starvation mode myth

Options
1457910

Replies

  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Society world has people brainwashed that if they eat less and workout more they will lose weight.

    Care to elaborate? What's the alternative to a caloric deficit?
  • dandaninc
    dandaninc Posts: 392
    Options
    I love this topic. It always gets everyone all rialed up.
  • alexbusnello
    alexbusnello Posts: 1,010 Member
    Options
    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

    You won't stop losing weight in starvation mode, but what you are completely missing the point on is what starvation mode means. It means your body begins breaking down more muscle instead of primarily fat, in order to try to give you the caloric energy you usually metabolize through eating food. Your body can only break down a certain amount of fat in one day. If that is not enough to keep up the calories needed, it also begins to break down muscle to make up the caloric difference.As you begin to "eat your own muscles" you still lose weight, simply because you are losing muscle mass. So yeah, starvation mode is great if you want to have no muscle tone, no strength, no energy, and still look flabby when you are underweight.

    This is exactly what happened to me...... I destroyed my body. : ( I regret it....
  • JosieRawr
    JosieRawr Posts: 788 Member
    Options
    It's not about a starvation mode that your body goes through.
    It's more your body being able to be more efficient at storing fat for energy with what little food that it gets
    Our bodies are so well at adapting to the point that it's almost stupid
    Is starvation mode a myth? in the general sense, yes.
    But it is more a poorly worded phrase or whatever you call it then anything else.
    Perhaps we should call it a "highly efficient fat storing mode"

    Could not have said it better myself... Society puts to much on the wording over the actual results..... but if some wants to believe that eating less and exercising more will get them to their goal then goodluck with that... 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......

    ^^ Both of these <3
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    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...

    The only thing that would be arrogant is that you would dare to talk sense in the LCD echo chamber where the logic is all circular and all the proff sources are somehow twisted to say just eat fewer calorie. I think 400 would be good for you, don't you think?

    Keep on keepin on brother!
  • alexbusnello
    alexbusnello Posts: 1,010 Member
    Options
    I believe in it. Oh no, am I going to make someone angry or annoyed because I believe in it and they don't? Lol This topic is everywhere.
  • Nutrition1st
    Nutrition1st Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    These types of studies are so inconclusive. They don't take in to account if someone has a thyroid problem, age, different metabolism types, menopause, if they are lifting heavy weights, light weights, doing aerobics etc. So for the 10% (+/- 9.9%) it may represent, yes it's true.
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    Options
    I believe in it. Oh no, am I going to make someone angry or annoyed because I believe in it and they don't? Lol This topic is everywhere.

    I can help you.

    PM me.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    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

    You won't stop losing weight in starvation mode, but what you are completely missing the point on is what starvation mode means. It means your body begins breaking down more muscle instead of primarily fat, in order to try to give you the caloric energy you usually metabolize through eating food. Your body can only break down a certain amount of fat in one day. If that is not enough to keep up the calories needed, it also begins to break down muscle to make up the caloric difference.As you begin to "eat your own muscles" you still lose weight, simply because you are losing muscle mass. So yeah, starvation mode is great if you want to have no muscle tone, no strength, no energy, and still look flabby when you are underweight.

    This is exactly what happened to me...... I destroyed my body. : ( I regret it....

    Thanks for posting. I have seen many other posts like this. The advocates of VLCD just ignore this kind of thing and cherrie pick info to substantiate thier preformed conclusion. Heck I've even seen some posters on this thread take a post that disproved thier point and tried to twist it to say it actually supported thier misinformed conclusions. What ever! That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.

    I hope with time, a good eating plan and the right workout plan, you can reverse the damage!
  • penniemh
    penniemh Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    My point was !!!! don't use the "starvation mode theory" to up your calories.....stick to HEALTHY lifestyle plan and over time the weight will come off...don't tell me that you ate 300 calories more of potato chips and it fooled your body into losing weight. it's not rocket science....weight =calories consumed - calories expended over LONG TERM.....and getting the most out of the plan requires insuring you body gets the minimum requirements ....:wink:

    The simple mathematical equation of weight gain or weight loss. Thanks for sharing it. I've lost 5lbs in 3 weeks and ~15lbs in 2 months using that simple equation.
  • alexbusnello
    alexbusnello Posts: 1,010 Member
    Options
    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

    You won't stop losing weight in starvation mode, but what you are completely missing the point on is what starvation mode means. It means your body begins breaking down more muscle instead of primarily fat, in order to try to give you the caloric energy you usually metabolize through eating food. Your body can only break down a certain amount of fat in one day. If that is not enough to keep up the calories needed, it also begins to break down muscle to make up the caloric difference.As you begin to "eat your own muscles" you still lose weight, simply because you are losing muscle mass. So yeah, starvation mode is great if you want to have no muscle tone, no strength, no energy, and still look flabby when you are underweight.

    This is exactly what happened to me...... I destroyed my body. : ( I regret it....

