Any peer-reviewed, objective evidence for "starvation mode"?

tysonian

As the title implies I'm looking to see if anyone has any documented, tested, objective data to support the existence of "starvation mode" outside of the actual occurrence of literal starvation. I've been exposed to mountains of anecdotal claims regarding the function of metabolism on levels of caloric intake and have yet to find any solid, supported, scientific evidence to support these claims. I recently took a nutrition class and the topic was discussed, from my research I can only find documentation of very minor changes to calorie usage anywhere in the normal range but there was no significant change to the curve until extreme deficiency. For most of us this would mean worrying about starvation mode should warrant as much worry as actually starving to death, dieting is not going to have an impact on how our body consumes calories.

I suspect this is total fiction but I'm open to other points of view. If there's good information out there to the contrary I'd love to hear it.

-T

SandyCheeks2

Hmmm this is interesting! I will have to do some research to see if there are any peer-reviewed articles out there.

crazycakez

I would love to hear this too! I am pretty skeptical of all of the "starvation mode" posts out there as I have also heard good things about intermittent fasting.

ReyneDrop

I've had similar interest! When I first started to monitor what I ate, I was told of this so-called starvation mode and had my own experience with it, and then I was told it doesn't exist (only in extreme cases, which mine wasn't THAT extreme), so I set out to find studies.

I can't remember what studies I found, but I remember I looked at the AJCN - you can find the articles for free online at their website. There was one that had evidence that the metabolism DOES decrease while dieting even if it isn't extreme starvation, but doesn't fully support the claim that starvation mode hits and you can't lose any weight. You might start there if you want to find good studies/reports!

leojsivad

Hmm, I would be interested to see this as well. I can only speculate from my own personal weight loss journey.

sleepytexan

I can't provide peer-reviewed, objective evidence for starvation mode. However, if you'd like a non-peer-reviewed, layman's explanation for why eating appropriately for your BMR and level of exercise might be a good idea, I'll repost that for you at the bottom of this.

I am always curious why people get really really mad about starvation mode. Often (not always) it's people who are complaining about how they can't lose weight, or how they stalled, or how they've yo-yoed for years, can't maintain, etc -- who just get LIVID when someone who has been successful (lost and MAINTAINED suggests that eating more might be a good idea.

Anyway, if you want my unscientific opinion, here it is:

---

From one of my old posts from a similar topic:

OK. I'm gonna give this a shot. I am an avid lifelong athlete. I have never been overweight, however, I used to eat too few calories (without knowing it), and a couple years ago, I actually GAINED weight bc of having slowed my metabolism to the point that every little extra treat I ate caused a weight gain, even though overall my calories were too low. THIS DOES HAPPEN.

It is also the reason so many fat people stay fat. They restrict their calories so low, slow their metabolisms, binge (even a little), gain weight, restrict more . . . . and so on and so on. But they are still fat.

It is also the reason most people can't lose that last 10-20 lbs. For real.

1. MFP has a deficit built in. Let's say you're trying to lose 1 lb/ week. That is a 500/day deficit from your BMR (the amount of calories your body needs to complete basic functions.

2. You exercise and burn 500 calories. Now you are at a 1000 deficit. If you eat back those 500 exercise calories, you refuel your body and you still have a 500 deficit for that 1 lb loss. If you DON'T eat back those calories, you have too little fuel. This is bad. This is too much of a deficit for basic functions. If you do this for a long time, you will STOP LOSING WEIGHT. Why? bc your metabolism will slow down -- it's like a brownout--not quite enough electricity to make the whole city (your body) run, so it has to slow down some things. You will probably start being tired a lot, your skin and hair might start to look worse, and you might even gain weight. But you might NOT be hungry -- your body is getting used to fewer calories. That's bad.


That's when you start to gain weight. Let's say you're running along, eating 1200 calories a day, and exercising 400 calories a day, so net is 800. You're losing, you think this is great. You keep doing it, but after a while you stop losing. hmmmmm. One weekend you go out to a special event and have a slice of pizza and a beer. 1 slice of pizza and 1 beer. So you ate maybe 2000 calories that day and exercised off 400, so net 1600. BOOM! You gain 3 lbs! What?!

Next, you freak out and restrict yourself down to 1000 calories a day and work out extra hard, burning 500 calories. Great, netting 500 now. You don't lose any weight, but you sure feel tired. Better get some red bull.

Are you getting the picture?

