Starvation mode is a myth
Replies
-
I am also far less tired on a healthy 1,200 then on 3,000 of crap because I make all the calories count consuming. I now have a minimum of 60g protein and 25g fiber. Eating crap makes me feel like crap. Also if I eat more than 600 cals at once I feel like crap. I do eat more as I work out more so it is not 1,200 everyday and as I become more fit then I will up my calories.0
-
InterestingDoesn't exist. Your metabolism slows down due to leptin and thyroid hormones but it doesn't stop. Most people who starve often binge once in a while. If you are hyper dieted your body hyper compensates. For instance, after a body building comp due to water, salt and calories consumed I can put on 28lb in 4 days...0 -
1 - doesn't exist
2- Metabolic adapation as I describe is the lowered release of leptin and so thyroid hormones
3 - Loss of lean mass is of course likely as its the most 'expensive' form of calorie consumpton that the body doesn't exist
My point was regarding the OP point which it seemed you were referring the starvation mode as existing.
It depends on the definition. No one uses it consistently here.
Thats a bit airy? What do you mean?
I mean that the term 'starvation mode' gets thrown around and peeps use it to mean any of the above plus a slew of other things. Saying 'starvation mode is a myth' without defining it creates confusion and answers that lack specificity.0 -
My doc said don't go under 1200 net calories per day. However, that's because he doesn't feel you can get adequate nutrition when going consistently lower than 1200. Nothing about "starvation mode".
I wonder if age and starting weight is a factor. I'm 43 years old. Maybe at 25 years old 1200 is "starvation mode" if such a thing exists.0 -
Depending on your height/weight/age your body burns around 1200 calories a day on its own. Everything you do burns calories. So when you work out if you're eating less than 1200 cals a day, your body technically has no calories to burn so in theory it will burn fat instead, right? The problem is food is technically meant for energy, no food=no energy. No energy means you're damaging your metabolism and slowing it overall.
And the reason that you're damaging it is because you are losing muscle, which equals weight loss, but not the kind you should want. When the body perceives a caloric shortage, how does it slow down your metabolism? By breaking down muscle as muscle burns far more calories than fat.
So while you're over there rejoicing that you're losing weight on a 1200 calorie diet, you may want to consider whether you're losing the right kind of weight. If you're not doing something to monitor your body composition (fat:lean body mass), then you could be seriously jacking yourself up. You *will* eventually stall. And when you decide that the low calorie 'diet' you're on is no longer worth it, chances are you're going to gain the weight back and then some.
Feed your muscle, strength train, maintain a reasonable deficit (10-15% of TDEE), and *burn* your calories through exercise rather than starving yourself.Here's something that may help you a little, its explaining starvation mode and how it happens over time not immediately. hope that helps answer your questions!
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php0 -
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.0 -
Registered Texas Dietitian in quotes below on starvation mode. In case you don't know, a Registered Texas Dietitian carries a license that allows him to work and regulate what people eat inside of a prison, hospital, elementary school, retirement home, and other such settings.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/755899-registered-dietitian-in-tx-here-to-answer-questions?page=16The idea that your body's metabolism will slow down to such an extend that you will not lose weight on a large caloric deficit is complete myth. Some people can make it seem like a reasonable assumption citing metabolic processes, and hormone functions but the real world result is that eating less makes you lose weight. If you are overweight, you do not need to worry about "starvation mode"
Yes. I am a Masters level Registered, Licensed, Dietitian/Nutritionist and I concur. The idea that going below 1200 cals (or whatever someone suspects is their BMR) will cause them to go into "starvation mode" and stop losing and/or gain weight is not true. The reason super low calorie diets don't work for most people long term is that they cannot sustain the low intake and end up eating much more and essentially gaining back whatever they lost. Also, quick weight loss lends itself to loss of lean body mass along with fat, which in turn leads to a lower overall BMR. However the change in BMR is quite small as 1 lb. of muscle burns about 6 cals per day vs 2 for 1 lb. of fat. When the person inevitably returns to higher calorie eating, they tend to gain back fat and not the lost lean body mass (ie: muscle). However, taking in fewer calories significantly from what you burn over a period of time is what leads to desired weight loss.
I'm a family physician and I also agree.
I have been eating around 1200 calories a day or just under (roughly) since Jun 2012 when I was diagnosed with diabetes and have lost 25kg (55lbs) so far. No slowing down, no plateaus, no starvation mode. I havent even added much exercise yet - I have lupus and my endocrinologist was keen for me to get some weight off before hammering my joints with running or gym work. I am finding it remarkably easy because I have removed starchy high processed carbohydrates from my diet. If you are eating lots of fresh fruit and veg, whole grains, dairy, good fats and lean protein you can actually fit a LOT of food and snacks into 1200 calories. Now I am no expert and I bow to the dietitians on the boards here as far as their specialist knowledge, but I agree- if you eat well you can get enough nutrition in your diet. If you eat crap and processed food you can't.
So I agree - if you are actually STARVING your weight loss will slow as your body adapts, but for most of us here that isnt the case and 1200 is not a magic number at which you starve. BUT if you try and eat under 1200 or 1000 calories a day and you dont know what you are doing, you run the risk of nutritional defiiciency or just getting frustrated and pigging out. I am doing this for the rest of my life and have not cheated - so am seeing slow progressive steady weight loss. This is a lifestyle not a diet and if 1000-1200 works for me I (and my endocrinologist) are more than happy for me to be there.
You might want to make sure that you are eating full fat dairy. A new study out of Harvard Med, looks at the effect of trans-palmitoleic acid (contained in full-fat dairy but not in no-fat dairy). Here's the link if you want to read about it: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
I never understood why the emphasis on very low fat diets for diabetics when they allow simple carbs and sugar. It is moderate fat in the diet that evens out blood sugar swings.
Absolutely agree. I am not a lover of milk, never have been, so tend to have skim - but only in coffee maybe once a day. My main dairy is yoghurt which I love and cottage cheese which I have full fat for exactly the reasons you mention. And I don't have simple carbs and sugar in my diet if I can help it. I think the ADA (US and Australian) are a bit behind the times as far as evidence for diabteic diets are concerned .. the latest evidence from the Lancet and a lot of the work of Sydney University supports the avoidance of processed sugars and starchy carbs and lots of good fats (full fat dairy, oily fish, nuts, avocadoes etc) along with lean protein, some fruit and lots of veg along with smaller portion sizes and some caloric restriction. I also avoid additives and artifical sweeteners where possible. I have been following this approach with the support of my endocrinologist and have noticed enormous improvements in blood sugar and significant weight loss. So while I am not everybody, it is certainly working well for me
0 -
cmon guys common sense... eat when you are hungry.0
-
Depending on your height/weight/age your body burns around 1200 calories a day on its own. Everything you do burns calories. So when you work out if you're eating less than 1200 cals a day, your body technically has no calories to burn so in theory it will burn fat instead, right? The problem is food is technically meant for energy, no food=no energy. No energy means you're damaging your metabolism and slowing it overall.
And the reason that you're damaging it is because you are losing muscle, which equals weight loss, but not the kind you should want. When the body perceives a caloric shortage, how does it slow down your metabolism? By breaking down muscle as muscle burns far more calories than fat.
So while you're over there rejoicing that you're losing weight on a 1200 calorie diet, you may want to consider whether you're losing the right kind of weight. If you're not doing something to monitor your body composition (fat:lean body mass), then you could be seriously jacking yourself up. You *will* eventually stall. And when you decide that the low calorie 'diet' you're on is no longer worth it, chances are you're going to gain the weight back and then some.
Feed your muscle, strength train, maintain a reasonable deficit (10-15% of TDEE), and *burn* your calories through exercise rather than starving yourself.Here's something that may help you a little, its explaining starvation mode and how it happens over time not immediately. hope that helps answer your questions!
http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is-starvation-mode-a-myth-no-its-very-real-and-here-is-the-proof.php
Dead on! How many post have there been where someone tried this approach and then was looking for advice on how to "fix" their metabolism and how to gain back the muscle mass they squandered away. It's twice as hard to do it this way intead of the way you are rcommeding. The short cut isn't always a short cut.0 -
/threadSo don't call it starvation mode. Call it undereating or poor nutrition. Sub-optimal behavior will produce sub-optimal results.
+1
I am burning a significant amount of fat from my body by just eating at a 15% cut from TDEE. That gives me 1800 calories instead of 600. Slow and steady wins the race.0 -
Nawh, it's cool, I'll keep eating WAY MORE than 1200 calories and lose fat not muscle. You enjoy that though.
I am so with you! I don't understand why in the world you would starve yourself on purpose and then point to articles on the internet and say there is no scientific proof. When your body needs more than you are eating just to function, that should tell you something.0 -
Maybe "starvation mode" is a bad term that is so commonly used because if you are using this sight I highly doubt you are doing any kind of starving. But, I think the term is based on when you consume less than 1200 calories a day it messes with your metabolism. Eating under 1200 calories can cause a lot of people to be at a stand still with their weigh loss because their metabolism has gone into stand still mode.
I can see this thread getting heated discussion but when it comes down to it....to each his own and you gotta do what works for you.0 -
If you live in a first world country, you will never experience starvation mode.0
-
"From what I have read on here, from people who seem to know their stuff"
No... I wouldn't believe half of what is put on this site. Research it for yourself rather than ask for people's thoughts and their resources on here. There are a lot of disadvantages to not eating enough. Afterall your body NEEDS a certain amount of calories just for the organs and everything to function properly. You drop below that, and your asking for nothing but trouble. I'm not going to go into the who starvation mode because it has been brought up way too much here. Get on google scholar or something and do some research for yourself to come to your decision on it.0 -
My doctor maintains me on less than 1200, but does say there is such thing as a starvation mode. He says however anything less than 800 or so should not be done PERIOD and that no doctor in their right might mind would go any lower than that. He suggests 800-1000 per day as a restricted diet, but NO lower at all.
For those who say "I dont know how ANYONE could eat less than that..." please remember that some of us dont know how ANYONE could eat 1000 calories in a setting. Please remember that just as some over-eat, some under-eat, but ultimately, we are all here for one main goal -- to get healthy. :drinker:
I would also like to add (only because i have seen some pretty hateful and hurtful things on MFP) People have said.. "Lets face it... you didnt get fat eating less than 1200 calories a day!" well, yes, infact, I did! I went from eating little to nothing and being very active, to eating little to nothing and being almost bed-ridden after suffering two strokes from blood clots to the brain. So it can and does happen. Please remember not to assume everything is cut and dry and that we are one in the same. Once again, we are all here for one reason, and that is to get healthy! Lets keep the negativity to a minimum and support each other!!0 -
If you live in a first world country, you will probably never experience starvation.
Fixed it for you0 -
Can we discuss this and add links to scientific sites that prove your point please.
IS STARVATION MODE A MYTH? NO! STARVATION MODE IS VERY REAL AND HERE’S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF
QUESTION:
Tom, I was wondering if you had seen the 6 part e-mail series sent out by [name deleted] from [website deleted]. if you look at the last part, he basically states that “starvation mode” is a bunch of crap made up in order to sell diet programs. He didn’t mention you, but it almost sounds like he’s talking about you specifically. How do you feel about this?
ANSWER:
I’m afraid the person who wrote that article is mistaken about starvation mode. Not only does his article contain technical errors, but anyone who sees what kind of products he promotes will realize where all his biases come from if you simply read between the lines a little bit. The pot calls the kettle black.
He accuses those of us who use the term “starvation mode” as being unscientific and he even says “dont buy diet books if they mention the starvation mode.” Yet in a moment, it will become clear that he is the one who doesn’t appear very well read in the scientific literature on the effects of starvation and low calorie diets.
The effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown and there are myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (can’t happen - you’d be dead if your metabolism stopped), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).
Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.
As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.
However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documented and is not just a metabolic adaptation - it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food seeking behaviors.
Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:
Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.
Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.
Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)
Here’s one of those follow up studies:
“Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition.
Quote:
“It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”
“the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”
Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.
Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.
There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them - when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women.
Starvation mode is not just adaptive reduction metabolic rate - it is much more.
There IS a controversy over how much of the decrease in metabolism with weight loss is caused by starvation mode, but the case is extremely strong:
For example, this study DIRECTLY addresses the controversy over HOW MUCH of a decrease in metabolism really occurs with starvation due to adaptive thermogenesis and how much is very simply due to a loss in total body mass.
Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”
quote:
“It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”
Starvation response is even a scientific term that is used in obesity science textbooks - word for word - CONTRARY to the claim made by the expert mentioned earlier who thinks the phrase, starvation mode is “unscientific.”
Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard
(two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )
quote:
“The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”
Textbooks on nutritional biochemistry also acknowledge the decrease in metabolism and distinguish it as an adaptive mechanism, distinct from the decrease in energy expenditure that would be expected with weight loss. In this case, the author also mentions another downside of very low calorie diets: spontaneous reduction in physical activity.
Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)
Quote:
“During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.
This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”
Granted, it is more often referred to as “metabolic adaptation” or “adaptive reduction in metabolic rate.” However, starvation mode and starvation response are both terms found in the scientific literature, and they are more easily understood by the layperson, which is why I choose to use them.
Another effect of starvation mode is what happens after the diet: A sustained increase in appetite and a sustained reduction of metabolic rate that persists after the diet is over. Although controversial, this too is documented in the literature:
American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”
American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”
quote:
“Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”
and Dulloo 1998:
“The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”
By the way, this explains what some people refer to as “metabolic damage” and although this is not a scientific phrase, you can see that it too is a reality. It is the lag time between when a diet ends and when your metabolism and appetite regulating mechanisms get back to normal.
Last, but certainly not least, and perhaps the best indicator of starvation mode is the hormone LEPTIN. you could spend weeks studying leptin and still not cover all the data that has been amassed on this subject.
Leptin IS the anti starvation hormone. Some people say leptin IS the starvation mode itself because it regulates many of the negative effects that occur during starvation.
leptin is secreted mostly from fat cells and it signals your brain about your fat stores. If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases. If your calorie intake decreases, your leptin level decreases.
When leptin decreases, it essentially sounds the starvation alarm. In response, your brain (hypothalamus) sends out signals for other hormones to be released which decrease metabolic rate and increase appetite.
In summary and conclusion:
There is no debate whatsoever about the existence of starvation mode - IT EXISTS and is well documented.
There is also no debate whatsoever that metabolic rate decreases with weight loss. It happens and is well documented, and it is a reason for plateuas.
There’s really only ONE debate about starvation mode that is — HOW MUCH of the starvation mode is comprised of adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and how much is due to loss of total body mass and increased feeding behaviors?
Researchers are still debating these questions, in fact just earlier this year another study was releasd by Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”
Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:
“Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”
I respect the work that other fitness professionals are trying to do to debunk diet and fitness myths, but this fellow didn’t seem to do his homework and totally missed the boat on this article about starvation mode.
What’s really odd is that he didn’t quote a single study in his article, despite his repeated reference to “scientific research.”
If he wanted to argue against adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and chalk starvation mode up purely to increase in food seeking behaviors… and if he wanted to attribute the decreased metabolism with weight loss purely to lost body mass, he easily could have done that. But he didn’t cite ANY studies. He just expects us to take his word for it that “starvation mode is a myth,” and people like me who use the phrase starvation mode are “unscientific”
Either way you argue it - and whatever you choose to call it - “starvation response” is a scientific fact and that’s why low calorie diets are risky business and mostly just quick fixes.
The rapid weight loss in the beginning is an illusion: Starvation diets catch up with you eventually… just like other habits such as smoking appear to do no harm at first, but sooner or later the damage is done.
For years I’ve considered it so important to understand the consequences of starvation diets that my entire burn the fat program is built around helping you recover from metabolic damage from past diet mistakes, to avoid the starvation mode, or to at least keep the effects of the starvation mode to a minimum so you can lose the fat and keep the muscle.
Sincerely,
Your friend and “Burn The fat coach”
Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
www.BurnTheFat.com0 -
if you want to understand the evidence or lack thereof for starvation mode, I suggest you read peer-reviewed journal articles and stop asking people's opinions on a message board because that is all you will get--opinions.0
-
If you want scientific articles on starvation mode, you will find one. It was done by the Army on soldiers during ranger school. The results are interesting and, no, the "starvation mode" phenomenon as people use the term commonly does not exist unless you are at less than 6% body fat and then restricting calories below 800 (at least that is what the results of the study indicated). However, if you understand scientific research, there are limits to what can be generalized from the results of this ONE study. That being said, if you want to understand the evidence or lack thereof for starvation mode, I suggest you read peer-reviewed journal articles and stop asking people's opinions on a message board because that is all you will get--opinions.
The issue with this study (well, it was a series of studies in the military) was that they were conducted to really to see physiological impact of being put under extreme conditions with a limited calorie intake - and particularly with regard to women v men.
Extract from a write up of the study:
"Ranger students present a variation where a sustained physical effort is not optional, demonstrating behavioral and metabolic adaptations to accommodate the reduction in energy intake while maintaining the required level of effort. By the end of Ranger training, soldiers move with great deliberation and visibly demonstrate no wasted motion. There is also a marked reduction in circulating thyroid hormones and an increased sensitivity to cold, even in summer classes, which suggests the same reduction in cellular metabolism that has been measured in earlier studies such as the Minnesota study."
