Calling BS on the starvation mode (plz no E/D rants)

BusyRaeNOTBusty

The best explanation of "starvation mode" I've read:

http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#starvationmode

MinimalistShoeAddict

Here is a scientific study on the topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

Read it and you will see why so many people on MFP have no clue about what "starvation mode" even means or who it applies to. Of course underweight/normal weight people will starve much faster than a very obese person on an extremely low calorie diet. The obese person has an abundant food source that can be feed him/her for a very long time.

Before I go any further I want to say this, I know eating a low calorie diet is mentally unhealthy to some individuals, particularly those who suffer from eating disorders, and I respect the opinion of those who struggle with them. I am just talking from the perspective of someone with out one who has a mentally sound grasp on their body and eating habits.

This is probably one of the most controversial subjects on this site. I personally think that if you eat to little the only way your body can compensate for that is by slowing your base* metabolic rate down a bit, but quite frankly think it is impossible for you body to just say screw you, I'm gonna take all the food you give me and store it as fat! I've played around with my food consumption and exercise enough to know my own body.

It's a scientific fact that when a person goes with out food the body first uses any available carbs in the system, then the fat reserve's, and finally it starts to break down its own muscle tissue (mainly from voluntary muscles) to supply the essential organ functions with energy to survive. So that goes to say that starvation mode, in the sense of muscle wasting, is only obtained by complete starvation and complete fat reservoir depletion, only then I would think, the body would start to use critical tissue to survive.

So please someone put this hype to rest and try to convince me of the contrary. I wanna know how having too big of a caloric deficit while still having an above "very lean" b/f% is somehow making people more fat? It just doesn't make sense to me at all?

tmauck4472

According to what I've read (Mn study for one) your body won't start eating muscle until your body fat is below a certain % (different % for men and woman). I do not believe in Starvation Mode. For one I've been eating low calories (and don't go turning me in for encouraging others to eat low because I NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL encourage someone to eat the way I eat) since I started my diet in January of 2012 and I've not had one side effect everyone keeps saying I should have had within a couple of months of eating low. 14 months in and my weight loss has slowed yes, but that's to be expected, but I'm still losing 10 lbs a month. My hair is not falling out, my nails are bad but they were bad before I started losing weight. I have tons of energy and I exercise at least 3 to 4 times a week (will be more once summer comes around again) I still have 80 to 90 lbs to go before I start maintance and strength training.

SRH7

Bump

AnabolicKyle

Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?

From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.

So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.

So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

scientifically proven...

your body will eat up the fat first!

lb of fat is worth 3500Cals
lb of muscle is only 700Cals

not to mention fat is much easier to break down to energy than protein

NormInv

Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?

From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.

So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.

So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

scientifically proven...

your body will eat up the fat first!

lb of fat is worth 3500Cals
lb of muscle is only 700Cals

not to mention fat is much easier to break down to energy than protein

haha...dont make me laugh bro.

Look up the difference between 'consumption' and 'expenditure'.

You need to CONSUME 3500 cals or 700 cals to gain a pound of fat or muscle, respectively.

Once you have it bro, it goes like this:

Now that you have the muscle aka SUV and the fat aka corolla, now your body needs to expend, key work here, bro, expend, 8 cals to maintain muscle and 2 cals to maintain fat.

Now, bro, lets say you are living off 200 cals, so now what?

You are stranded on a lonely island with no food and limited water, and no friends, now what.

So now your body is doing math and saying, gee whiz, last time we got stranded, it took my dad 3 months to find me. So if I have to sustain myself for 3 months, I need to get rid of the gas guzzler aka muscle.

You follow me bro?

So after 2.5 months, you got a nice tub of fat at the middle and scrawny shoulders. So when you get back on shore, nobody thinks you attractive.

Your welcome!

Lift_hard_eat_big

You're fooling yourself if you think you can magically burn pure fat without losing muscle mass. And no, you are not building new muscle if you are dieting and aren't on the juice.

AnabolicKyle

Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?

From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.

So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.

So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

scientifically proven...

your body will eat up the fat first!

lb of fat is worth 3500Cals
lb of muscle is only 700Cals

not to mention fat is much easier to break down to energy than protein

haha...dont make me laugh bro.

Look up the difference between 'consumption' and 'expenditure'.

You need to CONSUME 3500 cals or 700 cals to gain a pound of fat or muscle, respectively.

Once you have it bro, it goes like this:

Now that you have the muscle aka SUV and the fat aka corolla, now your body needs to expend, key work here, bro, expend, 8 cals to maintain muscle and 2 cals to maintain fat.

Now, bro, lets say you are living off 200 cals, so now what?

You are stranded on a lonely island with no food and limited water, and no friends, now what.

So now your body is doing math and saying, gee whiz, last time we got stranded, it took my dad 3 months to find me. So if I have to sustain myself for 3 months, I need to get rid of the gas guzzler aka muscle.

You follow me bro?

So after 2.5 months, you got a nice tub of fat at the middle and scrawny shoulders. So when you get back on shore, nobody thinks you attractive.

Your welcome!

youre obviously trolling

NormInv

Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?

From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.

So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.

So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

scientifically proven...

your body will eat up the fat first!

lb of fat is worth 3500Cals
lb of muscle is only 700Cals

not to mention fat is much easier to break down to energy than protein

haha...dont make me laugh bro.

Look up the difference between 'consumption' and 'expenditure'.

You need to CONSUME 3500 cals or 700 cals to gain a pound of fat or muscle, respectively.

Once you have it bro, it goes like this:

Now that you have the muscle aka SUV and the fat aka corolla, now your body needs to expend, key work here, bro, expend, 8 cals to maintain muscle and 2 cals to maintain fat.

Now, bro, lets say you are living off 200 cals, so now what?

You are stranded on a lonely island with no food and limited water, and no friends, now what.

So now your body is doing math and saying, gee whiz, last time we got stranded, it took my dad 3 months to find me. So if I have to sustain myself for 3 months, I need to get rid of the gas guzzler aka muscle.

You follow me bro?

So after 2.5 months, you got a nice tub of fat at the middle and scrawny shoulders. So when you get back on shore, nobody thinks you attractive.

Your welcome!

youre obviously trolling

Thats an easy way to not admit you were wrong. Why would I be trolling?

Lift_hard_eat_big

Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?

From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.

So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.

So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

scientifically proven...

your body will eat up the fat first!

lb of fat is worth 3500Cals
lb of muscle is only 700Cals

not to mention fat is much easier to break down to energy than protein

haha...dont make me laugh bro.

Look up the difference between 'consumption' and 'expenditure'.

You need to CONSUME 3500 cals or 700 cals to gain a pound of fat or muscle, respectively.

Once you have it bro, it goes like this:

Now that you have the muscle aka SUV and the fat aka corolla, now your body needs to expend, key work here, bro, expend, 8 cals to maintain muscle and 2 cals to maintain fat.

Now, bro, lets say you are living off 200 cals, so now what?

You are stranded on a lonely island with no food and limited water, and no friends, now what.

So now your body is doing math and saying, gee whiz, last time we got stranded, it took my dad 3 months to find me. So if I have to sustain myself for 3 months, I need to get rid of the gas guzzler aka muscle.

You follow me bro?

So after 2.5 months, you got a nice tub of fat at the middle and scrawny shoulders. So when you get back on shore, nobody thinks you attractive.

Your welcome!

^^^Exactly! Classic textbook example of YOYO dieter's syndrome. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

redraider08

Before I go any further I want to say this, I know eating a low calorie diet is mentally unhealthy to some individuals, particularly those who suffer from eating disorders, and I respect the opinion of those who struggle with them. I am just talking from the perspective of someone with out one who has a mentally sound grasp on their body and eating habits.

This is probably one of the most controversial subjects on this site. I personally think that if you eat to little the only way your body can compensate for that is by slowing your base* metabolic rate down a bit, but quite frankly think it is impossible for you body to just say screw you, I'm gonna take all the food you give me and store it as fat! I've played around with my food consumption and exercise enough to know my own body.

It's a scientific fact that when a person goes with out food the body first uses any available carbs in the system, then the fat reserve's, and finally it starts to break down its own muscle tissue (mainly from voluntary muscles) to supply the essential organ functions with energy to survive. So that goes to say that starvation mode, in the sense of muscle wasting, is only obtained by complete starvation and complete fat reservoir depletion, only then I would think, the body would start to use critical tissue to survive.

So please someone put this hype to rest and try to convince me of the contrary. I wanna know how having too big of a caloric deficit while still having an above "very lean" b/f% is somehow making people more fat? It just doesn't make sense to me at all?

Maybe this thread is why no one is participating in mine about calorie deficits. Lol...