EDIT: When you work out, you need fuel. Food is fuel. If you don't eat back those exercise calories, you will not only have a big calorie deficit, you will have an ENERGY deficit. Remember, the calorie deficit for weight loss is built in when you use MFP. Exercising basically earns you more calories because you must refuel.
--

There are many people who will tell you not to eat exercise calories. Before you take their advice, you might want to see whether they are at goal, have EVER been at goal, or have ever been able to maintain at goal. If anyone says to you 'THE LAST TIME I LOST WEIGHT", just stop listening right there.

Ask some athletes whether or not they replenish their bodies with food equal to the calories they burn. Ask people who are fit and have achieved and maintained a healthy weight for some years. Don't ask people who count walking across a parking lot as exercise.

Here's an interesting case study about how to stay fat while consuming only 700 calories a day. Take a moment, you'll be glad you did:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

blessings.

leojsivad

Hmm, I would be interested to see this as well. I can only speculate from my own personal weight loss journey.

sleepytexan

BTW, whose peers?

worthyofchange

BTW, whose peers?

You probably are joking about this but in academic communities "peer reviewed" information means that is has been evaluated rigorously by qualified/expert individuals. It's of the utmost importance in the research process.

I wonder what it means that no one has offered up a link to peer-reviewed information when a lot of people have an opinion about it?

sleepytexan

BTW, whose peers?

You probably are joking about this but in academic communities "peer reviewed" information means that is has been evaluated rigorously by qualified/expert individuals. It's of the utmost importance in the research process.

I wonder what it means that no one has offered up a link to peer-reviewed information when a lot of people have an opinion about it?

I do know what it means, and yes I was joking

It might mean no one has studied it. You know, kind of like when MDs poo-poo eastern or alternative medicine (herbs, homeopathy, etc. that have been used successfully for thousands of years) bc no one has "studied" it. Of course "no one" has studied it. Who does such studies? Pharmaceutical companies. Why would a pharm company sponsor a study on an herb that people have used for thousands of years? They wouldn't bc they can't make any money from proving that it works. They only do studies on meds they have developed, and they often keep certain parts of those studies as quiet as possible.

Not exactly the same, but drug companies and over-prescribing MDs are some of my biggest pet-peeves.

IDK, lots of people have lots of opinions on everything. God, for example. Atheists say "show me proof that God exists". Believers say "show me proof God does not exist". There are no peer-reviewed studies either way.

LiveEnjoyEndure

Very little research has been done on this topic ( at least as far as I am aware). Would love to be shown articles if anyone knows any?

Golay A et al (2000) "Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets." this is the only study I am aware of that touches on the issue. It shows that calorie defect was important and diet composition was not a major factor...

There is enough evidence to show that starving people makes them thin (anorexics, concentration camps, famines etc...) I do not think anyone would be stupid enough to argue against that, right? I think the issue is, when someone who eats a low calorie diet then binges gains weight easier or mainatains weight.

SHBoss1673

There are plenty of studies out there, most of them don't directly study the term "starvation mode", but cover some portion of LTU (Long term underfeeding) and fasting and the body's reaction to it. Some of this is peripheral but does cover something which would intersect with some aspect of it. I picked a few, but there are lots more out there if you take the time to do the research.


http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=789564&jid=PNS&volumeId=54&issueId=01&aid=789556

http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/622.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/1/1.full.pdf+html?sid=1f835bd6-51e1-49c0-a79e-e73fa166c490

http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1511.full.pdf+html?sid=1f835bd6-51e1-49c0-a79e-e73fa166c490

http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/461S.full.pdf+html?sid=25df97eb-0ad2-4dbd-91a7-07d1ff371d19

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/1/66.full?sid=fbb2018e-851b-468e-82d3-e0326c632ce4

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf+html?sid=0a679b54-6b93-4a1c-8ce1-88b3f0402baf

EnterPassword

The footnotes from this article might be useful. Of course the idea that if you don't eat enough you'll stop losing weight is stupid, but it seems that weight loss is not as great as might be expected once you get below a certain number of calories.


The starvation myth

Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
http://www.weightwatchers.com.au/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=37261&sc=801


The idea that 'not eating enough' causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into 'starvation mode' is a popular myth among dieters.


Metabolism slows during kilojoule restriction
Restricting kilojoules during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer kilojoules to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 8,400 kilojoules per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 6,300 kilojoules, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 500g per week weight loss (Note: 500g of weight is equivalent to about 14,700 kilojoules). Furthermore, reducing to 4,200 kilojoules should result in a weight loss of 1kg per week and going down to 2,100 kilojoules a day should result in a weight loss of 1.5kg per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 2,100 kilojoules, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 1.5kg per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 1kg. This 'lower than expected' rate of weight loss is a lot different to 'no' weight loss as the 'starvation mode' notion proposes.

It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced kilojoule intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the kilojoule reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the kilojoule restriction is quite large (e.g. 3,360 kilojoules or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in kilojoule restriction, with the gap increasing as the kilojoule deficit is enlarged.

While there is no biologic evidence to support the 'starvation mode' myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when kilojoules are severely reduced. Over-restriction of kilojoule intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The skill of flexible restraint)

Metabolism after weight loss
The good news is that after the weight loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.


FOOTNOTES
1 Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The role of energy expenditure in energy regulation: Findings from a decade of research. Nutr Rev. 1995. 53:209-220.
2 Burgess NS. Effect of a very-low calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.
3 Rogers PJ. Eating habits and appetite control: a psychobiological perspective. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Feb;58(1):59-67.
4 Weinsier RL, Nagy TR, Hunter GR, Darnell BE, Hensrud DD, Weiss HL. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Nov;72(5):1088-94.

CyberEd312

That term starvation mode is taken way to literally on this site... No one (or should I say most) is not advocating your going to starve to death in that context but if you are running your body at to high of a calorie deficit and or majorly under eating you will cause your body to slow down your metabolism to the point you will no longer be losing weight, and your body could actually start holding on to any nutrients you take in causing the scale to not move and if done over a long period of time could mess up your metabolism to the point it could take several months to repair. That is the way I see the term being thrown around on this site not that people really think in terms of starving kids in Africa. I have no peer reviews to offer but I do have 38 months and 311 lbs. of trial and error and in the beginning running stupid calorie deficits causing weeks of stalled progress and at one point a screwed up metabolism which I since have tweak and corrected..... Just the way I see it...

Whitezombiegirl

Starvation mode is a myth. I strongly beleive this- you only have to watch 'Supersize Superskinny' to see that people who consistently under eat are not stuck at 150lbs!

velsbree

you will not find peer reviewed articles R/T starvation mode because it is not a medical term try a broader search. I you find anything check out credentials.

TheDreadPirateRoberts

As indicated above, "Starvation Mode" is a myth. Just Google "Starvation mode myth" and you will find out all about how it isnt true.

Eating less than you need slows down your metabolism, but does NOT stop it. If there was such a thing, then we'd probably see a lot of fat kids in famine zones rather then people dying looking like skin and bones.

People who say there is such a thing never have any evidence aside from "it worked for me" or "it says on this website". All the scientific evidence states that if you dont eat enough you will not gain weight, nor will you maintain weight.

myofibril

The problem with "starvation mode" is the lack of a clear definition that everyone can work from.

The idea that somehow your body stops losing fat if you lower calorie intake too far is of course a myth. That does not happen. However, you do lose proportionally less fat and the process becomes increasingly inefficient for a number of reasons.

Personally, less results for more deprivation doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

SHBoss1673

As indicated above, "Starvation Mode" is a myth. Just Google "Starvation mode myth" and you will find out all about how it isnt true.

Eating less than you need slows down your metabolism, but does NOT stop it. If there was such a thing, then we'd probably see a lot of fat kids in famine zones rather then people dying looking like skin and bones.

People who say there is such a thing never have any evidence aside from "it worked for me" or "it says on this website". All the scientific evidence states that if you dont eat enough you will not gain weight, nor will you maintain weight.

um, see above. I've provided plenty of evidence for it.

bathsheba_c

Search adaptive thermogenesis, which is the scientific name for "starvation mode."

By the way, for people citing starving kids in Africa being skin and bones, starvation occurs in stages. "Starvation mode" is the body slowing down that process, not stopping it completely. Sure, you will eventually start losing weight again, but the results are not pretty.

elyelyse

I've seen the starvation mode thing associated with two different behaviors on this site. One is just chronically undereating, but the other thing some people get uptight over, that makes people throw that phrase around, is when people go several hours without eating instead of spacing meals just a few hours apart.

For example, I don't eat when I wake up, I usually don't eat for 3-6 hours after I wake up. My Dr tried to tell me this was not advised bc I'll go into starvation mode and I need to jump start my metabolism in the morning. I call BS but, the information out there isn't very solid.

I'm more likely to believe that chronic undereating effects metabolism long term, than I am to believe that humans can't go without eating for half a day without negatively effecting metabolism. THAT is the theory I'd like to see some legitimate studies on, the "oh you have to eat breakfast!" theory.