Fact or Fiction? Starvation mode?
Replies
-
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.
Totally 100% agree.
If I was just "making excuses" to eat more, I wouldn't have had the results I had. My weight loss has always been close to the predicted numbers based on my deficit. When I was aiming to lose one pound a week, that's what I lost on average. When I was aiming to lose a half pound a week, that's what I lost on average.
On the other hand, when I tried to have a 1000 calorie deficit to result in a 2 pound a week loss years ago, I lost maybe a half pound every other week, and ended up with the physique of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.0 -
0 -
Both.
Your body won't just shut down after eating a day or 2 of low cals.
But if you are constantly not eating enough for your body, you will become unhealthy, you will lose muscle (and hair) and your metabolism will slow down to compensate for the lack of food.
There is absolutely no reason to eat so little to lose weight. Science and math tells us otherwise (not to mention countless personal experiences).0 -
Not sure what is meant by "Constantly not eating enough" but here are two sources that address periods of two months. This is longer than the average "OMG I HAVEN'T"T LOST WEIGHT FOR THE LAST MONTH" poster that is told to eat more. Again I am not talking about people with psychological or physical disorders and chronic self saboteurs under and over counting.Both.
Your body won't just shut down after eating a day or 2 of low cals.
But if you are constantly not eating enough for your body, you will become unhealthy, you will lose muscle (and hair) and your metabolism will slow down to compensate for the lack of food.
There is absolutely no reason to eat so little to lose weight. Science and math tells us otherwise (not to mention countless personal experiences).
http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/37350.htm
As long as water is available, a normal weight person can fast for one month maintaining relatively normal system and immune function. Once fat stores are exhausted though, protein is used, leading to death once all protein stores are utilized.
They will certainly feel hungry and fatigued so they will FEEL deprived of food, this is not the case with a lot who say they feel fine and are not hungry.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/fitbb/How+to+Get+Into+Starvation+Mode.mp3
1200 calorie / day average deficit for two months of army ranger training. I guess they did not need haircuts since they all lost their hair.
I am not advocating anything but simply saying that STARVATION MODE is a myth as used on these forums and eating below your BMR is often prescribed for people that are obese and do not have a medical reason for it. You can follow any "Roadmap" you choose but one size does not fit all.0 -
Hello all.... Again,
Firstly, I would like to give everyone who has posted on this topic a warm and sincere thankyou............no matter what side of the fence you are on!
Taking the time to post... And expressing views that are in most part directed to guide others in a helpful way and from own personal knowledge is an act of kindness so thank you all
• For me..... Starvation mode at this "point" is a myth..........
• Why...... The only true research papers from recognised facilities point to a total lack of evidence from the results of there extensive studies.
These studies and papers I refer too are listed in my earlier posts...
I asked anyone that has medical recognised studies or any other true studies indicating that starvation mode is real to list those studies for all to read...
• So far not one ...just more personal experiences.
Hey I would love to believe it. However, the evidence SO FAR is not there. It is only just anecdotal not medical or scientific …. Please Re- read my first post on this topic as I am having something strange going’s on myself
Quote: first post .........................EDITED for clarity and spelling only ......(not much of typist)
“Fri 10/05/12 07:19 AM
I have been looking at why.... I was not losing weight I exercise 40 mins a day hard have built muscle " believe I was eating less than 1000 calories, I am 45@ 90kg male looking aerobic fitness so I am putting in the effort and for the last two weeks have not loss a cracker... OK here why I need more info:
every so called good site say' my normal calorie intake as a male of age and weight is approx. 2600 to sustain current weight with minimal exercise some say as high as 3000.... so let do the science if indeed this much FUEL to RUN a normal life then if I increase the physical exercise by a factor of 5
Then the science would tell you more fuel is needed
So if put less fuel in, exercise by a factor of 5 more....
The same laws of science tell me I will need to access fuel else where ( “basically my fat reserves")
This is to replace the fuel that I am not now in- taking
Otherwise, if I my body didn’t not do this. I will feel total loss of energy and fatigue.......currently " I don’t'"
so what is really going on....!”
I believe I may have found the answer through this discussion; I will do more investigation and see what comes of it ….. THIS “Adaptive thermogenesis in humans” may hold my key “
If you have any other ideas that I could look into based on some research other than those mentioned I would love to here it...