    Thanks for posting. I have seen many other posts like this. The advocates of VLCD just ignore this kind of thing and cherrie pick info to substantiate thier preformed conclusion. Heck I've even seen some posters on this thread take a post that disproved thier point and tried to twist it to say it actually supported thier misinformed conclusions. What ever! That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.

    I hope with time, a good eating plan and the right workout plan, you can reverse the damage!

    Me too : (
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    ((((alexbusnello)))) Thanks for using your story as a warning marker. Hopefully, it will reach some people and some good can come of your struggle.
  • firstsip
    firstsip Posts: 8,399 Member
    Options
    These types of studies are so inconclusive. They don't take in to account if someone has a thyroid problem, age, different metabolism types, menopause, if they are lifting heavy weights, light weights, doing aerobics etc. So for the 10% (+/- 9.9%) it may represent, yes it's true.

    THANK YOU!. This, this, this comment.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    It's not about a starvation mode that your body goes through.
    It's more your body being able to be more efficient at storing fat for energy with what little food that it gets
    Our bodies are so well at adapting to the point that it's almost stupid
    Is starvation mode a myth? in the general sense, yes.
    But it is more a poorly worded phrase or whatever you call it then anything else.
    Perhaps we should call it a "highly efficient fat storing mode"

    Could not have said it better myself... Society puts to much on the wording over the actual results..... but if some wants to believe that eating less and exercising more will get them to their goal then goodluck with that... 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......

    ^^ Both of these <3

    Yes.

    Too many people don't understand that Starvation Mode isn't some invention of the diet industry... it's biology. In a sense, it's what keeps bears from dying while they hibernate. Their bodies slow down so they don't lose too much weight over the winter. They still lose, but not at the rate you'd assume a creature that hasn't eaten in months would lose.

    Similarly, it's what kept the human race alive during times of famine. The body adapts. And the body doesn't "know" if the lack of food is because you want to drop a few pounds or that there's a rough winter with crop failure. Give it an extreme situation and it's going to react the same way... by slowing down it's processes so you don't lose as much as "the math" suggests you would.

    And then, there's the folks who brag that they lost more pounds. Again, big frickin' whoop. On low calories, I lost a lot of pounds, too. I got to 130 pounds... and I still had a muffin top, back fat rolls, double chin, etc. I'm much, much smaller now at 135 pounds achieved with a modest calorie deficit. Then? Size 8 at 130 pounds. Now? Size 4 at 135 pounds. Yeah, you might lose more pounds, but what are those pounds made of?!
  • MountainManMatt
    Options
    I hate the phrase starvation mode. I prefer to call it "sure, you'll still lose pounds, but a disproportionate amount will be from muscle mass so you'll look a lot worse when you get to your goal weight than you would have if you ate a little bit more and weren't so focused on the damn scale, not to mention that you're training your body to survive on a small amount of food, so you're going to be stuck 'dieting' just to maintain a healthy weight" mode.

    But it's a bit wordy.

    LOVE THIS!!!
  • CommandaPanda
    CommandaPanda Posts: 451 Member
    Options
    "...Most dieters tend to drop calories extremely low based on the idea that the greater the deficit, the more weight that will be lost. Up to a point this appears to be true, in that greater caloric restriction yields greater fat loss. However this ignores the potential effects of extreme caloric restriction on metabolic rate, muscle loss, etc. A recent review of twenty-two studies found that extremely low calorie levels, below 1000 calories/day, caused a much greater drop in metabolic rate than even 1200 calories/day. So, there appears to be a threshold level of caloric intake where metabolic rate is more greatly affected."

    Credit:
    Lyle McDonald, The Ketogenic Diet
    Physiological responses to slimming. Proc Nutr Soc (1991) 50:441-458.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    "...Most dieters tend to drop calories extremely low based on the idea that the greater the deficit, the more weight that will be lost. Up to a point this appears to be true, in that greater caloric restriction yields greater fat loss. However this ignores the potential effects of extreme caloric restriction on metabolic rate, muscle loss, etc. A recent review of twenty-two studies found that extremely low calorie levels, below 1000 calories/day, caused a much greater drop in metabolic rate than even 1200 calories/day. So, there appears to be a threshold level of caloric intake where metabolic rate is more greatly affected."

    Credit:
    Lyle McDonald, The Ketogenic Diet
    Physiological responses to slimming. Proc Nutr Soc (1991) 50:441-458.

    Yup! And how about:

    Why Take a Full Diet Break: Physiological Reasons


    The physiological stuff is the stuff I talk about all the time here on the site, on the forum and elsewhere. When folks diet and lose weight/fat, the body adjusts metabolic rate downwards. While a majority of this is simply due to weighing less (smaller bodies burn fewer calories), there is also an adaptive component, a greater decrease in metabolic rate than would be predicted due to changes in things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, etc.

    By moving to roughly maintenance for a couple of weeks, many of those hormones are given time to recover. Thyroid hormones come back up, as does leptin. This is a big part of the reason for the recommendation to raise carbs to 100-150 grams per day as a minimum.

    Thyroid hormones are distinctly sensitive to carbohydrate intake as are leptin levels (especially in the short-term). Just raising calories but keeping the diet very low carb doesn’t accomplish everything hormonally I want the full diet break to do.

    This is also the rationale behind the duration, thyroid hormones and the effects that they exert aren’t immediate. It may take 7 days of eating at maintenance for thyroid levels to come back to normal, but you need at least another week to get many of their effects to max out. So in answer to the question “Can I make the break shorter?”, the answer is “No.” I know that everyone wants to GET LEAN NOW but unless you are a contest dieting bodybuilder or figure chick and there’s no real-time constraint, what’s the hurry?

    There are other effects as well. Hormones like testosterone often go down during dieting and female hormones can be whacked out too. Cortisol generally goes up when you diet and raising calories and carbs helps shut that off for a bit.

    I’d note in this regards that many find that, after a period of hard dieting, they often keep leaning out into the first week of a planned break. As I discussed in the article Of Whooshes and Squishy Fat, some of it may simply be dropping water.

    But some of it does seem to be true fat loss. People keep bugging me for the mechanism and my current best-answer is “Magic!”. At some point, I might throw out some of my theories on it. Not today.

    As well, for leaner individuals, even if they do everything ‘right’, there is often a loss of performance or muscle mass during a diet. The two weeks with raised calories gives them the capacity to train a bit more and recover what they’ve lost before moving into the next stage of dieting.

    Full text here:
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html

    Yeah, no scientific evidence at all.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    Also from Lyle McDonald, discussing his 400-800 calorie fat loss plan, which he says is safe to stay on as long as you like if you're comfortable:

    "I want to mention that the adaptive metabolic rate is never sufficient to completely eliminate weight loss, it simply reduces the effective daily deficit
    (which may slow weight loss). Perhaps the largest reduction in metabolic rate recorded is on the order of
    30% (and that was seen in relatively lean men who underwent semi-starvation for months). Considering
    that the daily deficit on the crash diet will be 50% or more of daily energy expenditure, the slowing of
    metabolic rate will not be able to eliminate weight/fat loss, only slow it.
    I should mention that the adaptive component tends to be quite variable and several factors
    affect it. One is bodyfatness, generally the fatter you are, the less of a problem it is. Tangentially, this
    probably explains why some studies don’t find an adaptive component, they are looking at extremely
    obese individuals."

    "Since the crash diet is mostly short-term only (the only people who might stay on it longer than a
    few weeks are category 3 dieters for whom the adaptive component isn’t as big of a deal in the first
    place), the only system we are going to concern ourselves with is SNS output. Since, short of using
    thyroid drugs (or hoping that one of the thyroid boosting supplements on the market actually works) you
    can’t do anything about thyroid anyhow (well, see next chapter), there’s nothing to be gained worrying
    about it."

    P. 39: http://www.files.failedmiserably.com/data/aironz/The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook.pdf
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.

    What do you consider a VLCD? For me, 1200 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit from my TDEE. While it may be VLC for a different person, it's certainly not for me. I think medically, VLCD is defined as around 800 calories or less.

    But in any case, I'm not sure it's fair to call people who are not fans of the eat more method "the echo chamber." I don't see much difference between the two camps in the way they discuss/debate/argue except for the details. I see many people immediately say to posters, "Maybe you need to eat more" or "Eat more! You need to fuel your body" to a lightly active female eating 1700 + calories a day.

    I don't dispute the "Eat Enough." I do dispute that 1200 is not enough for some of us.

    Also, if you truly care about the people believing the dangerous things, not calling them the echo chamber may help them hear something you have to say.
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    Options
    That's why I call it the VLCD Echo Chamber. Those that enter only can hear the same bogus and irresponsible stuff echoing around until they believe it.

    What do you consider a VLCD? For me, 1200 calories is not a 500 calorie deficit from my TDEE. While it may be VLC for a different person, it's certainly not for me. I think medically, VLCD is defined as around 800 calories or less.

    But in any case, I'm not sure it's fair to call people who are not fans of the eat more method "the echo chamber." I don't see much difference between the two camps in the way they discuss/debate/argue except for the details. I see many people immediately say to posters, "Maybe you need to eat more" or "Eat more! You need to fuel your body" to a lightly active female eating 1700 + calories a day.

    I don't dispute the "Eat Enough." I do dispute that 1200 is not enough for some of us.

    Also, if you truly care about the people believing the dangerous things, not calling them the echo chamber may help them hear something you have to say.


    Its not about 1200 cals.
    Its about setting up calories according to age, height, weight, body fat and activity.

    If you fit the bill and 1200 doesnt slow donw your results.
    If you stay strong and continue to stay strong while leaning out.
    If you still lose the appropriate amount of weight per month.
    Do it by all means!
    If 1200 fits you then make it happen!

    Sadly it doesnt work for a lot of people.

    Science and math just fails.