I find this topic fascinating and most of the responses you've been getting are predictable. My fav is the "I've read articles/it's been proven" post. I wonder how many people who think you must eat every 2-3 hours lest your body hit the dreaded "catabolic state" actually get up in the middle of the night to eat?

Check out the "theory of fat availability" which concerns this exact issue.

dmchiz

Lets think about it some more. mmmkay?

From bodybuilding forum, the body expends 8 calories to keep 1 pound of muscle and 2 calories to keep 1 pound of fat each day.

So when you start a regimen of severe calorie deficit, guess what the body will eliminate first? The muscle, which is more calorie intensive before it even gets to fat.

So a better strategy is to gain more muscle so that the body is burning more calories even when you are wasting time on MFP.

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

scientifically proven...

your body will eat up the fat first!

lb of fat is worth 3500Cals
lb of muscle is only 700Cals

not to mention fat is much easier to break down to energy than protein

haha...dont make me laugh bro.

Look up the difference between 'consumption' and 'expenditure'.

You need to CONSUME 3500 cals or 700 cals to gain a pound of fat or muscle, respectively.

Once you have it bro, it goes like this:

Now that you have the muscle aka SUV and the fat aka corolla, now your body needs to expend, key work here, bro, expend, 8 cals to maintain muscle and 2 cals to maintain fat.

Now, bro, lets say you are living off 200 cals, so now what?

You are stranded on a lonely island with no food and limited water, and no friends, now what.

So now your body is doing math and saying, gee whiz, last time we got stranded, it took my dad 3 months to find me. So if I have to sustain myself for 3 months, I need to get rid of the gas guzzler aka muscle.

You follow me bro?

So after 2.5 months, you got a nice tub of fat at the middle and scrawny shoulders. So when you get back on shore, nobody thinks you attractive.

Your welcome!

I have a Gas guzzling Ford Expedition I'd LOVE to get rid of!!!!!!! ( preferably by having it stolen and totaled since I can't seem to trade it in! ) Just sayin.......

AnabolicKyle

Thats an easy way to not admit you were wrong. Why would I be trolling?

Youre right the brain uses about 100+ cal/lb/day
so that is the first thing the body eats up because of the huge expenditure on the body

& the other organs!

Danger2OneSelf

Ok the posts overdid the time I have to read them but so far I've read some great arguments, thanks for all the insight guys. I'll be reading through them all tomorrow have a great night!

CristinaL1983

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short

It was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.

Study shows muscle gains in calorie deficit. No determination of previous training (so no way to know whether "newbie" gains) but these were all obese subjects.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571
In this study the patients lost appx 1.5 lbs per week and were on a 1000 cal/day diet and lost no muscle mass.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/79/3/818.short

RT increases strength with and without weight loss. Furthermore, RT and RTWL increase fat-free mass and RMR and decrease percent fat

RT is resistance training, RTWL is resistance training with weight loss

http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/70038
This study is actually just about lap bands and shows that even in a VLCD (like the one that accompanies a lap band) fat free mass is mostly maintained.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2613421

There is no evidence to suggest that the rate of weight loss achieved by VLCD is associated with any detriment to body composition or metabolic rate.

This study shows that after a 40 hour fast, most the mRNA collected from human muscle was not mRNA associated with muscle atrophy. It was mRNA associated with oxidation of fat (plus other beneficial mRNAs)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311100177X
(Also, and one of the more interesting points of this study, it shows that apple peels can prevent (or reduce) the mRNA associated with muscle atrophy found with both fasting and muscle denervation)

These studies and even more, the Minnesota Starvation experiment show that muscle breakdown is not the first thing to occur. Diets higher in protein are more likely to help maintain protein stores. If you aren't consuming enough protein, then your body will have to take it from wherever it can (non vital muscle). Strength training also helps keep or sometimes increase, muscle mass.

I agree with you. Also, logically, those who are starving do not actually lose all muscle.

Danger2OneSelf

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/47/1/19.short

It was concluded that weight training results in comparable gains in muscle area and strength for DPE and EO. Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO.
...
The increase of 0.43 kg in LBW for the DPE group is comparable to the largest increases reported in other dietplus-exercise studies. Zuti and Golding (5) and Lewis et al (27) report LBW increases of 0.5 and 1. 1 kg over 16and 17 wk, respectively.

