Fact or Fiction? Starvation mode?

lizziebeth1028

So is it real? Or just an excuse to eat more?

Fact - although I hate to refer to it as 'starvation mode'. But consistently eating below your BMR will cause your body to adapt to the shortage of fuel slowing down your metabolism causing plateau's.

Lift_hard_eat_big

sorry but its been proved a myth

I'd love to see the proof.

geekyjock76

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

The last paragraph explains why a significant portion of people on MFP do not see noticeable results. Specifically, they purposely or unknowingly engaged in chronic calorie restriction for much of their adult life and then cut energy availability even further when actively trying to lose weight - the result is a very depressed RMR and impaired satiety signaling.

Lookingforfitat40

sorry but its been proved a myth

You keep saying that... why? I'd love to see a cited source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

SAVED!!!
Thank you.

hughtwalker

Read "Then Just Say Fat" by Shannon Sorrells (£3.25 on Kindle)

I have been pondering on the number of reiterating threads starting "I have been following the MFP 1200 rules but I haven't lost any weight for months, what am I doing wrong". This usually provokes a plethora of "X-spurts" writing about eating the wrong sort of calories.

and I am thinking that maybe this should be telling us something?

I am currently on 600 to 700 Monday to Friday with a treat of up to 1300 or so at weekends.
I haven't lost any muscle - but I can see them better without their adipose overcoat.

mockchoc

Read "Then Just Say Fat" by Shannon Sorrells (£3.25 on Kindle)

I have been pondering on the number of reiterating threads starting "I have been following the MFP 1200 rules but I haven't lost any weight for months, what am I doing wrong". This usually provokes a plethora of "X-spurts" writing about eating the wrong sort of calories.

and I am thinking that maybe this should be telling us something?

I am currently on 600 to 700 Monday to Friday with a treat of up to 1300 or so at weekends.
I haven't lost any muscle - but I can see them better without their adipose overcoat.

Why are you starving yourself? You don't need to do that to get to how you want to look.

1300 is NOT a treat day, it's still way too low for even a normal day for a man especially!

Cameo530

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

^^^This is how I understood it. Maybe we just need a new name for the process described in the second paragraph above. How about "Conservation Mode"? That more accurately describes what is going on anyway. Our metabolic rate slows down to attempt to make the most out of the food it is receiving.

One other thing: this will NOT happen if you go under 1200 calories once or twice. You would need to be at a significant deficit for awhile. You are not in starvation mode today because you only ate 1100 calories yesterday.

cmccorma

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

Amen to this, so very well explained. Starvation mode is over used on this site.

LorinaLynn

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

But losing weight almost ALWAYS results a loss of muscle with fat. How you eat and how you exercise will determine how much of that is muscle and how much is fat.

Eat well, with an appropriate calorie deficit for the amount of weight you have to lose, get plenty of protein and add some strength training, and you'll limit the amount of muscle loss.

Eat minimally and do a pile of cardio, and you won't lose as much fat, and say good-bye to a good chunk of your muscle.

LuluProteinFueled

This makes very good sense on the subject-

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Ahh the other myth..................you can't eat below BMR

It's not a myth at all. Of course you can eat below your BMR. But knowing what you know about it, why would you ever want to?

Why would you ever want to consider eating below the amount of calories your body needs to survive in a coma? Why would you want to deprive your organs and muscles the fuel they require? Why would you want to inflict that sort of damage on your body just for the sake of weightloss? That's a horrible way to treat your body.

As Lorina says, and I'm going to re-iterate it here almost word for word: eat well with a smaller deficit, with plenty of protein and strength training and you will still lose weight without losing too much muscle. And you won't be compromising the health of your body by depriving it of what it needs to stay alive.

SJCon

This makes very good sense on the subject-

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Ahh the other myth..................you can't eat below BMR

It's not a myth at all. Of course you can eat below your BMR. But knowing what you know about it, why would you ever want to?

