Any peer-reviewed, objective evidence for "starvation mode"?
tysonian
Posts: 10
As the title implies I'm looking to see if anyone has any documented, tested, objective data to support the existence of "starvation mode" outside of the actual occurrence of literal starvation. I've been exposed to mountains of anecdotal claims regarding the function of metabolism on levels of caloric intake and have yet to find any solid, supported, scientific evidence to support these claims. I recently took a nutrition class and the topic was discussed, from my research I can only find documentation of very minor changes to calorie usage anywhere in the normal range but there was no significant change to the curve until extreme deficiency. For most of us this would mean worrying about starvation mode should warrant as much worry as actually starving to death, dieting is not going to have an impact on how our body consumes calories.
I suspect this is total fiction but I'm open to other points of view. If there's good information out there to the contrary I'd love to hear it.
-T
I suspect this is total fiction but I'm open to other points of view. If there's good information out there to the contrary I'd love to hear it.
-T
0
Replies
-
Hmmm this is interesting! I will have to do some research to see if there are any peer-reviewed articles out there.0
-
I would love to hear this too! I am pretty skeptical of all of the "starvation mode" posts out there as I have also heard good things about intermittent fasting.0
-
I've had similar interest! When I first started to monitor what I ate, I was told of this so-called starvation mode and had my own experience with it, and then I was told it doesn't exist (only in extreme cases, which mine wasn't THAT extreme), so I set out to find studies.
I can't remember what studies I found, but I remember I looked at the AJCN - you can find the articles for free online at their website. There was one that had evidence that the metabolism DOES decrease while dieting even if it isn't extreme starvation, but doesn't fully support the claim that starvation mode hits and you can't lose any weight. You might start there if you want to find good studies/reports!0 -
Hmm, I would be interested to see this as well. I can only speculate from my own personal weight loss journey.0
-
I can't provide peer-reviewed, objective evidence for starvation mode. However, if you'd like a non-peer-reviewed, layman's explanation for why eating appropriately for your BMR and level of exercise might be a good idea, I'll repost that for you at the bottom of this.
I am always curious why people get really really mad about starvation mode. Often (not always) it's people who are complaining about how they can't lose weight, or how they stalled, or how they've yo-yoed for years, can't maintain, etc -- who just get LIVID when someone who has been successful (lost and MAINTAINED suggests that eating more might be a good idea.
Anyway, if you want my unscientific opinion, here it is:
From one of my old posts from a similar topic:
OK. I'm gonna give this a shot. I am an avid lifelong athlete. I have never been overweight, however, I used to eat too few calories (without knowing it), and a couple years ago, I actually GAINED weight bc of having slowed my metabolism to the point that every little extra treat I ate caused a weight gain, even though overall my calories were too low. THIS DOES HAPPEN.
It is also the reason so many fat people stay fat. They restrict their calories so low, slow their metabolisms, binge (even a little), gain weight, restrict more . . . . and so on and so on. But they are still fat.
It is also the reason most people can't lose that last 10-20 lbs. For real.
1. MFP has a deficit built in. Let's say you're trying to lose 1 lb/ week. That is a 500/day deficit from your BMR (the amount of calories your body needs to complete basic functions.
2. You exercise and burn 500 calories. Now you are at a 1000 deficit. If you eat back those 500 exercise calories, you refuel your body and you still have a 500 deficit for that 1 lb loss. If you DON'T eat back those calories, you have too little fuel. This is bad. This is too much of a deficit for basic functions. If you do this for a long time, you will STOP LOSING WEIGHT. Why? bc your metabolism will slow down -- it's like a brownout--not quite enough electricity to make the whole city (your body) run, so it has to slow down some things. You will probably start being tired a lot, your skin and hair might start to look worse, and you might even gain weight. But you might NOT be hungry -- your body is getting used to fewer calories. That's bad.
That's when you start to gain weight. Let's say you're running along, eating 1200 calories a day, and exercising 400 calories a day, so net is 800. You're losing, you think this is great. You keep doing it, but after a while you stop losing. hmmmmm. One weekend you go out to a special event and have a slice of pizza and a beer. 1 slice of pizza and 1 beer. So you ate maybe 2000 calories that day and exercised off 400, so net 1600. BOOM! You gain 3 lbs! What?!
Next, you freak out and restrict yourself down to 1000 calories a day and work out extra hard, burning 500 calories. Great, netting 500 now. You don't lose any weight, but you sure feel tired. Better get some red bull.
Are you getting the picture?
EDIT: When you work out, you need fuel. Food is fuel. If you don't eat back those exercise calories, you will not only have a big calorie deficit, you will have an ENERGY deficit. Remember, the calorie deficit for weight loss is built in when you use MFP. Exercising basically earns you more calories because you must refuel.
--
There are many people who will tell you not to eat exercise calories. Before you take their advice, you might want to see whether they are at goal, have EVER been at goal, or have ever been able to maintain at goal. If anyone says to you 'THE LAST TIME I LOST WEIGHT", just stop listening right there.
Ask some athletes whether or not they replenish their bodies with food equal to the calories they burn. Ask people who are fit and have achieved and maintained a healthy weight for some years. Don't ask people who count walking across a parking lot as exercise.
Here's an interesting case study about how to stay fat while consuming only 700 calories a day. Take a moment, you'll be glad you did:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
blessings.0 -
Hmm, I would be interested to see this as well. I can only speculate from my own personal weight loss journey.0
-
BTW, whose peers?
0 -
BTW, whose peers?
You probably are joking about this but in academic communities "peer reviewed" information means that is has been evaluated rigorously by qualified/expert individuals. It's of the utmost importance in the research process.
I wonder what it means that no one has offered up a link to peer-reviewed information when a lot of people have an opinion about it?0 -
BTW, whose peers?
You probably are joking about this but in academic communities "peer reviewed" information means that is has been evaluated rigorously by qualified/expert individuals. It's of the utmost importance in the research process.
I wonder what it means that no one has offered up a link to peer-reviewed information when a lot of people have an opinion about it?
I do know what it means, and yes I was joking
It might mean no one has studied it. You know, kind of like when MDs poo-poo eastern or alternative medicine (herbs, homeopathy, etc. that have been used successfully for thousands of years) bc no one has "studied" it. Of course "no one" has studied it. Who does such studies? Pharmaceutical companies. Why would a pharm company sponsor a study on an herb that people have used for thousands of years? They wouldn't bc they can't make any money from proving that it works. They only do studies on meds they have developed, and they often keep certain parts of those studies as quiet as possible.
Not exactly the same, but drug companies and over-prescribing MDs are some of my biggest pet-peeves.
IDK, lots of people have lots of opinions on everything. God, for example. Atheists say "show me proof that God exists". Believers say "show me proof God does not exist". There are no peer-reviewed studies either way.0 -
Very little research has been done on this topic ( at least as far as I am aware). Would love to be shown articles if anyone knows any?
Golay A et al (2000) "Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets." this is the only study I am aware of that touches on the issue. It shows that calorie defect was important and diet composition was not a major factor...
There is enough evidence to show that starving people makes them thin (anorexics, concentration camps, famines etc...) I do not think anyone would be stupid enough to argue against that, right? I think the issue is, when someone who eats a low calorie diet then binges gains weight easier or mainatains weight.0 -
There are plenty of studies out there, most of them don't directly study the term "starvation mode", but cover some portion of LTU (Long term underfeeding) and fasting and the body's reaction to it. Some of this is peripheral but does cover something which would intersect with some aspect of it. I picked a few, but there are lots more out there if you take the time to do the research.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=789564&jid=PNS&volumeId=54&issueId=01&aid=789556
http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/622.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/1/1.full.pdf+html?sid=1f835bd6-51e1-49c0-a79e-e73fa166c490
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1511.full.pdf+html?sid=1f835bd6-51e1-49c0-a79e-e73fa166c490
http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/461S.full.pdf+html?sid=25df97eb-0ad2-4dbd-91a7-07d1ff371d19
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/1/66.full?sid=fbb2018e-851b-468e-82d3-e0326c632ce4
http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf+html?sid=0a679b54-6b93-4a1c-8ce1-88b3f0402baf0 -
The footnotes from this article might be useful. Of course the idea that if you don't eat enough you'll stop losing weight is stupid, but it seems that weight loss is not as great as might be expected once you get below a certain number of calories.
The starvation myth
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
http://www.weightwatchers.com.au/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=37261&sc=801
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.