Study shows muscle gains in calorie deficit. No determination of previous training (so no way to know whether "newbie" gains) but these were all obese subjects.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571
In this study the patients lost appx 1.5 lbs per week and were on a 1000 cal/day diet and lost no muscle mass.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/79/3/818.short

RT increases strength with and without weight loss. Furthermore, RT and RTWL increase fat-free mass and RMR and decrease percent fat

RT is resistance training, RTWL is resistance training with weight loss

http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/70038
This study is actually just about lap bands and shows that even in a VLCD (like the one that accompanies a lap band) fat free mass is mostly maintained.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2613421

There is no evidence to suggest that the rate of weight loss achieved by VLCD is associated with any detriment to body composition or metabolic rate.

This study shows that after a 40 hour fast, most the mRNA collected from human muscle was not mRNA associated with muscle atrophy. It was mRNA associated with oxidation of fat (plus other beneficial mRNAs)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311100177X
(Also, and one of the more interesting points of this study, it shows that apple peels can prevent (or reduce) the mRNA associated with muscle atrophy found with both fasting and muscle denervation)

These studies and even more, the Minnesota Starvation experiment show that muscle breakdown is not the first thing to occur. Diets higher in protein are more likely to help maintain protein stores. If you aren't consuming enough protein, then your body will have to take it from wherever it can (non vital muscle). Strength training also helps keep or sometimes increase, muscle mass.

I agree with you. Also, logically, those who are starving do not actually lose all muscle.

Great info!! thank you so much, those are the kind of facts I was hoping someone would find.

CristinaL1983

There is also this:
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/293/6/E1580.full

At a nominal 5% weight loss, whole body protein oxidation and the synthetic rates of specific hepatic export proteins were increased in the starvation group (rapid weight loss) compared with subjects receiving VLED (slower rate of weight loss), where most of these parameters were either unchanged or reduced. The increase in whole body protein oxidation during starvation supports previous studies with lean individuals (40, 53, 69, 70). This contrasts with the VLED treatment, where protein synthesis, breakdown, and oxidation were reduced during weight loss (significant at 7% weight loss relative to the baseline values for synthesis and breakdown only). This agrees with earlier observations that long-term nutrient restriction, either with low-protein or protein-free diets, leads to an adaptation with reduced protein turnover and lowered amino acid catabolism (9, 11).

This study was done on already lean men and showed that the body protects it's protein stores during VLCD (600 calories, in this case). They also only consumed 17g protein/day on average.

CristinaL1983

Great info!! thank you so much, those are the kind of facts I was hoping someone would find.

No problem. I've looked it up a lot since joining MFP :laugh:

CoachDreesTraining

OP you're disregarding the endocrine system. Your body is not a machine that is constant. Every action you take your body has an equal reaction. Yes, strength training will definitely help, but there is no doubt you'll be burning muscle alone with that fat. There is also no doubt that a larger percent will come from muscle compared to a more conservative approach.

This is what the old school bodybuilders used to do - eat 10,000 kcal a day and bulk like crazy, then crash diet before competition. Why don't they do this anymore? Because they lose a much higher percentage of their muscle mass compared to losing weight more slowly.

jaggedendz69

Your spot on man. The human body is designed to fast for long periods of time. All our ancestors went days and periods of intermitten fasting. Hunted all their food. today's world, our society has too many GMO and stores and fast food joints to eat every 2 hours or so.

Mommy4812

I'm not sure about the OP being a troll but I think I found one in this thread...

mrsgeneric

Im not sure i eat less than 1200 a day and have been loosing weight at a good rate and feel absolutly fine havent gained it back yet either.... Hopefully that doesnt happen.

stephanieross1

No, your BMR is related to your height, age, activity level - NOT how many calories you are consuming. Starvation mode does not happen right away it takes a few days to get into effect, and to actually do this to lose fat is ridiculous. Your body needs calories, protein, carbs, GLUCOSE. if you stop eating that or drastically reduce it your body does store it to prevent any future loss. How do you think your brain functions? It works off of glucose - that is what keeps the electrical signals going. If your not eating and exercising - your body is working on those fat cells, but does degenerate your muscle cells because there is not enough energy source to fuel everything.

redraider08

There are ways to achieve huge calorie deficits, losing body fat and preserving muscle -- most notably, protein sparing modified fasts (PSMF). It's not especially complicated. It involves eating lean protein sources, taking a multivitamin, and supplementing with magnesium, potassium, and sodium. It's relatively easy to do for those who have been on a ketogenic diet for a month or more.

Alternatively, there is intermittent fasting and alternate day fasting.