Why would you ever want to consider eating below the amount of calories your body needs to survive in a coma? Why would you want to deprive your organs and muscles the fuel they require? Why would you want to inflict that sort of damage on your body just for the sake of weightloss? That's a horrible way to treat your body.

As Lorina says, and I'm going to re-iterate it here almost word for word: eat well with a smaller deficit, with plenty of protein and strength training and you will still lose weight without losing too much muscle. And you won't be compromising the health of your body by depriving it of what it needs to stay alive.

"What your body needs to survive in a Coma"...............another myth. That is not what BMR is or rather BMR is not what you body needs to survive in a coma. Sounds nice but only applicable if you are MAYBE at 5%body fat. If you are "Overweight", "Obese" or "Morbidly Obese" and you fell into a Coma I am sure a hospital would not give you a diet that would sustain your present condition. They may consider giving you enough nutrients to sustain your body and "VITAL ORGANS" at your ideal weight but certainly not at your overweight state. All this talk of Compromising your health is just scar tactics and bunk. Now if you want to make it clear you are talking about their BMR at ideal than that is another thing.

Lookingforfitat40

This makes very good sense on the subject-

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Ahh the other myth..................you can't eat below BMR

It's not a myth at all. Of course you can eat below your BMR. But knowing what you know about it, why would you ever want to?

Why would you ever want to consider eating below the amount of calories your body needs to survive in a coma? Why would you want to deprive your organs and muscles the fuel they require? Why would you want to inflict that sort of damage on your body just for the sake of weightloss? That's a horrible way to treat your body.

As Lorina says, and I'm going to re-iterate it here almost word for word: eat well with a smaller deficit, with plenty of protein and strength training and you will still lose weight without losing too much muscle. And you won't be compromising the health of your body by depriving it of what it needs to stay alive.

"What your body needs to survive in a Coma"...............another myth. That is not what BMR is or rather BMR is not what you body needs to survive in a coma. Sounds nice but only applicable if you are MAYBE at 5%body fat. If you are "Overweight", "Obese" or "Morbidly Obese" and you fell into a Coma I am sure a hospital would not give you a diet that would sustain your present condition. They may consider giving you enough nutrients to sustain your body and "VITAL ORGANS" at your ideal weight but certainly not at your overweight state. All this talk of Compromising your health is just scar tactics and bunk. Now if you want to make it clear you are talking about their BMR at ideal than that is another thing.

LuluProteinFueled

This makes very good sense on the subject-

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Ahh the other myth..................you can't eat below BMR

It's not a myth at all. Of course you can eat below your BMR. But knowing what you know about it, why would you ever want to?

Why would you ever want to consider eating below the amount of calories your body needs to survive in a coma? Why would you want to deprive your organs and muscles the fuel they require? Why would you want to inflict that sort of damage on your body just for the sake of weightloss? That's a horrible way to treat your body.

As Lorina says, and I'm going to re-iterate it here almost word for word: eat well with a smaller deficit, with plenty of protein and strength training and you will still lose weight without losing too much muscle. And you won't be compromising the health of your body by depriving it of what it needs to stay alive.

"What your body needs to survive in a Coma"...............another myth. That is not what BMR is or rather BMR is not what you body needs to survive in a coma. Sounds nice but only applicable if you are MAYBE at 5%body fat. If you are "Overweight", "Obese" or "Morbidly Obese" and you fell into a Coma I am sure a hospital would not give you a diet that would sustain your present condition. They may consider giving you enough nutrients to sustain your body and "VITAL ORGANS" at your ideal weight but certainly not at your overweight state. All this talk of Compromising your health is just scar tactics and bunk. Now if you want to make it clear you are talking about their BMR at ideal than that is another thing.

So all these people consistently netting under BMR and complaining of things like hair loss, hormonal issues, changes in mood/temperament, fatigue.... things that all go away once they start eating properly again... are you going to try and tell me that those things are completely unrelated to a very low calorie diet?

cocoale

starvation mode occurs when your body runs out of fat reserves and has to start eating muscle, organs, etc to survive. by lowering your calories your body does learn to adapt (which is why zig zagging is effective) and can slow weightloss... many people think they hit starvation mode at this point and increase their calories and find they lose weight... most of the time it's because they switched things up or were under/over estimating calories. I have gone on low calorie diets, had body fat, lean muscle mass, erc tested before and after using the same scale performed by a personal trainer only to find that there was evident fat loss but no big losses in lean muscle. my trainer knew of my calorie fears and promised I was going to lose muscle and could only scratch his head and asked to retest. i do not promote restriction diets.... but I feel too many people throw around the "you will go into starvation mode if you eat below such and such amount of calories"... there is no magical number... you can eat 2000 empty calories and be at risk. each person has different caloric requirements based on body fat, lean muscle mass, etc. 1200 for woman is not the magic number, merely a guideline. in the end you discover what is right for you through trial and error. but most definitely the term starvation mode has been thrown around loosely.

SJCon

So all these people consistently netting under BMR and complaining of things like hair loss, hormonal issues, changes in mood/temperament, fatigue.... things that all go away once they start eating properly again... are you going to try and tell me that those things are completely unrelated to a very low calorie diet?

I have no idea who these people you refer to are, Are they the same ones that swear that they are keeping accurate diaries and not over estimating exercise burn, etc? You must be aware that almost all medically supervised diets are below a persons current BMR. Of course since it is medically supervised it is generally under the 1200/1500 guidelines as well. Again it all depends on how overweight a person is. I am not talking about an anorexic person or someone below their ideal weight, but to keep pushing the "What you need in Coma" is really just false in most cases.

Playingwithfire89

I struggled with disordered eating where i ate like 250-0 cals a day, and now 900 is enough for me to gain

monty619

its a fact.. you dont eat you die.

FoodandFitness

Starvation is real. People starve and die of complications related to malnourishment every day.

Starvation "mode" or the idea that your metabolism slows down in response to a large deficit in such a manner that you can no longer achieve a negative calorie balance is a myth. Your metabolism slows and your leptin drops but not to the extent that weight loss will cease if you are still creating a deficit.

birdieaz

Sorry but I don't need an 'excuse' to eat more. I eat because I love my body and want to give it what it needs to not just exist but to thrive. Yes that means eating a whooping 1700 cal a day or more. I've lost all my weight eating at least 1600 cal a day..and I continue losing even after having upped my calories yet again.

Why do people get so freaked out over nourishing their bodies..the constant seeking of validation to not eat is insane on this board.

But to each their own...I'm off to have cookies and milk.

deadliftfan

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

yep...^^.

False. If you're on a huge calorie deficit and don't eat enough protein you will definitely eat up your muscle mass. Your body fat doesn't need to be anywhere near 6% for that. I learned this the hard way.

nicoletdiaz

I joined Fitness Pal because I wanted to keep track of what I ate. I was under the assumption I was eating too much of everything. When I punch everything I eat in, I am always under calories. In fact today I was almost 500 calories under. I run two miles every morning, and the strange thing is I have more energy now than ever before. I think maybe Fitness Pal is making me think about the food choices I make?

bcweisen

I joined Fitness Pal because I wanted to keep track of what I ate. I was under the assumption I was eating too much of everything. When I punch everything I eat in, I am always under calories. In fact today I was almost 500 calories under. I run two miles every morning, and the strange thing is I have more energy now than ever before. I think maybe Fitness Pal is making me think about the food choices I make?

That is definitely true. When you have to record it you think more about what kinds of foods you are eating also you think long and hard about that treat you want or putting your kids leftovers in your mouth.

Fringe11

OK …..below is cited sources of actual studies done into Basal metabolic rates and metabolic efficiency in chronic undernourished …….Also many other studies regarding so called starvation modes

PLEASE if any one HAS ANY TRUE scientific STUDIES that are in direct opposition to the results of these studies.

Then please cite them............... The ONLY TRUE CITED Scientific MATERIAL (STUDIES) I have found proves that starvation mode slows the body only very slightly and there is no evidence to suggest that weight will be maintained eating less than BMR requirements and or the cited TDEE

I was and maybe still am open to believing in starvation mode...... as I am suffering from something strange myself ... All the hear say, speculations plus some wonderfully convincing articles / assumption have yet to show me the one thing I need is actual scientific facts from a studies from reputable science medical authorities

OK lets assume the case for myth busted has been made…. By the prosecution .. they have brought forward evidence to support there claims that this starvation mode is bogus
Can the defence now bring the same evidence………. TRUE CITED Scientific MATERIAL (STUDIES) that support starvation mode.
I will so please that someone will actually be able to PROVED beyond all doubt that it exsists..
No rumours, no in my case stories, no so called experts, just facts

PLEASE remember I am not an expert… I am trying to find the truth …that’s IT!

Related articles:
Normal Range of Metabolism
How Dieting Affects Your Metabolic Rate
Myth: Yo-yo Dieting Ruins Your Metabolism
How to Lose Weight 101: Understanding Energy Balance

• Poehlman ET, et al. The Impact of Exercise and Diet Restriction on Daily Energy Expenditure. Sports Med. 1991;11:78-101.

• [ii] Weinsier RL, et al. 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;72:1088-1094.

• [iii] Heymsfield SB, et al. The calorie: myth, measurement and reality. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;62(suppl):1034s-41s.

• [iv] Skov AR, et al. Normal levels of energy expenditure in patients with reported "low metabolism." Clinical Physiology 1997;17:279-285.

• [v] Buhl KM Unexplained disturbance in body weight regulation: diagnostic outcome assessed by doubly labeled water and body composition analyses in obese patients reporting low energy intakes. J Am Diet Assoc 1995;95:1393-1400.

• [vi] Soares MJ, et al. Basal metabolic rates and metabolic efficiency in chronic undernourished. Euro J Clin Nutr. 1991;45:363-373.

• [vii] Shetty PS. Chronic undernutrition and metabolic adaptation. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 1993;52:267-284.

• [viii] Ferro-Luzzi A, et al. Basal metabolism of weight-stable chronically undernourished men and women: lack of metabolic adaptation and ethnic differences. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:1086-93.

• [ix] The Starvation Myth

• [x] Lichtman SW, et al. Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. NEJM 1992;327(27):1893-1898

• http://www.beyonddiets.com/beyonddiets-blog/2012/3/9/starvation-mode-fact-or-fiction.html

Ph4lanx

People here confuse Starvation Mode with Adaptive Thermogenesis. Unfortunately it seems no matter how often it's repeated, people just don't want to accept that they are NOT in starvation mode.

Fringe11

evidence points exactley that "Adaptive Thermogenesis"

I am looking into this more, as it may be the key i need to understand my own funny goings on !

Fringe11

Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct;34 Suppl 1:S47-55.

Adaptive thermogenesis in humans.

Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL.
Source
Division of Molecular Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. mr475@columbia.edu

Quote an extract above paper
"Much of this opposition to sustained weight loss is mediated by the adipocyte-derived hormone 'leptin'. The multiple systems regulating energy stores and opposing the maintenance of a reduced body weight illustrate that body energy stores in general and obesity in particular are actively 'defended' by interlocking bioenergetic and neurobiological physiologies."

ElizaRoche

myth.......... And i wont even write all I think about this , Ive done it in the past and I ended with some people calling me dumb (the least) :laugh:
For me its a myth, and will always be.

Izzwoz

What I don't understand is this seemingly magic number of 1200 cals ... Doesn't it depend on the individual metabolic rate how much I should be eating? When I think about people who seemingly can eat what they want and not put on any weight at all (I know a few of those), whereas I put on weight when I look at a muffin (figuratively speaking, of course) ... So starvation mode, conservation mode or weight loss mode ... shouldn't the number of calories someone should eat be a very specific number to them?

agent99oz

Fiction...read the eat stop eat book - lays it out pretty good in there!

delilah47

:yawn: