Fact or Fiction? Starvation mode?

SJCon

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.

I have not followed the fasting research trail to far yet but found these two items that piqued my interest so thought I would share. I Especially like the one that says you can get a rest and heal if done right.

An Introduction to the Benefits of a Professionally Supervised Fast
http://www.healthpromoting.com/learning-center/articles/therapeutic-fasting

Fasting and starvation mode
http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/37350.htm

ladypenel

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.

I always remember my Dr informing me that no fat people came out of Belsen or even Biafra, or the Sudan today. Lower cal in than cals used must result in weight loss, not maybe the ideal kind, but still weight loss

Well I disagree with the idea re fat people didn't come out of Belsen etc as this is what my doc told me and stuck me on a 700 cal diet, which nearly killed me, caused liver damage! Now I am on MFP and upped my cals to 1200 I am starting to lose weight And No I haven't changed the food I ate before just having more of it. So call it what you want but there is definitely something going on if you eat too little, ask my GP who is now putting other people on higher cals and seeing good results with them too!

scottbrown78

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.

I always remember my Dr informing me that no fat people came out of Belsen or even Biafra, or the Sudan today. Lower cal in than cals used must result in weight loss, not maybe the ideal kind, but still weight loss

Well I disagree with the idea re fat people didn't come out of Belsen etc as this is what my doc told me and stuck me on a 700 cal diet, which nearly killed me, caused liver damage! Now I am on MFP and upped my cals to 1200 I am starting to lose weight And No I haven't changed the food I ate before just having more of it. So call it what you want but there is definitely something going on if you eat too little, ask my GP who is now putting other people on higher cals and seeing good results with them too!

How does low caloric intake damage the liver? I do remember seeing on "super size me" that his doc told him his liver function was degrading from to much fat intake.

MaraDiaz

Try this. Get down to your goal weight. Find a buddy who is the same height and weight as you at your goal weight and who has never been on a diet.

Eat the same thing your buddy does every day.

I guarantee you will gain weight on your buddy's maintenance calories. You may not gain quickly, but you will gain, because you have dieted in the past and your buddy never did. That is starvation mode.

missjennifer1966

It takes quite a while for your body to go into starvation mode so eating less than the calories they say you need will not do anything byt let you lose weight faster. Of course, if you do it for an extended period of time it will hurt you by keeping the fat on.

MIM49

I have a friend that had to undergo surgery to her jaw (bone cancer in jaw bone.) After removing her jaw bone and rebuilding her face her jaw was wired shut for 6 months. She was given a feeding tube into her stomach (called a G-tube) and was put on liquid feeds (Ensure). She happened to be overweight--perhaps even obese--at the start. The doctor prescribed a certain # of cans/calories per day. She, however, having no taste involved and no feeling of hunger found she rarely ever used the amount prescribed--she just sort of "forgot" to eat. She lost weight rapidly and says the only bright side of the ordeal is that she is now thin.(It also appears she is cancer free) At no time did she enter a "starvation mode". She doesn't feel that she sacrificed muscle (never had much anyway as she is older--mid 60's--and not one for working out) The thing is that she was aware EXACTLY how many calories were going in--no underestimating, no "cheating". The lesson--Reduce caloric intake and your body will resort to "burning" body fat for "fuel" . It takes a deficit of 3500 calories to lose a pound. A 700 calorie deficit will take 5 days to lose a pound. A 500 calorie deficit will take 7 days to lose a pound. I think of metabolism like a car: some cars get 48 miles to a gallon of gas: others only manage 8 miles per gallon. Why would someone choose a 800-1000 calorie diet when weight loss will occur at 1200 or more calories (depending on BMR or TDEE or whatever)? Some people would rather see a faster weight loss. I don't think anyone on an extremely restricted calorie diet expects to maintain that for life and will at some point increase calories to a more survival level. I think anyone with a history of obesity recognizes that there was a problem with eating habits that will require a change to maintain weight loss and not regain the fat. Some people are satisfied with the "I didn't gain it in a day" approach and choose to incorporate a healthier way of eating as they lose weight. Others would rather shed the pounds faster and then incorporate a healthier approach in maintaining the weight loss. "Tricking" your body by eating more because you are at a plateau? Hogwash. Instead try not eating at all for 24-48 hours (drink water.) Yeah, you might feel hungry. But if you are upset over a "stuck" scale then a few hunger pains would be worth the effort. I can assure you that the starved people in Biafra or the concentration camps of WWII underwent more than just a day or two of hunger pains. Of course when you resume eating you have to count every calorie in every nibble. They mount up fast. If you aren't losing weight it is not due to starvation but to eating.

MIM49

Try this. Get down to your goal weight. Find a buddy who is the same height and weight as you at your goal weight and who has never been on a diet.

Eat the same thing your buddy does every day.

I guarantee you will gain weight on your buddy's maintenance calories. You may not gain quickly, but you will gain, because you have dieted in the past and your buddy never did. That is starvation mode.

No--that is genetics. Some people due to their DNA have a propensity to store fat--ie put on weight. Other people do not have the fat cells to do this. Some people are more "fuel efficient" than others. They burn or utilize calories slower--like an economy car. It takes less food to fuel them. Your buddy may be a sports car--goes the same distance but uses a lot more fuel

riveradee

i hope i didn't miss out on this debate
i've thought about this a lot ..if it were true that your body goes into starvation mode when you eat under the required calorie amount and your body stops losing fat and stores it ....why would people with some eating disorders lose so much weight they have to be tube fed?

Aviva92

Haven't read the whole thread, but I find it a little odd that those who are yelling about starvation mode and in the eat more camp aren't necessarily eating healthy in order to eat more. Not sure why eating a brownie in order to get to 1600 calories vs a healthy 1200 calorie diet is better.

I find that eating healthy results in my just not necessarily being hungry enough to eat much more than 1200 calories a day. Starvation mode sounds silly to me.

wrevhn

this almost seems like an attempt to get ppls feathers ruffled.


a working one.

LorinaLynn

The thing is... the fact that people with anorexia or the often mentioned starving kids in Africa aren't dead yet is proof that the body adapts and slows down. They don't lose as much weight as you'd expect one to lose on the tiny amount of food they consume, because the body adapts and slows down.

It's not some excuse gluttonous pigs like me made up to eat more. It's how the human body is designed to survive famine. The body doesn't know the difference between a failed harvest, a long winter and a diet. It just knows it's not getting the food it needs to maintain the current weight, so it will get rid of what it needs to keep surviving. If you're not giving it the right fuel, it will get rid of whatever it takes to keep going. Like a pilot in an airplane that's low on fuel... it could be carrying crates of gold ingots, but if it's losing altitude and going to crash unless it lightens it's load, it's going to dump that gold no matter how valuable it is. Your body will do the same thing to lean mass.

All weight loss is not created equal. That's why getting proper nutrition and exercise, especially resistance training, is so important. If none of that mattered, we could just be put in a coma and tube fed until we reached the ideal weight.

gjulie

Starvation mode or not if you eat too little you will be miserable I would rather be happy and comfortable:laugh: !!!!

half_moon

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.

^^ Best explanation. Ever. Thread over.

tarnishedsilver14

Starvation mode is partially true. Your metabolism WILL slow down as you lose weight and eat less, but not a significant amount. It also takes 72 hours for you metabolism to being slowing down...

drewg40

If I "starve" myself then I will lose weight and be miserable......for me if I lose weight to fast I will put it back on just as fast.....It's all about changing eating habits not fast weight loss....but as I saw earlier in this thread to each his own......I enjoy eating to much to cut my calories too drastically.....

Sheirai

Yes, this, and add to it the muscle loss, which results in slower metabolism. It has also been my experience that when I calorie restrict too much, my overall energy level is lower, and so I move less during my usual daily activities, resulting in a lower burn when I'm not working out, and I probably don't work out as hard, either. (besides the fact, that when I'm extremely hungry, I'm more likely to be tempted to eat junk....cake for breakfast today-oops.) And VLC diets don't build new habits, which are essential if weight loss is going to be maintained.

AbsoluteNG

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.

I always remember my Dr informing me that no fat people came out of Belsen or even Biafra, or the Sudan today. Lower cal in than cals used must result in weight loss, not maybe the ideal kind, but still weight loss

Well I disagree with the idea re fat people didn't come out of Belsen etc as this is what my doc told me and stuck me on a 700 cal diet, which nearly killed me, caused liver damage! Now I am on MFP and upped my cals to 1200 I am starting to lose weight And No I haven't changed the food I ate before just having more of it. So call it what you want but there is definitely something going on if you eat too little, ask my GP who is now putting other people on higher cals and seeing good results with them too!