Metabolism slows during kilojoule restriction
Restricting kilojoules during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer kilojoules to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 8,400 kilojoules per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 6,300 kilojoules, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 500g per week weight loss (Note: 500g of weight is equivalent to about 14,700 kilojoules). Furthermore, reducing to 4,200 kilojoules should result in a weight loss of 1kg per week and going down to 2,100 kilojoules a day should result in a weight loss of 1.5kg per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 2,100 kilojoules, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 1.5kg per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 1kg. This 'lower than expected' rate of weight loss is a lot different to 'no' weight loss as the 'starvation mode' notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced kilojoule intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the kilojoule reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the kilojoule restriction is quite large (e.g. 3,360 kilojoules or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in kilojoule restriction, with the gap increasing as the kilojoule deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the 'starvation mode' myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when kilojoules are severely reduced. Over-restriction of kilojoule intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The skill of flexible restraint)
Metabolism after weight loss
The good news is that after the weight loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
FOOTNOTES
1 Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The role of energy expenditure in energy regulation: Findings from a decade of research. Nutr Rev. 1995. 53:209-220.
2 Burgess NS. Effect of a very-low calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.
3 Rogers PJ. Eating habits and appetite control: a psychobiological perspective. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Feb;58(1):59-67.
4 Weinsier RL, Nagy TR, Hunter GR, Darnell BE, Hensrud DD, Weiss HL. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Nov;72(5):1088-94.0 -
That term starvation mode is taken way to literally on this site... No one (or should I say most) is not advocating your going to starve to death in that context but if you are running your body at to high of a calorie deficit and or majorly under eating you will cause your body to slow down your metabolism to the point you will no longer be losing weight, and your body could actually start holding on to any nutrients you take in causing the scale to not move and if done over a long period of time could mess up your metabolism to the point it could take several months to repair. That is the way I see the term being thrown around on this site not that people really think in terms of starving kids in Africa. I have no peer reviews to offer but I do have 38 months and 311 lbs. of trial and error and in the beginning running stupid calorie deficits causing weeks of stalled progress and at one point a screwed up metabolism which I since have tweak and corrected..... Just the way I see it...0
-
Starvation mode is a myth. I strongly beleive this- you only have to watch 'Supersize Superskinny' to see that people who consistently under eat are not stuck at 150lbs!0
-
you will not find peer reviewed articles R/T starvation mode because it is not a medical term try a broader search. I you find anything check out credentials.0
-
As indicated above, "Starvation Mode" is a myth. Just Google "Starvation mode myth" and you will find out all about how it isnt true.
Eating less than you need slows down your metabolism, but does NOT stop it. If there was such a thing, then we'd probably see a lot of fat kids in famine zones rather then people dying looking like skin and bones.
People who say there is such a thing never have any evidence aside from "it worked for me" or "it says on this website". All the scientific evidence states that if you dont eat enough you will not gain weight, nor will you maintain weight.0 -
The problem with "starvation mode" is the lack of a clear definition that everyone can work from.
The idea that somehow your body stops losing fat if you lower calorie intake too far is of course a myth. That does not happen. However, you do lose proportionally less fat and the process becomes increasingly inefficient for a number of reasons.
Personally, less results for more deprivation doesn't sound like a great idea to me.0 -
As indicated above, "Starvation Mode" is a myth. Just Google "Starvation mode myth" and you will find out all about how it isnt true.
Eating less than you need slows down your metabolism, but does NOT stop it. If there was such a thing, then we'd probably see a lot of fat kids in famine zones rather then people dying looking like skin and bones.
People who say there is such a thing never have any evidence aside from "it worked for me" or "it says on this website". All the scientific evidence states that if you dont eat enough you will not gain weight, nor will you maintain weight.
um, see above. I've provided plenty of evidence for it.0 -
Search adaptive thermogenesis, which is the scientific name for "starvation mode."
By the way, for people citing starving kids in Africa being skin and bones, starvation occurs in stages. "Starvation mode" is the body slowing down that process, not stopping it completely. Sure, you will eventually start losing weight again, but the results are not pretty.0 -
I've seen the starvation mode thing associated with two different behaviors on this site. One is just chronically undereating, but the other thing some people get uptight over, that makes people throw that phrase around, is when people go several hours without eating instead of spacing meals just a few hours apart.
For example, I don't eat when I wake up, I usually don't eat for 3-6 hours after I wake up. My Dr tried to tell me this was not advised bc I'll go into starvation mode and I need to jump start my metabolism in the morning. I call BS but, the information out there isn't very solid.
I'm more likely to believe that chronic undereating effects metabolism long term, than I am to believe that humans can't go without eating for half a day without negatively effecting metabolism. THAT is the theory I'd like to see some legitimate studies on, the "oh you have to eat breakfast!" theory.0 -
It's a misnomer for a host of side effects of heavy calorie restriction. Starvation 'Mode' doesn't exist perse, and is more of a general term to describe physiological changes that happen as a result of extended periods of high calorie restriction.
And to anyone that mentions African children; you can gain weight being in starvation mode in Western civilisation because there are periods of abundance when your slowed metabolism can store more of what you're eating because it's burning less. There aren't very many (any) periods of abundance for these children.0 -
There are plenty of studies out there, most of them don't directly study the term "starvation mode", but cover some portion of LTU (Long term underfeeding) and fasting and the body's reaction to it. Some of this is peripheral but does cover something which would intersect with some aspect of it. I picked a few, but there are lots more out there if you take the time to do the research.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=789564&jid=PNS&volumeId=54&issueId=01&aid=789556
http://www.ajcn.org/content/46/4/622.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/1/1.full.pdf+html?sid=1f835bd6-51e1-49c0-a79e-e73fa166c490
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/6/1511.full.pdf+html?sid=1f835bd6-51e1-49c0-a79e-e73fa166c490
http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/461S.full.pdf+html?sid=25df97eb-0ad2-4dbd-91a7-07d1ff371d19
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/1/66.full?sid=fbb2018e-851b-468e-82d3-e0326c632ce4
http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf+html?sid=0a679b54-6b93-4a1c-8ce1-88b3f0402baf
Good post will read later. (doubt many other people will though i'm afraid!)Just Google "Starvation mode myth
thats not research.0 -
IDK, lots of people have lots of opinions on everything. God, for example. Atheists say "show me proof that God exists". Believers say "show me proof God does not exist". There are no peer-reviewed studies either way.
There is a big difference between studying and proving a scientific theory that can be observed and tested, and studying the existence of god, for which there is no scientific basis for belief. You can't compare science and faith that way.0 -
Long term calorie restriction has an impact on metabolic function...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18502453
Physiol Behav. 2008 Aug 6;94(5):643-8. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
Effect of caloric restriction in non-obese humans on physiological, psychological and behavioral outcomes.
Redman LM, Martin CK, Williamson DA, Ravussin E.
SourcePennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA.
Abstract
The focus of this review is on current research involving long-term calorie restriction (CR) and the resulting changes observed in physiological and behavioral outcomes in humans. Special emphasis will be given to the first completed clinical studies which are currently investigating the effects of controlled, high-quality energy-restricted diets on both biomarkers of longevity and on the development of chronic diseases related to age in humans. Prolonged CR has been shown to extend both the median and maximal lifespans in a variety of lower species such as yeast, worms, fish, rats, and mice. Mechanisms of this CR-mediated lifespan extension are not fully elucidated, but possibly involve significant alterations in energy metabolism, oxidative damage, insulin sensitivity, and functional changes in both the neuroendocrine and sympathetic nervous systems. In this brief report, we review some of the major physiological, psychological and behavioral changes after 6 months of CR in overweight otherwise healthy volunteers. Ongoing studies of prolonged CR in humans are now making it possible to analyze changes in "biomarkers of longevity" to unravel some of the mechanisms of its anti-aging phenomenon. With the incremental expansion of research endeavors in the area of energy or calorie restriction, data on the effects of CR in animal models and human subjects are becoming more accessible. Detailed analyses from controlled human trials involving long-term CR will allow investigators to link observed alterations from body composition down to changes in molecular pathways and gene expression, with their possible effects on the biomarkers of aging.Indeed, CR is associated with a robust decrease in energy metabolism, including a lowering of resting metabolic rate (RMR or sleeping metabolic rate), lowering of the thermic effect of meals, and a decrease in the energy cost of physical activity. However, as mentioned earlier, whether total energy expenditure is reduced beyond the expected level (i.e., metabolic adaptation) for the reduction in the metabolizing mass (fat-free and fat mass) following CR is debated.