PS good luck everyone with your personal weight loss or fitness program I hope you all achieve fantastic results!0 -
I think this is the standpoint I'll stick by as well. Makes the most sense to me!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.0 -
Hello all.... Again,
Firstly, I would like to give everyone who has posted on this topic a warm and sincere thankyou............no matter what side of the fence you are on!
Taking the time to post... And expressing views that are in most part directed to guide others in a helpful way and from own personal knowledge is an act of kindness so thank you all
• For me..... Starvation mode at this "point" is a myth..........
• Why...... The only true research papers from recognised facilities point to a total lack of evidence from the results of there extensive studies.
These studies and papers I refer too are listed in my earlier posts...
I asked anyone that has medical recognised studies or any other true studies indicating that starvation mode is real to list those studies for all to read...
• So far not one ...just more personal experiences.
Hey I would love to believe it. However, the evidence SO FAR is not there. It is only just anecdotal not medical or scientific …. Please Re- read my first post on this topic as I am having something strange going’s on myself
Quote: first post .........................EDITED for clarity and spelling only ......(not much of typist)
“Fri 10/05/12 07:19 AM
I have been looking at why.... I was not losing weight I exercise 40 mins a day hard have built muscle " believe I was eating less than 1000 calories, I am 45@ 90kg male looking aerobic fitness so I am putting in the effort and for the last two weeks have not loss a cracker... OK here why I need more info:
every so called good site say' my normal calorie intake as a male of age and weight is approx. 2600 to sustain current weight with minimal exercise some say as high as 3000.... so let do the science if indeed this much FUEL to RUN a normal life then if I increase the physical exercise by a factor of 5
Then the science would tell you more fuel is needed
So if put less fuel in, exercise by a factor of 5 more....
The same laws of science tell me I will need to access fuel else where ( “basically my fat reserves")
This is to replace the fuel that I am not now in- taking
Otherwise, if I my body didn’t not do this. I will feel total loss of energy and fatigue.......currently " I don’t'"
so what is really going on....!”
I believe I may have found the answer through this discussion; I will do more investigation and see what comes of it ….. THIS “Adaptive thermogenesis in humans” may hold my key “
If you have any other ideas that I could look into based on some research other than those mentioned I would love to here it...
PS good luck everyone with your personal weight loss or fitness program I hope you all achieve fantastic results!
The problem with asking if this phenomenon is fact or fiction is that the term "Starvation mode" is far from scientific and encompasses different things to different people. This "adaptive thermogenesis" IS STARVATION MODE according to what most people are referring to when they use the term. Semantics and terminology aside it is a definitive YES that the body does go through hormonal changes in response to caloric restriction that can lead to less weight loss than one might predict based on the supposed deficit. An individual's metabolic rate can decline and this can make weight loss extremely difficult, though not impossible.0 -
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! However I reccomend that no one asks this question on this forum. They treat it like the apocalypse of weight loss. I did a lot of research on it myself.0 -
sorry but its been proved a myth
so who proved it? and where?0 -
well, i rate this one up there with bigfoot and the loch ness monster, some people have seen them, some think its fake. all i know is, dont mess with the sasquatch, you might get hurt0
-
It definatlylowers your metabolism and can lead to the dreaded plateau0
-
I'm, sure a lot of people prefer gossip than fact but ...
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/1885261
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_mode
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf0 -
sorry but its been proved a myth
so who proved it? and where?
its proved to be true and not a myth see my previous post0 -
neither, both.... no one can figure this out. I am not being a jerk, just find what works for you. Some have had success with either approach.0
-
If you want to be skinny fat and have no real muscle definition go ahead and starve yourself then suffer life long metabolism issue from getting your body used to eat 1000 calories or less a day and be prepared to gain back every single pounds you lost once you resume a normal diet.
If you actually want to have the energy to work out, give your body the fuel it needs to repair muscle and get trim & increase your lean muscle then eat above your BMR with plenty of protein, work out, lifting or strength training & cardio maybe the number of the scale will be higher but that will be because you have more muscle.
I'd rather look fit or muscular instead of like a 12 year old boy to fulfill some arbitrary number or pants size. But that's just me0 -
I'm, sure a lot of people prefer gossip than fact but ...
