"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

SHBoss1673

eherm!

I have to add that your original points are valid, especially for people who eat the "normal western" overly Carb based, processed food based diets.

Has anyone seen this ? Why you got fat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE

I am dong Paleo and yes before Paleo I could get fat on 1000calories. Simply because I think my body was doing exactly what the above 3min video shows. Using every bit of Carbs I put in to the max...

So there is a starvation mode per sa...but it is more complicated.

If people didnt eat so much processed foods, simple carbs etc....I think it would take something like real starving in the desert before you body really goes purely "starvation mode".

Mostly true I believe. Although I'd say that even on paleo you could gain fat with 1000 calories, it'd just take longer than with normal diets because most of the energy sources in paleo are extremely complex and slower to be converted to energy than with highly processed carbs and low fiber foods.

kikilieb

Thank you, this is a really good explanation. Bumping to read again tomorrow.

paprs

Bumping for later. Thanks Banks!!

sarahleeroy

I enjoyed reading your post, and I concur mostly although I think some of the points can be up for interpretation depending on what study you go by. My frustration with "starvation mode" is that the term is used very loosely around here, and it's used in a judgmental "holier than thou" manner. What you said is right on for someone who is truly headed in that direction. A lot of people on here including myself eat below BMR and TDEE range at about 1000-1500 calories, and are not in starvation mode. I suppose real starvation mode does exist, but it's not something we see here in the USA very often other than people with ED's or chronic diseases, etc.

It's impossible for someone with excess body fat, eating 1200 calories a day to go into any kind of "starvation mode." When you have plenty of fat stores to use, you are by no means starving (in the true meaning of the word). As long as you have fat to burn, your body will use it for energy. Balancing muscle and fat loss is the challenge though. Personally, I've avoided this b/c I eat a high protein and low starch diet and jogging. And I had my LFT and KFT checked 3 weeks ago and they are in normal range. Not saying this is the case for everyone, but it's how I found balance.

So, the misuse of this term is one of the factors that hindered my weight loss for YEARS and I know it has affected other people too. It was because I felt like I had to eat more to avoid the dreaded starvation mode, so therefore I should have a "cheat day" where I ate anything and everything so as to "restart my metabolism." Also, having it be the end of the day and craving a bowl of cereal and then telling myself I had to have it b/c I had only had 1100 calories that day so I needed to eat even though I wasn't particularly hungry.

I believe that people who don't have ED related thought processes can balance out calorie deficits just fine if they listen to their body. We all don't want to be extremely hungry and uncomfortable all day with no energy, so we find a strategy within ourselves to make it work using common sense.

mhotch

bump, to read tonight

beachlover317

bump - because everyone needs to read this

geekyjock76

The two biggest problems I see as a personal trainer and reading comments on MFP:

1)Chronic under-eating for extended periods of time.
2)Maintaining too large of a deficit for too long.

Your body isn't meant to be on a perpetual "diet" and can only go so long experiencing deficits before hormonal changes occur. Most of the time when people "stall" it's usually because one, if not both, of the above are true.

NavyKnightAh13

Bump for later!!!!!!!!!!!!

AiimeeDee

Bump. Thanks

dobielover1

Thank you so much for that easy to follow description of the process...I have a much better understanding now.

paperducks

Wow, thank you so much for posting this! You've definitely helped and enlightened a lot of people. Thanks again!

TonyaBtrfly

Exactly! Thanks for taking the time to post that!

:drinker:

cbendorf13

Exactly! Thanks for taking the time to post that!

:drinker:

What I was thinking

CoderGal

Bump so others will read.

CyberEd312

Could not agree more and Thanks for the post.... After 38 months and dropping 311 lbs. I have experienced just about every faucet of loss and stalls and gains... This in my opinion is spot on..... Thanks again..... :-)

NotThePest

SHBoss1673,

I had to go check your profile to see where you lived because the information you just gave is the same info I received while attending my church's Get Fit program. Since you're in Mass, and I live in Brooklyn, NY, I don't think you were there or maybe you were. Big church, and folks come from all over. But I can't see you coming from Mass every week to attend the workout and information sessions. I just posted this (see below) on My Home page.


Yesterday @ my church's Fitness Program, before the exercise seasons, they had a Certified Nutritionist, soon to be Registered. Amongst other things, she explained why it is dangerous to try to lose more than 1 to 2 pounds a week (3,500 to 7,000 calorie deficit a week). Even if we are big overeaters, having a consistent calorie deficit of 250 to 500 calories not eaten and 250 to 500 calories burnt through exercise, basically destroys the body and will get your metabolism out of wack. Very interesting.

Sapporo

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this! I remember the old days when there was more common sense on MFP and you were on here all the time. Lately this place has been a mess, just this week I was shaking my head reading the forums and thinking we need that SHBoss or Banks (was that part of your name at some point?) guy from way back when,

RawVeganFlirt

great analysis , i agree 100%

i'm constantly telling people NOT to eat below their bmr! it's crucial for good health and successful weight loss, and people wonder why they always gain back all their weight and plateau so often. this is why!!!

tangiesharp

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post.

monicalosesweight

Great post!

geekyjock76

great analysis , i agree 100%

i'm constantly telling people NOT to eat below their bmr! it's crucial for good health and successful weight loss, and people wonder why they always gain back all their weight and plateau so often. this is why!!!

You can eat below your BMR or RMR for a very brief period of time (4 to 5 days for most people of slightly above average weight) which is usually slightly over a 35% to 50% deficit. Your body will just use present fat stores for energy during this time. The problem is that: a) people resume massive deficits for too long and b)in general, resume a calorie deficit for too long - even maintaining a 200 calorie deficit for 2 straight years is going to lead to metabolic decline. I've talked to so many people who have been eating well below maintenance for 10 or more consecutive years...

rosied915

Bumping

karenk89

Bump

beccyleigh

Thank you for posting this.

Finding the "magic" number was the hardest part for me. I'm 6ft, female, with 41% body fat, 240lbs & a type 2 diabetic & I find as soon as I increase my calories near 2000k a day the weight piles on. I gained 15lbs in a week when I stopped doing 1600, which is just stupid as I know for a fact I didn't eat an additional 52,500 calories that week. This is down to bm's getting out of whack, everything gets stored. Bummer!

I have experienced "starvation mode". Shortly after joining MFP I was doing 1200 cals & had lost 16lbs, all of a sudden, whilst on 1200 my weight loss stopped dead, I did cal cycling for a couple of weeks & dropped another few lbs but then that stopped working. After several months of no loss I lost interest & stopp cal counting & have gained 25lbs in the last 4 months & it took a while to get my head back in it but I am back on track again but know that I HAVE to consume at least 1600 a day up to 1800 for me to show a loss.

Finding the sweet spot is key.

AlabasterVerve

Low calorie diets can be effective and preferable in some circumstances so I imagine it's also infuriating for those people to read posts like this. Maybe studies like these are why doctors prescribe very low calorie diets and don't seem to fear "starvation mode" in their obese patients? This is what a quick search turned up:

VLCD compliance and lean body mass.

Abstract

Very low calorie diets (VLCD) have many advantages, as they are inexpensive, safe and easy to comply with, and give rapid and encouraging weight loss. On the other hand, many patients complain of hunger and constipation. We have shown that these drawbacks can be reduced by the supplementation of 30 g of dietary fibre to VLCD. By the use of a VLCD which provides approximately 60 g of protein for women and approximately 70 g for men, the dietary regimen is safe and no excessive loss of lean body mass seems to occur during VLCD in obese patients. However, the changes in body composition that may occur after cycles of weight loss and regain have not been clarified. After weight cycles with weight losses obtained by conventional diets, obese women have lower lean body mass than obese non-dieting controls. Hence, more information about the changes in body composition during dieting on conventional diets and VLCD are needed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2559044

Factors influencing body composition during very-low-calorie diets.

Abstract

Apparent body composition changes with weight loss on very-low-calorie diet (VLCD) can depend on the method of fat-free mass estimation. In this report the implications of differences in measurement by direct versus indirect methods are examined. The nitrogen sparing and protein economy associated with ketosis is relevant and results of clinical trials with diets of varying composition are presented. The analytical findings of a multicenter, multimethod long-term VLCD study illustrate protein and metabolic conservation during VLCD. Protein losses, by total body nitrogen, over 10 wk dieting, independent of body mass index, were 4.75% of weight lost, as conservatively expected from obesity tissue reduction with no degradation of total energy expenditure. The implications of utilization of glycogen (water and potassium release) in interpretation of diet success and of body compositional change is evaluated. Evidence is presented that ultimate compositional changes with weight change may be individually specific and that body composition may be predicted from weight considerations alone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615887

Reduction of body mass and change in body composition on a very low calorie diet.

Abstract

The quality of weight loss was estimated during a very low calorie diet (VLCD) weight-reducing regime by determining the body composition every second week using near-infra-red interactance (NII). The study was performed on 127 overweight volunteers, aged 18-72 years, who, for eight consecutive weeks, used a VLCD to lose weight. Mean weight reduction was 12.7 kg (12.6% of initial weight). Mean body fat (BF) loss was 9.5 kg (23.8% of initial BF), which constitutes 75% of the weight loss. Mean reduction in lean body mass (LBM) was 3.2 kg (5.2% of initial LBM). We found no correlation between initial body mass index (BMI) and loss of LBM, or between initial body composition and weight loss. Weight reduction observed in this study is mainly due to reduction in body fat, and the loss of LBM is considered not to be larger than acceptable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383636

If you're concerned about the loss of lean body mass that occurs with dieting, lift weights.

Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

Utilization of very-low-calorie diets (VLCD) for weight loss results in loss of lean body weight (LBW) and a decrease in resting metabolic rate (RMR). The addition of aerobic exercise does not prevent this. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of intensive, high volume resistance training combined with a VLCD on these parameters.
METHODS:

Twenty subjects (17 women, three men), mean age 38 years, were randomly assigned to either standard treatment control plus diet (C+D), n = 10, or resistance exercise plus diet (R+D), n = 10. Both groups consumed 800 kcal/day liquid formula diets for 12 weeks. The C+D group exercised 1 hour four times/week by walking, biking or stair climbing. The R+D group performed resistance training 3 days/week at 10 stations increasing from two sets of 8 to 15 repetitions to four sets of 8 to 15 repetitions by 12 weeks. Groups were similar at baseline with respect to weight, body composition, aerobic capacity, and resting metabolic rate.
RESULTS:

Maximum oxygen consumption (Max VO2) increased significantly (p<0.05) but equally in both groups. Body weight decreased significantly more (p<0.01) in C+D than R+D. The C+D group lost a significant (p<0.05) amount of LBW (51 to 47 kg). No decrease in LBW was observed in R+D. In addition, R+D had an increase (p<0.05) in RMR O2 ml/kg/min (2.6 to 3.1). The 24 hour RMR decreased (p<0.05) in the C+D group.
CONCLUSION:

The addition of an intensive, high volume resistance training program resulted in preservation of LBW and RMR during weight loss with a VLCD.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826

cmriverside

Blast from the past!

*sniff - another great post by Banks, one of my first buddies here. :largequantitiesofflowersforyou:

Nice to see someone lit your fire.

ThinMint_Stac

Love it!!! Bump Some peeps just don't get it:)

NWCountryGal

Ditto! I just naturally go up and down in my calories but try to stay within a reasonable range of my goals. I can't be perfect on the numbers each day so I don't try, nor do I want to ****er over cals when I know if I stay active and eat whole, healthy foods most of the time, I will get to a healthy size.

Thanx Boss!

So what you are saying is:

Eat like a person should eat and move like a person should move and we wont have excess fat?
This sounds soooooo familiar!
=D

snowbab

So much truth here and so well written. Thank you! Bump

Shara126

Well said.

bump for later