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

SanteMulberry

I think that most people have their minds made up on MFP, and they are looking to verify their own beliefs, and everyone else to them is a troll.

Secondly, I think calling someone with a different view a troll is the lowest form of discourse.

Third, I think that nobody has refuted the theory based on numbers that I presented.

But more importantly, the premise behind my theory is that the body KNOWS that you will come out of your binge diet one day, based on past experiences, and based on your surroundings. You went yoyo once, and the body remembers that. That is why the body will hold onto the fat. Of course if you never ever get a proper meal again, the body will eventually give up the fat stores and you will look like those pics from Ethiopia of people dying of hunger.

But if you live in a modern country, your surroundings such as bed comfort, clean water, mental health, tell your body that you are OK, even when you are going into a 1000 calorie deficit a day. Moreover, if you went yo-yo in the past, the body knows that it will eventually get that ice cream and steak pizza it so craves. So it holds onto the fat stores. Its more convenient for it to burn the gas guzzling muscle.

Just remember my mantra which I just took a patent out on:

muscle = gas guzzling SUV
fat = corolla

Which one you gonna get son?

From all that I have observed in myself and others, I would say that this is correct. Crash dieting (and all "quick weight loss schemes" could be characterized as crash dieting) forces your body to burn muscle. It is a survival mechanism and I personally feel that it is induced by the shock of severe calorie restriction (from either undereating, over-exercising or both), with consequent rise of undesirable hormone flux (a rise in cortisol for one).

On the other hand, a slight calorie deficit, especially if one is getting all the micronutrients one needs, along with weight lifting and a bit of cardio, causes one's body to dip into fat stores as a way of maintaining muscle mass in spite of the small calorie deficit. That is the way the human body is designed. We violate that design to our own peril.

NormInv

NormInv

1) Most people are looking to verify their own beliefs, including you. It is called cognitive bias.

2) I think it's the condescending tone and the "mmmmkay"s that make you seem like a troll. Not your ideas which are common on this board.

3) It isn't a theory. It is a hypothesis. That basically means that it is conjecture. It seems reasonable to you but not to us.

Your premise assumes that your body is a sentient being different from your own mind. I do not think that is the case. I don't think my body makes predictions.

Also, your analogy is ridiculous because muscle is useful and moves you around while fat just has weight and stores energy. So it would be more accurate to say you are on the island with

Muscle: a vehicle (we'll have it run on food for this to work)
Fat: a bag of food

Doesn't it make sense to eat the food and use it to fuel the vehicle to drive around looking for more food?

Thank you for your comment.

My Mr Mackey impression could have been misconstrued as condescending. But its just Mr Mackey being Mr Mackey.

I agree that my argument is a hypothesis and not a theory. Liberally used that term, so thanks for the correction.

However, I do not agree that muscle as a 'vehicle' and fat as 'bag of food' is better analogy. Here is why:

If you lived in the olden times where men had to fetch for themselves by hunting, then you would be using muscles as a vehicle to get to food. Your body will be conditioned accordingly. There would be food available if only you got off your butt and looked for it using your muscles. That workout and that source of food would make you look very lean with little need to keep body fat.

But in our modern society, where we are creating a calorie deficit of 1000 or thereabouts sitting on a comfy sofa in front of a wide screen TV, the muscle is of no use to the body. It is not being utilized to fetch food. So when you are short on fuel, you have to get rid of what consumes more fuel.

Also, this is a bit like macro-economics, where you predict the behavior of people and resulting impact on supply-demand. Surely, I cannot predict how the body will react and each body will react differently.

Timshel_

Do people realize that MFP enforces BMR as part of legal requirements? Seriously. If they condoned less than a national standard there would be some a$$hat that would die or get some illness (not even related but because of preexisting conditions) and try to sue the crap out of MFP. That legal requirement is turned into the death mantra.

As for metabolism going into a starvation mode...I've read that low cal diets do have strange effects on body systems over time, but there is no strict evidence that a low cal diet, over a short period of time, is bad. Or that the body cannibalizes muscle, etc.

Overall though, to me it is all an indictor of the lack of patience people have anymore. They will neglect their bodies for years and year (and tens of years even), then want it all to be corrected in 6 months eating nothing.

Meh...more power to ya.

JossFit

more visible muscles =/= muscle gained

:drinker:

nokanjaijo

If you lived in the olden times where men had to fetch for themselves by hunting, then you would be using muscles as a vehicle to get to food. Your body will be conditioned accordingly. There would be food available if only you got off your butt and looked for it using your muscles. That workout and that source of food would make you look very lean with little need to keep body fat.

But in our modern society, where we are creating a calorie deficit of 1000 or thereabouts sitting on a comfy sofa in front of a wide screen TV, the muscle is of no use to the body. It is not being utilized to fetch food. So when you are short on fuel, you have to get rid of what consumes more fuel.

This thread is not discussing sedentary people. The OP was quite clearly talking about people on a calorie deficit who work out a good deal so this is simply off topic.

NormInv

If you lived in the olden times where men had to fetch for themselves by hunting, then you would be using muscles as a vehicle to get to food. Your body will be conditioned accordingly. There would be food available if only you got off your butt and looked for it using your muscles. That workout and that source of food would make you look very lean with little need to keep body fat.

But in our modern society, where we are creating a calorie deficit of 1000 or thereabouts sitting on a comfy sofa in front of a wide screen TV, the muscle is of no use to the body. It is not being utilized to fetch food. So when you are short on fuel, you have to get rid of what consumes more fuel.

This thread is not discussing sedentary people. The OP was quite clearly talking about people on a calorie deficit who work out a good deal so this is simply off topic.

No its not off topic mmmkay?

As others have pointed out and I agree, you cannot get more muscle when living on a calorie deficit.

Secondly, if you are super fat, you can start working out and see some gains in terms of better body muscle definition - which is NOT the same as new muscle, but more importantly, is not the same as using muscle to hunt for your own food.

What you are totally not being able to understand, and let me explain it to you in simpler terms, is that nutrition and exercise is NOT done in a vacuum to one's surroundings. Somebody who is really starving to death has a completely different brain and body function, to some fat slob on a 1000 calorie diet watching the Kardashians. If you cannot comprehend that, then we don't have an argument.

Have a nice day!

JossFit

Sneak preview: "According to the National Council on Strength and Fitness, or NCSF, those who fast or skip meals start to lose mainly lean muscle tissue."

What do they finish losing?

LOL, seriously. I guess it all depends on who you ask, huh? I am a proponent of Leangains, but I really think that everyone has the right to do as they please and I rarely argue what is 'better' in terms of diet or exercise. I have my opinions and far be it for me to hate on anyone for theirs.
What DOES bother me is when people can't back up anything they say with any anecdotal evidence. Does a study make someone right? No, but I find that setting up your diet based on SOME sort of research is better than spewing forth a bunch of crap on the interwebz and confusing the heck out of people who don't know which way is up or down and are trying to just get healthier.

With regard to the whole statement of people losing lean mass due to 'fasting' or skipping meals, I just want to show this one tiny bit of text from the Leangains site though there is much MUCH more ---

According to this study; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548

"Weight loss is greater with consumption of large morning meals and fat-free mass is preserved with large evening meals in women on a controlled weight reduction regimen."


Results: In this study participants alternated between two 6-week phases of the same diet of which 70% of the daily caloric intake was eaten in the morning or evening respectively. Larger morning meals caused greater weight loss compared to evening meals, but the extra weight lost was in the form of muscle mass. Overall, the larger evening meals preserved muscle mass better and resulted in a greater loss in body fat percentage.


The greater weight loss associated with the AM [morning] pattern that we found in our study was due primarily to loss of fat-free mass, which averaged about 1 kg more for the AM pattern than for the PM pattern.

An interesting study with a few glaring limitations, mainly the small sample size (10 participants) and the way body composition was measured (total body electrical conductivity, which is somewhat similar to BIA discussed in "Intermittent Fasting for Weight Loss Preserves Muscle Mass?").

This study also included weight training 3x/week, which was a serious confounder in this specific study design. Given that the PM-group consumed a greater percentage of their calorie intake post-workout, this study might simply show the benefits of nutrient timing, and not bigger PM meals per se.

AM-Setup:

Breakfast, 8-8.30 AM: 35% of total daily calorie intake
Weight training (circuit style), 9-9.30 AM
Lunch, 11-12 PM: 35%
Dinner, 4.30-5 PM: 15%
Evening snack, 8-8.30 PM: 15%

PM-Setup:


Breakfast, 8-8.30 AM: 15% of total daily calorie intake
Weight training (circuit style), 9-9.30 AM
Lunch, 11-12 PM: 15%
Dinner, 4.30-5 PM: 35%
Evening snack, 8-8.30 PM: 35%


As you can see, the PM-setup is quite similar to the "One Pre-Workout Meal" protocol of Leangains.

Finally, the researchers speculate on the muscle sparing effects of the PM-pattern:

"Certain endocrine influences might have contributed to the difference in fat-free mass change between the meal patterns. Growth hormone secretion displays an endogenous rhythm that is partially linked with the sleep cycle. At night pulsatile secretion increases after 1-2 hours of sleep, with maximal secretion occurring during stages 3 and 4 of sleep.

Although the effect of prolonged changes in dietary intake or meal patterns on growth hormone release are not known, it is conceivable that a greater flux of dietary amino acids with the large evening meals, coupled with the known protein anabolic effect of growth hormone, might combine to favor deposition of lean tissue."

* Also from the same site, in an article titled "Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked" I would like to add this bit of information;

(I highly recommend the whole article. I am not suggesting IF is for everyone, but for those who are open-minded it is interesting reading regardless)

4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".


Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.

Origin

I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.

nokanjaijo

No its not off topic mmmkay?

As others have pointed out and I agree, you cannot get more muscle when living on a calorie deficit.

Secondly, if you are super fat, you can start working out and see some gains in terms of better body muscle definition - which is NOT the same as new muscle, but more importantly, is not the same as using muscle to hunt for your own food.

What you are totally not being able to understand, and let me explain it to you in simpler terms, is that nutrition and exercise is NOT done in a vacuum to one's surroundings. Somebody who is really starving to death has a completely different brain and body function, to some fat slob on a 1000 calorie diet watching the Kardashians. If you cannot comprehend that, then we don't have an argument.

Have a nice day!

Congratulations on making that one post that wasn't trollish. That must have been hard. I see you've lost the struggle. Well, better luck next time.

BYE

ajhugz

I curious to see if anyone is going to say anything new or unheard of about starvation mode. I think its a crock of **** because so many people think it happens overnight or in a few days. To my understanding you get fat because you eat way more than you body needs. You get fatter because your body releases fat back into the blood slower which tells your brain that you're hungry so you eat and keep getting fatter. You lose weight by eating a deficit. More times than others my deficit is around 1000. My doctor says there's nothing wrong with that and its not having bad effects on my body or my mind. Yes I talked to a shrink to make sure I wasn't pretending I was ok with what I eat. Yet I get on MFP and its curse all who eat 1200 calorie meals they're harming their bodies and eventually they're going to stop losing weight and starve their bodies. Based on what? If you preach eat more the more you move why not preach eat less if all you do is sit on your couch all day?

*now I 100 % totally understand the thread yesterday asking people to show studies to prove that things like carbs, msg, and a few other things are bad for you. More often than not people believe damn near anything without any proof of it.

NormInv

For karmic purposes, seeing that many people are asking this question, please note that my argument is just a hypothesis based on a few things I thought of:

- what it takes to maintain a pound of muscle vs a pound of fat - 8 cals vs 2 cals
- what the body might do when faced with a decision to shed one of the two
- diet and exercise are not in a vacuum but also dependent on surroundings, and cannot replicate the real world challenges of hunter/gatherers

My own regimen has been: started off at 20% deficit off TDEE and lost weight very quick. Then hit plateau, and now trying to up calories and intensify strength training.

The best shape of my life I ever achieved was doing P90X complete with the nutrition guide. I did it in true spirit and stuffed myself up with more calories than I had ever consumed before. I lost an incredible amount of fat. This time around I am doing MFP because doing P90X in its true spirit is very hard and I am not there at this time.

As others have suggested, do your own research and figure out whats right for you.

<Eric Cartman> Good luck you guys! <Eric Cartman>

GamerLady

I agree with the OP.

No_Finish_Line

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.

I'd agree that this part is probably something of a myth or grossly over emphasized

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.

I"ve read that the energy sources are used in the progression that you describe. But you assume that source #1 and #2 have to be fully depleted in order for source # 3 (muscle) to be tapped as energy, and i don't think thats true.

but really the only points i have to back this up come from common sense and experience:

1) you have to eat less then you really need in order to lose mass. I think its just wishful thinking to assume that 100% of that mass is going to be fat.

2) if i don't eat enough when i'm doing something like Insanity, my bench press took a nose dive. Hell my bench press is currently taking a nose dive during p90x. and i'm not eating and an oober high defecit. If i was only losing fat i'd assume my bench would goup or stay relatively the same.

How about this, if your weight training and your lifts aren't suffering then whatever defecit your eating at isn't to severe

No_Finish_Line

apparently i'm the only one feelinga little under feed on the p90x diet lol

AnabolicKyle

NormInv plz go!

Mads1997

Thanks for that Mads1997 - at last, some actual evidence of something!

Your numbers confirm what I figured all along, and support much of the wealth of anecdotal evidence around - that yes, given the chance, your body will burn muscle as well as fat in a calorie deficit - it may even burn it for preference (look at how people's muscles waste when in a leg caste). But if you actually work your body to build or maintain muscle, then it will try to do that using what available calories it can get, which means from fat reserves (if you have any), if you are eating a deficit. Anything else wouldn't make sense - your body is not going to stop repairing damaged muscle (i.e. building it) when there is ample energy available to fuel that process.

I imagine that you'd have to be pretty thorough in doing an 'all-body' workout to try to maintain muscle mass all over, or your system may 'rob Peter to pay Paul' and burn muscle in an un-exercised part of the body to help maintain it elsewhere.

The impedance test also breaks the body into 5 sections. Top left and right, bottom left and right and trunk. I can roughly see where I am losing the fat and lean weight from. I am happy to say since doing stronglifts most fat has come off from my stomach while lean proportions have stayed pretty much the same. I noticed in greatly in my clothes the way they are now fitting.