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/1885261
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_mode
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf
Did you just cite Wikipedia?0 -
Then why do I see so many posts that say calories in calories out? And exactly what is skinny fat? I gotta see that.0
-
Yes He did ....LOLI'm, sure a lot of people prefer gossip than fact but ...
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/1885261
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_mode
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf
Did you just cite Wikipedia?
Also maybe you should read the papers you posted !
First one on your list ...... This is an extract from the actual paper .... plus the conclusion given By the researchers..
Please explain to us all how a study in HG and LG diets and the conclusion they draw approve or disprove starvation mode !
Extract
"Also the population studied was relatively small and our sample size was further reduced for the body composition analyses and therefore further studies are needed in
larger populations.
The first finding in the study was that there was no difference in long-term metabolic adaptation to weight loss between individuals randomized to HG and LG regimens.
On theoretical grounds, the dietary GL has the potential to influence energy expenditure and, hence, metabolic adaptation"
The conclusion of this paper cited is as follows:
"CONCLUSION
This 1-year study of healthy overweight adults found significantly reduced TEE beyond that expected for loss of
FFM and fat mass during CR. There was no statistically significant difference in metabolic adaptation to the HG and LG diets but adherence to the LG regimen apparently caused greater loss of body fat and less loss of FFM for the same
amount of overall weight loss. Additional studies are needed to confirm these findings, which suggest a beneficial effect
of consuming LG diets for weight control independent of an effect on absolute weight loss.
ABBREVIATIONS
BMI = Body Mass Index
CR = Caloric Restriction
CALERIE = Comprehensive Assessment of the Longterm Effects of Restricting Intake of Energy
FFM = Fat free mass
GL = Glycemic Load
GI = Glycemic Index
HG = High glycemic load
LG = Low glycemic load
RMR = Resting metabolic rate
TEE = Total energy expenditure
USDA = United States Department of Agriculture"
Given that "davert123" cited this one can you me how you draw the conclusion that this is proof0 -
All of the defenders don't read that stuff. When I researched this it was actually impossible to find any support for it as used here under ANY name. In fact if you look at the wiki reference the study's cited even refute it LOL.
I saw two different nutritionists because of the angst caused by the people in this forum. Both of them were very familiar with MFP and highly recommend it. The first gave me a budget of 2000 calories which is well below my BMR When I explained how al;l this talk is to not eat below your BMR to the second he pointed out that my MFP calculated budget of almost 1800 was within 50 calories of my BMR at GOAL doh. She explained that they were probably not overweight and were at or close to goal. When I went back and checked I found that to be the case, one of the more loud proponents is actually trying to gain weight. Maybe I should tell him to EAT LESS to start gaining again because he is in fattening mode. <Wink>
My hair is not falling out, energy level is great as are my mood and blood sugars so GEE I guess I am not in starvation mode,.Live Strong has a article on the symptoms. I can easily post references but they are easy to find and I have posted most before and as is obvious they wont be read since they don't even read the ones thy cite in support of the myth.0 -
[/quote]
The problem with asking if this phenomenon is fact or fiction is that the term "Starvation mode" is far from scientific and encompasses different things to different people. This "adaptive thermogenesis" IS STARVATION MODE according to what most people are referring to when they use the term. Semantics and terminology aside it is a definitive YES that the body does go through hormonal changes in response to caloric restriction that can lead to less weight loss than one might predict based on the supposed deficit. An individual's metabolic rate can decline and this can make weight loss extremely difficult, though not impossible.
[/quote]
yes i think what you say is very true ..and the document cited by "davert123" is probably the best i have read
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf
adaptive thermogenesis seem to effect lean people greatly and reduced the resting BMR, in order to preserve tissue mass "NOT fat" all fat was already used
although the study show that on larger " over wieghted people" the BMR did not change by any real measure0 -
Whenever you walk into a doctor's office, he's never going to be shocked and scream at you and say that you're in starvation mode. It's pretty much nonsense and people are making a much bigger deal out of it than what it really is. You will still lose weight on a low cal diet and some doctors will even recommend you to be on a 500 cal diet because starvation mode is not some mythical creature that will come in on you in the night and give you Type 2 diabetes or destroy your metabolism for months on end.
Here's a registered dietitian take on the subject.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755064-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=2Your metabolism can slow down a bit if you have a very large caloric deficit. However, it is not enough to stall weight loss. If you eat less, you will lose weight. I don't recommend a huge caloric deficit for the average person because it makes it hard to stay compliant long term and it's not optimal for preserving lean body mass.0 -
Thanks for saving me from typing a paragraph.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.
Spot on. Do a google search for the military's study on starvation mode. You will find that it is very difficult to send your body into starvation mode. The subjects were already very lean and subjected to extreme deficits and exercise. Bottom line, most people who say they are not losing weight due to being in starvation mode, are more than likely just not counting calories correctly.0 -
I don;t know if it's truth or myth but I know from my own experience that when eating low cal for long time, weight loss will eventually stop and very hard (almost impossible) to break.
Yup, me too. If I eat my calories and eat back the exercise calories I lose right along. I start cutting back or not eating exercise calories, and I won't lose much at all. Fact or fiction, I don't care. I just know what happens to me!!
0 -
I asked my doctor about this on Wednesday and his exact answer was "Fact, to a point." You can starve yourself and your body will pull from your fat reserves for fuel, but you will not GAIN weight from it. It will cause you to stop losing for a SHORT time but that is all."0
-
I found this article that had a study of 36 young, healthy, psychologically normal men while restricting their caloric intake for 6 months. Their calories were restricted in various phases, but the least amount of calories they were allowed was 50% of the "normal" maintenance calories.
A starvation diet does not mean the absence of food. It means cutting the total caloric intake to less than 50% of what the body requires.
In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.
But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode
Check it out.0 -
:bigsmile: bump for later0
-
No offense but that is utter BS. Just research the Minnesota Starvation Experiment - when the guys reached a certain point, no matter how little they continued to fuel their bodies, weight loss stopped.Whenever you walk into a doctor's office, he's never going to be shocked and scream at you and say that you're in starvation mode. It's pretty much nonsense and people are making a much bigger deal out of it than what it really is. You will still lose weight on a low cal diet and some doctors will even recommend you to be on a 500 cal diet because starvation mode is not some mythical creature that will come in on you in the night and give you Type 2 diabetes or destroy your metabolism for months on end.
Here's a registered dietitian take on the subject.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755064-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=2Your metabolism can slow down a bit if you have a very large caloric deficit. However, it is not enough to stall weight loss. If you eat less, you will lose weight. I don't recommend a huge caloric deficit for the average person because it makes it hard to stay compliant long term and it's not optimal for preserving lean body mass.0 -
No offense but that is utter BS. Just research the Minnesota Starvation Experiment - when the guys reached a certain point, no matter how little they continued to fuel their bodies, weight loss stopped.Whenever you walk into a doctor's office, he's never going to be shocked and scream at you and say that you're in starvation mode. It's pretty much nonsense and people are making a much bigger deal out of it than what it really is. You will still lose weight on a low cal diet and some doctors will even recommend you to be on a 500 cal diet because starvation mode is not some mythical creature that will come in on you in the night and give you Type 2 diabetes or destroy your metabolism for months on end.
Here's a registered dietitian take on the subject.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755064-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=2Your metabolism can slow down a bit if you have a very large caloric deficit. However, it is not enough to stall weight loss. If you eat less, you will lose weight. I don't recommend a huge caloric deficit for the average person because it makes it hard to stay compliant long term and it's not optimal for preserving lean body mass.
I'm not sure if you actually read the experiment you referred to but those guys kept losing weight until their bodies looked like the picture below so it really doesn't support the assumption that your body will hold onto your fat when you do a starvation diet. Obviously, the picture below is scary but knowing when to stop and eating at maintenance is the key and 14% body fat is a good stopping point for those trying to cut fat.
Here's a picture from the experiment you are referring to.
http://www.2medusa.com/2009/08/anorexia-bulimia-minnesota-starvation.html
.0 -
If our bodies started consuming muscle, wouldn't we still see weight loss? Muscle does weigh something right? If calories in doesn't equal calories out, our bodies MUST be pulling the energy from somewhere and even if it is muscle, weight loss MUST happen. Am I missing something here?
And if your hair is falling out, you are missing something in your diet and it aint calories.0 -
There was a recent documentary in the UK about a feast and famine diet where two days a week you only ate 400 calories and the rest you stuck to a well balancd diet.
It seemed to work well, he lost weight and all his statistics were improved.
Not sure how well it would work over a prolonged period of time but its food for thought.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions