starvation mode myth

12467

Replies

  • shellsie_j
    shellsie_j Posts: 132 Member
    bump a
  • huntindawg1962
    huntindawg1962 Posts: 277 Member
    The one thing for sure you can see from all the respondents answers and likely the real data out there is that there is no "one magic" numeric point where this "starvation mode" kicks in for everyone (but you will always see responses where someone that has never met the other person already knows what the right number for them is or that they are at least doing it wrong). I suspect that the 1200 for females and 1600 or what ever it is listed for males is kind of a generic minimum with some safety factor built in to fit the masses. There is a lot more to daily minimum numbers for each individual than just some arbitrary number. Items like starting lean body mass, real daily activity levels and daily burn rates, other issues with the individual, etc.

    Too, if you were on a plateau for a week and upped your calorie intake and it moved, that is not real evidence that the additional calories made it move. A plateau is not a one or two week stall on weight loss. Might it have also moved had you dropped your intake 200 for a couple days?

    Otherwise this minimum daily number - it is just a number that everyone disagrees with.
  • Dawnie042
    Dawnie042 Posts: 3
    According to a Wiki (which I generally find to be a trustworthy source, although I note that this article requires further citation),

    /Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source.[2]

    Ordinarily, the body responds to reduced energy intake by burning fat reserves first, and only consumes muscle and other tissues when those reserves are exhausted. Specifically, the body burns fat after first exhausting the contents of the digestive tract along with glycogen reserves stored in muscle and liver cells.[3] After prolonged periods of starvation, the body will utilize the proteins within muscle tissue as a fuel source. People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue.[4] Resistance training (such as weight lifting) can also prevent the loss of muscle mass while a person is energy-restricted./

    This casts doubt on the statement I have seen expressed several times on this forum that reduced calorific intake leads to reduction of muscle mass. Well, yes it does, but only after fat resources have become depleted to their minimum (less than 5% I believe).

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response#section_1
  • Onesnap
    Onesnap Posts: 2,819 Member
    Why is 1,200/day important: http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    I'm sure I'll get a lot of " flak" from this one.....but....it is just a line we use to rationalize eating more....if it were true , the opposite should hold true. if we eat too much are body would go into " dump the fat mode ".... seems my body skipped the memo on that one !

    I am eating 200 to 300 calories more a day than I have over the past 7 years. Over those 7 years I gained weight. I am now losing weight.
  • Onesnap
    Onesnap Posts: 2,819 Member
    I heard on NPR the other day that severe calorie restriction actually does permanently affect your metabolism.
    It was a while back, so i can't provide a link.

    The basic idea was, you had people that lost a large sum of weight quickly, a large sum slowly, and people that had been that weight normally. Those people that had lost a large sum quickly had to take in much less calories than the others to maintain the same weight.

    It's true. A great discussion of this was also featured in The Weight of The Nation.
  • Dawnie042
    Dawnie042 Posts: 3
    Furthermore,


    /On average, the starvation response of the individuals after isolation was a 180 kcal reduction in daily total energy expenditure. 60 kcal of the starvation response was explained by a reduction in fat-free mass and fat mass. An additional 65 kcal was explained by a reduction in fidgeting, and the remaining 55 kcal was statistically insignificant./

    So yes, after severe calorific reduction over extended periods, daily calorific requirements are reduced. But this was after 2 years and under extreme conditions, and yet the requirement reduction is still quite minimal.
  • cmpollard01
    cmpollard01 Posts: 246
    I think all this crap talk about starvation mode just sucks! http://tinyurl.com/3hdaywv

    When are we going to learn to listen to our bodies vs listening to a forum or even a professional? ;)

    Thank you! Frankly, my body runs perfectly fine off of 1200 calories of food intake per day-it is rare that I feel hungry or unsatiated. Conversely, I have a coworker who can eat 1200 calories a day, excercise 4-5 times a week, and she doesn't lose at all (or sometimes gains!). We are all individuals, which means what works for my body isn't going to work for everyone! Honestly, I'm just glad I've developed better eating habits, which is leading me to a healthier life, which has an awesome side effect of helping me shed unwanted pounds!
  • Dawnie042
    Dawnie042 Posts: 3
    Also, many apologies for repeated posts. :/

    Lesson learned, don't post from my mobile. :P
  • lizziebeth1028
    lizziebeth1028 Posts: 3,602 Member
    Starvation mode = netting a bare minimum of calories which causes your body to become 'static' (not change). The metabolism slows down to accommodate 'X' number of calories causing weight loss to be difficult. You're not starving in the anorexic sense....you've just plateaued.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I am eating 200 to 300 calories more a day than I have over the past 7 years. Over those 7 years I gained weight. I am now losing weight.
    You missed out the bit about the increased protein.
  • gabeej
    gabeej Posts: 45
    *pops popcorn* this should be exciting!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    and look at their stomach, it's still fat
    that's a disease of protein deficiency and malnutrition, not fat, FFS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor
  • terrabit
    terrabit Posts: 33 Member
    But I will continuing to take my 500 calorie deficit to lose a pound a week off my BMR and continue to eat 800-1000 calories over that same BMR (2160) and yes that is eating back my exercise calories and I will continue to add to my weight loss ticker below.... Good Luck......