If we were as fragile as some would have you believe, the species would have been extinct after 1,000 years. In fact, the sort of things I mention above are being discussed by molecular biologists and biochemists as a likely way to extend human life.

You're right to be cynical about group think.

^This.

lauren3101

I have scientifically proven to you that when faced with severe calorie deprivation, the body will first eliminate muscle. Please read that comment again. Your body will burn muscle to keep fat because its easier for it to maintain fat. Its simple math.

So I guess then If I start to diet ( wait I am), I will loose my physique and be left a blob on bones??? doesn't seem to add up bro....BTW I'm facing atleast 1000 cal deprivation on most days.....

I am also basing my opinion on personal experience, and I can tell you, when I first lost weight, I ate at a large deficit, lost it fast, got to the size I thought I wanted to be, and still looked flabby.

This time, I am eating a much higher amount of calories with plenty of protein, and losing 1lb a week quite steadily. According to my measurements and BF%, I am maintaining the LBM I started with. And I am NOT lifting (yet).

myofibril

I personally think that if you eat to little the only way your body can compensate for that is by slowing your base* metabolic rate down a bit, but quite frankly think it is impossible for you body to just say screw you, I'm gonna take all the food you give me and store it as fat!

Yes, that is bunkum. Your body doesn't suddenly stop losing fat in the face of a calorie deficit, no matter how severe.

There is a slowing of metabolic rate greater then that you would expect to see from weight loss alone but this isn't as great as people make out.

The real spanner in the works however is what happens to efficiency of movement (which increases in the face of a deficit) and NEAT / NEPA (which decreases, sometimes significantly and on an unconscious level.) Therefore the deficit you think you are creating by limiting calories isn't a great as imagined leading to plateaus and easier weight regain. That is why adding calories can sometimes work very well as the increase in NEAT / NEPA more than offsets it leading to a larger deficit than before.

I have recently softened my position somewhat on this area after having reviewed the relevant studies again. I do think it can be an issue (especially if it approaches ED territory) and it is not that pressing if you set up a LCD reasonably sensibly.

Pwrpuff83

I'm finding all of this very interesting/confusing. I'm really trying to figure out the best way to eat healthily so I'm curious what people are considering "crash"; what amount of calories would be considered too little to engage a starvation type response? I'm netting, on average, 1400 which includes an exercise regime akin to circuit training. Should I be aiming for more than that to avoid the cling or is this a reasonable amount?

myofibril

I'm netting, on average, 1400 which includes an exercise regime akin to circuit training. Should I be aiming for more than that to avoid the cling or is this a reasonable amount?

Seems reasonable to me if this is what you are netting.

redraider08

I'm finding all of this very interesting/confusing. I'm really trying to figure out the best way to eat healthily so I'm curious what people are considering "crash"; what amount of calories would be considered too little to engage a starvation type response? I'm netting, on average, 1400 which includes an exercise regime akin to circuit training. Should I be aiming for more than that to avoid the cling or is this a reasonable amount?

You're likely to receive umpteen different opinions about what "eating healthy", "crash (diets)", "reasonable", etc. mean.

For my 2 cents, I've always considered eating whole natural foods as much as possible the "best way ro eat healthy", a "crash" diet to be considered going from the average American diet and no exercise to droping to under maintenance calories AND adding in hours of cardio, and a "reasonable" calorie level to be dependent on a person's ability to stick with it in the near-term

I think the answer is, as with many things... too many variables, too many people getting results from seemingly contradictory plans to adopt a cookie-cutter approach.

rward007

As far as I can tell there is no actual science quoted in this topic, just a bunch of broscience and anecdotal information. In general though, I think it doesn't matter as much as people tend to think.

tl;dr: More out and than in and exercise. That formula usually works, people over think the small stuff

I took a minute to go on Google scholar and find something where people actually did some clinical research (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/54/1/56.short). A quote form the abstract ,"These clinical trials did not show advantages of any exercise regimen over diet alone for weight loss, body-composition changes, or declines in RMR."

Even if that statement is mostly true, everyone is different, and it's really something you have to experiment for yourself. I've done very low calorie intake (1200-1500) for a couple months before and never experienced anything I would call starvation mode. Never seen much in the form of muscle cannibalization either.

People recommend that you strength train when on a calorie deficit, as it encourages your body to keep muscle, rather than burn it. I can't help but think that if you didn't strength train on a calorie surplus, you'd still likely see atrophy.