scary.

Prahasaurus

Does anyone else agree that starvation mode in an overweight to obese person doesn't exist? Studies have shown that the body can not starve until it reaches low body fat levels below 20 percent.

It's much lower, from what I've read. 5% for men, a bit more for women (I've seen 6% and 10%).

I'm guessing it was an Oprah episode recently? That might explain it.

--P

Prahasaurus

I suspect that the people who say, “I’m eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response” are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I’m aware of has ever found such an occurrence.

Ding ding, we have a winner!

--P

Bobby_Clerici

Who cares if it does or does not exist.

I don't care what you call it but I was NOT losing weight on 1200 calories a day. I tried for over a year and I was not over estimating my food etc. I've been in the weight loss game since I was 12 and have always struggled, including having an ED and not losing then either.

I weigh and measure out all of my food.

As soon as I upped my calories to 1800 I lost 6 lbs. I plateaued again and upped to 2000 and I have started losing again.

I am not alone in this. There are thousands of people on this board who experience the same thing, not losing on 1200 but up the calories and start losing again. How do you explain this?

Wonderful progress.
You are a testament to the truth some go to great lengths to deny. And you know what?
Let them make themselves miserable failures on some crash diet. People wise to the realities of healthy, lasting fat loss know better.
Again, congratulations on your success :flowerforyou:

tony2009

To the people who are saying you're not going to die anytime soon if you don't eat because you have plenty of fat on your body. Go ahead, don't eat for 10 days. Tell me how you feel, if you can even talk. Your body can't simply eat your fat if you don't eat. Your organs need energy from food to do it's normal stuff.

Wilson336

Regardless of what you call it, if you stop taking in enough calories, you are going to start losing muscle as well as fat as your body starts living off it's own stores. So...you will end up weak, lethargic, and eventually "skinny fat", if you keep up the process long enough, as your body consumes not only fat, but muscle. Not a smart move if you are looking to become fit.

HeidiHoMom

Also, on 1200 calories I was losing hair, not sleeping, had chronic constipation (regardless of eating 35 grams of fibre a day), was hungry and miserable.

Now I eat 2000 calories, I'm losing more weight than on 1200, mot importantly the chronic constipation is gone (after 15 years of dealing with it and relying on laxatives)...I now go every day without assistance, I am sleeping better and deeper, I am happier and stronger, my workouts are so much better.

In general the quality of my life has vastly improved.

And yet at 380+lbs I ate 1000 calories a day for six months, medically supervised, supplementing only B Vitamins, potassium, but eating 1200 balanced calories, and I lost weight fast. I felt fine, didn't poop as much, which is expected. Slept fine, had a lot of energy (though I was not exercising). I lost about 40lbs. Was it unrealistic? Absolutely. I gained it back, and have since lost it again through eating 2500 calories a day and exercising.

Honestly your case sounds like there were some other issues there (especially 15 years relying on laxatives), sorry but that's not normal. Plenty of folks eat at that calorie level or slightly around it and do fine.

So if it was unrealistic and you gained the weight back, then lost it all on 2500 what was the point of doing it at 1000?

Zangpakto

Okay, someone in starvation mode will continue to lose weight. But it will be a very slow process and it will probably cause rapid weight gain once they end calorie-restriction. Why are those desirable outcomes, people who think starvation mode is silly?

FWIW, I do actually know two people who were overweight *because* they were not eating enough. They had eating disorders, and when they were put by their dietitians on a diet they felt was way too much food, the pounds dropped off.

They were overweight BECAUSE they were not eating enough?? This defies all logic and physics.

Those eating disorders and the way the doctors dealt with it would have been to put them on more calories than they needed in order that their weight went ON, not came OFF. No doctor in his/her right mind would ever put somebody with a genuine ED on a weightloss diet - ever!

I agree 100%....

And if this person comes back and says no they had BED or COD disorders, then ergo, we found out WHY they were fat in the first place.... I mean seriously, someone with an ED like AN wouldn't be put on a diet to lose weight... considering the medical definition of AN is under 18.5 BMI IIRC and most places wont take a person for IP unless around 14 BMI...

At those weights, they need to gain, not lose... And inversely there are many in between EDs too, classification can be hard etc etc....

Also people who are your friends who are over weight but claim to have ED all the time... yes... because YOU monitor them 24/7, they don't closet eat, what about eating when your NOT around them as they embarrassed? No, didn't think of that did you...

No wonder a lot of people don't get help in the medical system, it is people like you that end up trying to make as if you have an ED like AN or EDNOS - R, and you know what I have found? In general, you guys eat more than most... you just hide it and try to "show" everyone you have a problem when you don't.... Reminds me of a story where someone passed out and fainted in work (An obese person) then was telling people how they haven't eaten all day etc etc, yet this other girl who was fasting on only water a few days already had none of those problems, wasn't shoving in others faces and no one knew the better...

Sounds like what your friends was doing with you...

tryinghard71

Whether it is or not is not really the issue. If you starve yourself thinking your body will live off your fat reserves, ask yourself this: what kind of nutrition does your fat reserve supply for the biological processes that proper eating supports? Does it have the vitamins and minerals? How about the protein need?

If you don't eat proper nutrition, your body is going to take what it needs from wherever it can get it. Not eating enough calcium? No problem - your teeth have plenty, so do your bones. Not getting enough protein? No problem, there's plenty in your muscles. If you don't mind your body robbing Peter to pay Paul, go ahead and eat under your BMR. You will lose weight. No guarantees on the state your health or your ability to maintain the reduced weight when your done though.

This!! Thank you! This seems to be what people won't talk about. Who cares if it is true or not. What about nutrition? That never seems to be part of the conversation. Thank you for pointing that out.

Bobby_Clerici

You won't feel great, but extremely obese people can eat at an extremely low calorie intake or even fast and be metabolically fine.

What absurdity.....Does this sound like fun to anybody?
No wonder people fail so miserable on crash diets.
Smarten up!
Think 1 lb per week, and for those of you on the fence here? Wondering?
The fast path always looks like the easy route until you get on it.
When it comes to weight loss, those in a race with nature finish last.
Follow the MFP recommendations for steady, lasting and healthy fat loss.
For those interested in leaning the truth about how to win this fight, go here:
Read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/23912-links-in-mfp-you-want-to-read-again-and-again
And this"
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
Learn all you can.
Track your diet and exercises - again simple.
You will do fine - ALL IS POSSIBLE:flowerforyou:

You mistake clarification of facts with me advocating voluntary anorexia.

My issue with starvation mode being thrown around is that it is just that; thrown around freely without anyone wanting to actually have an even basic understanding of biology or physics.

I think crash diets are stupid, cleanses are crap, and all it takes is persistence/focus/calorie restriction/exercise.

HOWEVER.

People look at folks who "net" 200 calories, or fast for a day, or skip breakfast and are immediately like, "GURL YOU GONNA GO INTO DAT STARVATION MODE". The point I am trying to make is that people need to understand even just a little bit how the body works, how "metabolism" actually functions and what happens in certain situations with x or y factors in play. To say that the metabolism is "stifled" (which is what you emphasised before staying simply slowed down) in the case of an extreme calorie deficit is simply wrong.

You can eat almost nothing, you can fast intermittantly, and you will not starve, your body will not consume 2lbs of muscle in a day.

It becomes one more thing to freak people out on if they are just not hungry, or panicking about eating back exercise calories. I am eating at a 1000 calorie deficit every day. Most days I increase that deficit by heavy weight lifting and cardio, once a week I do martial arts. Being an obese person I have plenty of reserve energy to use. Simple as that.

Who's in a panic?
You're the one setting up the straw man argument.
And I quote
"....You can eat almost nothing, you can fast intermittantly, and you will not starve, your body will not consume 2lbs of muscle in a day."
I never said anything about losing 2 lbs of muscle per day.
In fact all I ever advocated was following the MFP recommendations for safe, healthy and lasting weight loss.
And you went into orbit with these endless soliloquies.
Again, if you have something better than what MFP recommends, go for it.
Make it work for you, then sell it. Get rich if you're not already - superior as you seem to be.
Good Luck :drinker:

Zangpakto

Regardless of what you call it, if you stop taking in enough calories, you are going to start losing muscle as well as fat as your body starts living off it's own stores. So...you will end up weak, lethargic, and eventually "skinny fat", if you keep up the process long enough, as your body consumes not only fat, but muscle. Not a smart move if you are looking to become fit.

Another fact, you need to be in calorie deprivation to lose weight. Your body cannot be in maintenance mode OR anabolic phase whilst trying to lose weight, that is a medical fact... You try talk to your doctor saying you want to lose a lot of weight but bulk up or eat maintenance calories... He will laugh at you, that is what will happen...

At best you can minimise the effect of muscle catabolism.... If your eating less calories you wont be in an anabolic state will you... Go onto any body building forum and state your so called facts about muscle growth and losing fat at same time whilst eating less calories than needed in order to lose (As again, you need be in a deficit to lose...) and see the responses you will get...

SusuAtta

I've always understood it like this: when starving yourself, you will lose fat. But an extremly low diet is not a sustainable one, and when you come off it and begin eating normally again, your body will go cray-cray and try to replace the stored fat it has lost to take your body back to it's set point, and you will be a more ravanous beast due to hunger and restriction. Also, what about our nutrients? It's better to get nutrients out of food than from a pill. Whether you are big or small, it's still a shock to the body, especially if it was a drastic rather than gradual change. It's just better AND more efficient to lose weight by eating a good amount of healthy food (so that you have a reasonably calorie deficient), and still having the energy to exercise.

That's just how I understand it!

HeidiHoMom

I can't imagine why someone would want to lose weight on 1200 calories or less when they can do it eating more.

Even the person arguing against it is eating 2400+ calories a day because he gained all the weight back that he lost eating 1000 calories.

Starvation mode, puppies and rainbows mode, not eating enough mode, crash diet etc. what ever you want to label it, not eating an adequate amount to fuel your body (especially if you exercise and are aiming to gain muscle and lose fat) just seems ludicrous to me.

bathsheba_c

Okay, someone in starvation mode will continue to lose weight. But it will be a very slow process and it will probably cause rapid weight gain once they end calorie-restriction. Why are those desirable outcomes, people who think starvation mode is silly?

FWIW, I do actually know two people who were overweight *because* they were not eating enough. They had eating disorders, and when they were put by their dietitians on a diet they felt was way too much food, the pounds dropped off.

They were overweight BECAUSE they were not eating enough?? This defies all logic and physics.

Those eating disorders and the way the doctors dealt with it would have been to put them on more calories than they needed in order that their weight went ON, not came OFF. No doctor in his/her right mind would ever put somebody with a genuine ED on a weightloss diet - ever!

Their eating disorders were not advanced enough yet for the low BMI thing, and the purpose of the diets were not to lose weight. But, by eating the number of calories they needed to, their metabolisms recovered, and they returned to a healthy weight.

BaconMD

I can't imagine why someone would want to lose weight on 1200 calories or less when they can do it eating more.

I've never seen this question answered with a convincing reason so I'll stick to eating more and losing slowly and permanently.

Even the person arguing against it is eating 2400+ calories a day because he gained all the weight back that he lost eating 1000 calories.

lol

Starvation mode, puppies and rainbows mode, not eating enough mode, crash diet etc. what ever you want to label it, not eating an adequate amount to fuel your body (especially if you exercise and are aiming to gain muscle and lose fat) just seems ludicrous to me.

Let's call it "Hungry-All-The-Time Mode" or "*****y-Cause-I'm-On-Low-Cal Mode" or "Food-Is-The-Enemy,-Right-Guys? Mode."

HeidiHoMom

Regardless of what you call it, if you stop taking in enough calories, you are going to start losing muscle as well as fat as your body starts living off it's own stores. So...you will end up weak, lethargic, and eventually "skinny fat", if you keep up the process long enough, as your body consumes not only fat, but muscle. Not a smart move if you are looking to become fit.

Another fact, you need to be in calorie deprivation to lose weight. Your body cannot be in maintenance mode OR anabolic phase whilst trying to lose weight, that is a medical fact... You try talk to your doctor saying you want to lose a lot of weight but bulk up or eat maintenance calories... He will laugh at you, that is what will happen...

At best you can minimise the effect of muscle catabolism.... If your eating less calories you wont be in an anabolic state will you... Go onto any body building forum and state your so called facts about muscle growth and losing fat at same time whilst eating less calories than needed in order to lose (As again, you need be in a deficit to lose...) and see the responses you will get...

no one is saying to eat at maintenance to lose weight. Just eat at a more reasonable amount than what many people do.

So many people here are netting below 1200...some net negative numbers.

On bodybuidling.com no one is going to agree that this is a good idea.

Most people use calorie calculators based on harris benedict or katch-mcurdle that give you a sustainable and healthy deficit based on your BMR and TDEE.

I am eating at a 500 calorie deficit which puts me at 2000 calories a day. A far cry from the 1200 or less that people are netting.

Bobby_Clerici

I can't imagine why someone would want to lose weight on 1200 calories or less when they can do it eating more.

Even the person arguing against it is eating 2400+ calories a day because he gained all the weight back that he lost eating 1000 calories.

Starvation mode, puppies and rainbows mode, not eating enough mode, crash diet etc. what ever you want to label it, not eating an adequate amount to fuel your body (especially if you exercise and are aiming to gain muscle and lose fat) just seems ludicrous to me.

Let me sum it up for you.
MISERY LOVES COMPANY:explode:
Seriously, the crash diet people in a rush want others aboard their sinking ship to nowhere.
I eat fabulous foods and lose weight - about 3000 calories daily.
If somebody else in a similar position wants less result with more sacrifice, all I can do is wish them luck.
And pity them as well....

Prahasaurus

Wonderful progress.
You are a testament to the truth some go to great lengths to deny. And you know what?
Let them make themselves miserable failures on some crash diet. People wise to the realities of healthy, lasting fat loss know better.
Again, congratulations on your success :flowerforyou:

This, and the following X posts, are why people are so confused. The issue was the specific concept of "starvation mode." Not the fact that some people who are trying to lose weight would be better off by eating more calories. In some cases, this is true.

However, it has nothing to do with "starvation mode." Why is that so hard to understand? If you want people to eat more, tell them why. But don't use the term "starvation mode."

If you're going to just make up your own definitions for "starvation mode," why don't you just call it Smallpox? As in, "I cut my calories and got Smallpox. I was tired and couldn't do anything. Then I ate my calories back and got rid of Smallpox, and began to work out much more. Now I'm losing weight again!" At which point someone chimes in with "You see, it works! Everyone else will be a miserable failure for denying Smallpox! Ignore the haters and eat your calories back!"

Um, no. We won't. Nobody here has smallpox. Nobody here was in starvation mode.

--P

Mrsbrandnewmeslimandtrim

Bump

Lyndelee

It's not a lie. Yes, when you are excessively overweight your body will compensate for short periods of time of very low calorie intake by consuming body fat and some muscle. That is the whole reason for your body storing body fat. However the key is SHORT TERM. As this period of very low calorie intake continues, your body reacts and starts trying to store most calories as fat and slowly limiting bodily functions.

I agree this term gets thrown around very loosely and improperly here. It takes a good amount of time to drop into starvation mode as long as you haven't completely stopped eating and some time to climb back out of it.

Absolutely! Muscle is easier for the body to burn, so it will always take the easy road. I eat plenty of food for the day, but I don't eat back my exercise calories. So, sometimes, I don't net much, but the intake is enough to keep me out of whatever kind of "mode" you wanna call it. I'm losing healthy....about 2lbs a week. I've tried every "crash" diet known to man and I've always gained back quickly when I quit the diet and started trying to just maintain (eating healthy). So this time will be different.