Fear Monger. Eating less does not cause liver damage. However, eating more does and it's called a fatty liver at stage one. Most likely your liver was already screwed up from being obese or an alcoholic.

hughtwalker

Okay - well, today I did a concert so clocked up 3 hours of choir standing singing and had some lovely desserts at lunch and tea so got up to 1800 (out of a goal of 2000) We'll see if the morning brings weight loss or gain

geekyjock76

Yes, I actually read Keys' volumes of The Biology of Human Starvation when I checked it out from the library. One of the hallmark findings in his experiment is the less one eats, the less you must continue to eat to induce further potential weight loss. However, Keys stated, despite individually reducing their caloric intake in an attempt to get all men to lose 25% of their weight, the men stopped losing at week twenty regardless of how low their intake became. Thus, at this precise point of semi-starvation does your body resist further weight loss which he deemed the body's survival mechanism against times of famine. This is also the fundamental principle of semi-starvation, or "starvation mode", that people often misinterpret. Needless to say, only a very few cases on MFP would even fall into this dire category of chronic calorie restriction.

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.

Fringe11

What those are missing here that are in favour of the starvation mode point of view,
Is one simple thing.... actual medical research that support there view..

In my earlier posts I gave references to research debunking starvation mode. Yet we have none that gave references to research for the support of starvation mode..

Although, some have posted research papers relating to the “Minnesota experiment” .In an attempt o use this as an example to prove the existence of starvation mode..
“Minnesota Experiment”
TIP … next time you post a document make sure you read the paper first... this experiment “Minnesota experiment “was not to determine starvation mode, one way or another.
• The experiment focused on a severely calorie reduced diet some 50% on … NORMAL ( not on the overweight or those with large fat reserves)
• The participants entered “starvation” NOT the starvation mode that is so often referred to here. YES... the participants BMR decreased dramatically”
o WHY … because they were so emancipated and the severe loss of muscle. This meant they not longer had the tissue mass to support a normal BMR.

1. Let separate the facts:
Normal- Light- Thin people
Light to thin people who are on a calorie reduction due forced or unforced circumstances (possible famine or disease ...etc) will at some point deplete all the fat reserves.
a. If they continue the will enter starvation….. They will then being to burn muscle as a food source.
b. Lower muscle mass… means simply smaller engine to burn any fuel put in
c. If you now have smaller engine then yes you require less fuel and lower BMR than what you started from...
d. At some point if the loss of muscle mass continues you will die! ....FROM - “STARVATION “ NOT…. starvation mode as referred to here!

2. Let separate the facts:
Over WIEGHT or Obese
OBESE and Over weight people who are on a calorie reduction due to UNFORCED circumstances (Dieting, Gastric bypass ...fitness program ..etc) will continue to:
a. Deplete fat reserves whilst large amounts fat is available.
b. The rate of depletion of fat reserves will be governed by calorie deficit , individual BMR (basal metabolic rate) and of course TEE(Total energy expenditure)
c. The BMR will decrease very slightly as your fitness increases as the body does not need to work as hard.
d. Leptin production is KEY to continual weight loss …. Therefore most important part of continual weight loss is DIET formulation (types of foods) that does not inhibit Leptin production “
e. Leptin is the trigger for the body to use it fat reserves for fuel”
f. LG (Low glycaemic) foods will aid in Leptin activation... Low GI = 55 or less
g. If your fat reserves are below the recommended BMI ( Body Mass Index) then don’t diet there NO Need
i. Exercise and the right diet will maintain your weight and will you will see the real you!

PayneAS

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.

That is absolutely the best explanation I've ever seen about it. Thank you!

hughtwalker

Okay - well, today I did a concert so clocked up 3 hours of choir standing singing and had some lovely desserts at lunch and tea so got up to 1800 (out of a goal of 2000) We'll see if the morning brings weight loss or gain

ONE KILO GAIN - OVERNIGHT!
Pah! So much for starvation mode - or will the adherents of this quaint historically denied theory allege that the past week of sub-1000 has so mortified my ability to metabolise that it will take few days of such "over-eating" to put things back to "normal"?