    Pretty hard to argue with over 300lbs lost!

    "starvation mode" or not, you have to be on heavy drugs to think putting yourself into a malnutritional state is in any way good for you, regardless of weight loss. You are robbing your body of the building blocks it needs to go about it's daily business, such as, healing wounds, replacing lost cells, generating enzymes, etc.

    ... to any considering VLC diets, just stop looking for shortcuts and gimmicks and lose weight like you know you are supposed to.
  • mom2lakenjj
    mom2lakenjj Posts: 29
    Personally I don't buy the starvation mode myth either..Sooo if I want to lose weight eat MORE?? I refer to back to these links.........


    http://www.outlawfitnesshq.com/is-starvation-mode-a-myth AND

    http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    I am eating 200 to 300 calories more a day than I have over the past 7 years. Over those 7 years I gained weight. I am now losing weight.

    Science says you're way more likely to be counting things wrong than to lose on more than you gain on, assuming no change in your burn levels.

    "The only scientifically proven method for losing weight involves burning more calories than are taken in.2 This fact, often called the "law of thermodynamics," has been shown time and time again in decades of rigorous scientific studies. One example of the hundreds of studies that exist was done in Switzerland. Fifty-four obese people had their calories restricted to 1,100 per day. Different combinations of foods and meal timing were tested. There was no difference in weight losses; it came down to the number of calories, not how they were provided, that accounted for the weight loss that the participants experienced.3

    At the end of the day, the only true way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories in food and/or burn more calories. Yet only 1/3 of Americans trying to lose weight try to do so by using the recommended method of eating less and exercising more; the fundamental foundation of weight loss."

    http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=20781&tabnum=1&sc=801&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss
  • Chellybell13
    Chellybell13 Posts: 54 Member
    Gonna go completely out there and say this....starvation myth? How about people with ED's ie, anorexia ...with a very very low calorie intake, yet they still lose weight?


    I think there is something to this 'myth' but i think people really over estimate/over think it, seriously !
  • kaervaak
    kaervaak Posts: 274 Member
    Gonna go completely out there and say this....starvation myth? How about people with ED's ie, anorexia ...with a very very low calorie intake, yet they still lose weight?


    I think there is something to this 'myth' but i think people really over estimate/over think it, seriously !

    At very low body fat and very low calorie intake, fat loss actually can grind to a halt and muscle catabolism and associated water weight decrease can become the primary reasons for continued weight loss.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    point I tried to make..,.....was stop using the starvation myth as an excuse to eat...if your bmr is 2500 calories and total deficit ( calories - exercise) is 700 calories you will lose more weight if this deficit is 800 calories ..and eating that extra twinky ( will get flak for that too) and bringing the deficit to 400 calories, will not make you lose weight quicker...

    EAT WHAT YOUR BODY NEEDS...not what you want.
    .

    Is that really why you think people eat more than the minimum? Just an excuse to eat more? If so, what a negative and cynical assumption. And who made you the food concience anyway?

    There is more to the weight loss equation than just continually reducing calories. Calories in an out is the primary factor but when people get to the point of adaptive thermogenesis, what you are calling starvation mode, they stall. As the term implies, the body adapts. The hormones that control appetite and lipolysis get out of whack. These factors can be normalized and get weight loss moving again by increasing calories. So there is a sweet spot where there is a deficit and good hormonal factors. If you have any awareness of this it is not evident in your posts.

    There is also the whole issue of eating enough and the right macronutrient profile to maitain lean muscle mass.

    So, if you think people do thing just to have an excuse to eat more than what thier body needs, maybe you are just projecting your own issues.
  • NCchar130
    NCchar130 Posts: 955 Member
    I heard on NPR the other day that severe calorie restriction actually does permanently affect your metabolism.
    It was a while back, so i can't provide a link.

    The basic idea was, you had people that lost a large sum of weight quickly, a large sum slowly, and people that had been that weight normally. Those people that had lost a large sum quickly had to take in much less calories than the others to maintain the same weight.

    I lost about 50 pounds extremely rapidly when I was 20 years old and I maintained it for about 4 years. I lost it through severe calorie restriction and in order to maintain it, only ate a 'real' meal every three days or so and otherwise subsisted on diet coke, crackers, coffee with splenda, and apples. I had an extremely active job and also worked out most days very hard. I would say I had an eating disorder.

    At 24, I gained back the 50 plus an additional 20 or so during an extremely stressful period in my life. I would say from my own personal experience that my metabolism was DEFINITELY altered and I can only hope not permanently. My weight has been stuck within 5 pounds of my current weight of 217 for years now (I am 33). This despite various serious attempts to work out, reduce calories, cut carbs, all sorts of things I've tried.

    Sometimes it almost seems like my body retains a 'memory' of those 4 years and refuses to give up any of the padding it gained. But I'm here to try again!
  • GnochhiGnomes
    GnochhiGnomes Posts: 348 Member
    There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

    So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

    Because you can lose more faster.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

    So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

    Because you can lose more faster.

    I didn't. I lost weight PAINFULLY slow on lower calories. Felt like a failure because it was so slow. Thought I was doomed to be chunky forever.

    On the RIGHT amount of calories, the weight fell off. Effortlessly.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

    So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

    Because you can lose more faster.

    I didn't. I lost weight PAINFULLY slow on lower calories. Felt like a failure because it was so slow. Thought I was doomed to be chunky forever.

    On the RIGHT amount of calories, the weight fell off. Effortlessly.
    You found your sweet spot! Way to go! It has been fun to watch your progress over the last year or so that I've been here. Great job Lorina! You have made great progress and are looking totally hot! (meant in the most non creepy way, lol)
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member

    There is more to the weight loss equation than just continually reducing calories. Calories in an out is the primary factor but when people get to the point of adaptive thermogenesis, what you are calling starvation mode, they stall. As the term implies, the body adapts. The hormones that control appetite and lipolysis get out of whack. These factors can be normalized and get weight loss moving again by increasing calories. So there is a sweet spot where there is a deficit and good hormonal factors. If you have any awareness of this it is not evident in your posts.

    But there is no science that agrees with this hypothesis. The studies say the more the deficit, the more you lose, though there is a smallish adaptive thermogenesis component. It never comes near overcoming the reduction in calories. So if you predict you'll lose 3 lbs/week at a given deficit, you might only lose 2.5. But you don't ever get to where your body 100% counteracts your deficit, which is what is implied here.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Gonna go completely out there and say this....starvation myth? How about people with ED's ie, anorexia ...with a very very low calorie intake, yet they still lose weight?


    I think there is something to this 'myth' but i think people really over estimate/over think it, seriously !
    It's because ED people and obese people are completely different. When an ED person eats 100g of carrots, for maybe 90 calories, all the calories go towards BURNING FAT. When an obese person eats 4 pieces of cake for maybe 90 calories, it ALL goes straight to fat, even if that 90 calories of cake is all they eat all day.

    That is what I have come to understand from reading the forums here, anyway.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    There's no doubt you can lose weight when at 1200 calories. No one disputes that. But you will also lose weight at 1600-1800-2000 calories. Read about the numerous people on here who do so.

    So my question is, if you can lose weight eating more why not do so?

    Because you can lose more faster.

    I didn't. I lost weight PAINFULLY slow on lower calories. Felt like a failure because it was so slow. Thought I was doomed to be chunky forever.

    On the RIGHT amount of calories, the weight fell off. Effortlessly.
    Water retention is a big factor on higher caloric deficits. You will still lose weight faster, but it won't show up on the scale as rapidly (it tends to fall off in large 'chunks' as the body flushes out excess water periodically, the scale can stay steady for weeks at a time as a result, but actual body comp changes are much faster than on a higher calorie diet).
  • terrabit
    terrabit Posts: 33 Member
    I dont mean to sound arrogant, but I can only go by my own experiences.

    I am down 81lbs eating at a 700-1000 kcal deficit a day (I eat around 1900-2000 now). Any lower than that and I do not have the energy to work out and my weight loss slows down. I have lost an average of 3lbs per week with this method. I am not the only person who has done so either. I would put my method up against anyone doing a VLC diet and gladly compare. Bet I would win...
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member

    There is more to the weight loss equation than just continually reducing calories. Calories in an out is the primary factor but when people get to the point of adaptive thermogenesis, what you are calling starvation mode, they stall. As the term implies, the body adapts. The hormones that control appetite and lipolysis get out of whack. These factors can be normalized and get weight loss moving again by increasing calories. So there is a sweet spot where there is a deficit and good hormonal factors. If you have any awareness of this it is not evident in your posts.

    But there is no science that agrees with this hypothesis. The studies say the more the deficit, the more you lose, though there is a smallish adaptive thermogenesis component. It never comes near overcoming the reduction in calories. So if you predict you'll lose 3 lbs/week at a given deficit, you might only lose 2.5. But you don't ever get to where your body 100% counteracts your deficit, which is what is implied here.

    To someone who stalls, you telling them that there are no studies suggesting that they shoudlnt be losing is a slap in the face.

    If you were trying to lose weight as fast as possible youd be at 18-30lbs lost by now Mcarter but hey!
    Science says it works!
    Right?
    LOL
    RIGHT!
  • ShaunaLaNee
    ShaunaLaNee Posts: 188 Member
    The Starvation Myth
    The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
    Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department

    This is 100% true, here is another quick read to chew on..
    http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
  • Lovely135
    Lovely135 Posts: 161
    The Starvation Myth
    The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
    Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
    Thanks. You'he made my day.

Categories