Also, the study you are referring to actually shows that at 6% body fat, muscle will be predominantly used for energy. It does not show that at over 6% no muscle will be catabolized.0 -
Thank you for bringing this up. Weight loss surgery patients are living proof that starvation mode is a myth (at least for some people). My BMR is 1200 cals/day, and in order to lose, my nutritionist has me on 1200 cals/day with heavy work outs - at least 6 hours/week and I have steadily lost almost 100 lbs over the last 15 months or so. Look at my diary - it's a sustainable diet with lots of fruits & veggies, lean protein, and the occasional splurge like a piece of chocolate or cupcake.
It all depends on your BMR as to what you actually need. THAT is the scientific proof that everyone is looking for. Some people need 2k/day, some people need 3k/day, and some, like me, need 1200/day. Once I'm at maintenance, I will probably stick to 1200 and eat back work out cals, but that will still only put me at 1500-1800/day.0 -
I would also add that Ranger School is hardly a typical experience and would be very difficult to recreate in daily life, so, again, there are limits to what can be generalized from that study. As with any scientific research, it's important to understand what conclusions can be drawn and generalized and which results require more research to fully understand the implications.0
-
I actually just had an argument with my friend (a competitive swimmer) about starvation mode the other night at dinner. He said that starvation mode happens when you don't eat first thing waking up, and I said no it happens when you don't eat enough food for a long period of time (many weeks). I don't know who won but reading this was a very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for posting
0 -
I think i will stick with what my DR, Dietary Nurse and Diabetes Nurse have told me. Anything less than 1200 cals a day and your body is not getting the nutrients you need. Regardless of loosing weight...it should be about being healthy.
*your* body would. A healthy person who is 5'1 and a healthy weight can easily get everything she needs in 1200 cals.
*I* can easily get by on 1200 cals a day because I'm a good & knowledgeable cook. I know which low-cal foods that keep you feeling full, longer. I know which foods are higher in protein and can build a very square meal that is dense in everything but calories.0 -
i did a diet of 650cals a day for 5 months... i looked awful, felt awful no chance of exercise either! without dosing up on supplements its not sustainable and real food is better than supplements x0
-
I actually just had an argument with my friend (a competitive swimmer) about starvation mode the other night at dinner. He said that starvation mode happens when you don't eat first thing waking up, and I said no it happens when you don't eat enough food for a long period of time (many weeks). I don't know who won but reading this was a very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for posting
As an FYI - your friend was wrong, very wrong0 -
"*I* can easily get by on 1200 cals a day because I'm a good & knowledgeable cook."
this is a good point what magj0y said, a few people have messaged me asking about my recipes because i eat plenty but stay within my limits a lot of people start a diet by cutting everything out! its not sustainable it makes people miserable. Thats what is good about this site you can swap ideas with people instead of eating boring food x0 -
bumpity bump bump bump0
-
Or read this link http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science. From what I got out of that study is that starvation mode does exist but your BF hits about 5 percent. Granted cutting calories way low to loose weight is not healthy nor is it sustainable but does not immediatly put you in starvation mode I. Again I am no expert by far I have just came to my own conclusions by what I have read and what has worked for me. If you do cut calories lower your metabilsim will slow down but this can be made up by excersise.
Myself I cut my calories down to about 1600 cal a day and excersised about 1000 calories or more every other day I was at about 280 5 ft 11 and the weight fell off. I am at about 180 eat anwhwere between 1600 to 3000 a day depending on how I feel and I normally burn at least 1000 per day on excersise. I have maintained for 2 years now.0 -
Not speaking from a scientific standpoint at all and bearing in mind everyone is different but for me I almost always come in under what MFP recommends I need to be eating. I'm always full, I eat 5-6, maybe even 7 times a day, and I never feel tortured like I'm starving. My weight loss is consistent and I feel like strength training is keeping my muscle on and tight, though probably not gaining much like I would if I wasn't on a diet. Totally unscientifically speaking I'm guessing there is a big difference bodily between true starvation and eating a comfortable amount while not getting quite as many calories as "normal."0
-
It may indeed be a myth.
But the first time I ever heard the term was when I was whining to my doctor about not losing any weight despite dieting and working out. He said I wasn't taking in enough calories for the workouts I was doing. I blew him off, thinking that was ridiculous. If I'm not losing weight eating 1400 cals a day, what sense does it make to increase to 1800 cals?!
Can you believe that when I finally followed his advice, I started losing weight? Thirty pounds, reached my goal, felt great.
If it's just a myth, call me a happy fool.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