As expected, absolute 24-h energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate (both measured in a respiratory chamber) were significantly reduced from baseline with CR (p<0.001). Importantly, however, both 24-h sedentary and sleeping energy expenditures were reduced ~6% beyond what was expected for the loss of metabolic mass (i.e., fat-free and fat mass) (31). This metabolic adaptation was also observed for RMR measured by a ventilated hood indirect calorimeter (51). These physiological responses were associated with a reduced amount of oxidative stress as measured by DNA damage. DNA damage was reduced from baseline after 6 months in CR (p=0.0005), but not in controls (31). In addition 8-oxo7,8-dihidro-2′deoxyguanosine was also significantly reduced from baseline in CR (p<0.0001). These data confirm findings in animals that CR reduces energy metabolism and oxidative stress to DNA, both potentially attenuating the aging process.
Starvation mode is not a myth - it is poorly used by many but it is a quite well documented effect of CR. Long term calorie reduction has some effect on metabolic efficiency down to the mitochodrial level.
pubmed is your friend.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007855
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22901095
etc...
(Articles cited are peer reviewed, reference publications.)
If you are looking on data for obese people - search and you shall find ...Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jul 31. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2012.124. [Epub ahead of print]
Adaptive thermogenesis can make a difference in the ability of obese individuals to lose body weight.
Tremblay A, Royer MM, Chaput JP, Doucet E.
SourceDepartment of Kinesiology, PEPS, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
The decrease in energy expenditure that occurs during weight loss is a process that attenuates over time the impact of a restrictive diet on energy balance up to a point beyond which no further weight loss seems to be possible. For some health professionals, such a diminished energy expenditure is the normal consequence of a progressive decrease in the motivation to exercise over the course of a weight-reducing program. Another explanation of decreased energy needs during weight loss is the decrease in body energy stores (that is, fat mass and muscle mass) and its related obligatory costs of living. Many studies have also documented the existence of adaptive thermogenesis in the context of weight loss, which represents a greater-than-predicted decrease in energy expenditure. In this paper, we pursue the analysis of this phenomenon by demonstrating that an adaptive decrease in thermogenesis can have a major role in the occurrence of resistance to further lose fat in weight-reduced obese individuals. Evidence is also presented to support the idea of greater hunger sensations in individuals displaying more pronounced thermogenic changes. Finally, as the decrease in thermogenesis persists over time, it is also likely associated with a greater predisposition to body-weight regain after weight loss. Globally, these observations suggest that the adaptive reduction in thermogenesis that accompanies a prolonged negative energy balance is a major determinant of the ability to spontaneously lose body fat.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 31 July 2012; doi:10.1038/ijo.2012.124.0 -
bump0
-
bump for later when I read0
-
bump0
-
Eating too few calories is bad for the body, starvation is bad for the body. No one is going to dispute that. However, starvation causes people to lose fat, to lose weight, to get too skinny. When the body fat gets very low it causes hormonal problems, and females will stop menstruating. Starvation does not cause people to get fat. That is science and common sense. There are plenty of starving people in this world, unfortunately.
I like "Eat More To Weigh Less" because it contains a lot of important truths and nourishment is of extreme importance to health. Not eating enough is not healthy or enjoyable and it's not necessary. But, starvation means losing fat, not getting fat. You don't need to twist that reality in order to support a healthy weight loss plan. There are a lot of horrendous consequences of starvation, and getting fat is not one of them. And people who have starved can regain muscle and weight and become healthy again (and they do not get fat). It happens all the time. If the starvation was long, they will have long term internal damage from it. If it was short, they may just be fine. The human body is incredibly resilient.
I make sure I eat 1800 to 2300 calories (and I am very petite) because I don't want to lose weight. I am active and I have a fast metabolism. If I don't eat enough, I lose weight. That's reality.0 -
OP: what do you mean by starvation mode? The term is generally misunderstood and mis-used. It can mean anything from suppressed metabolism to losing LBM in excess of what you would under a smaller calorie restriction. There are many studies that shows you do lose LBM at BF% far in excess of those touted by the people who quote the misinterpreted study indicating that you do not at less than 5% for a man (some of which have been linked here by others). There are studies that also show that you can decrease your BMR over and above that which you would decrease it by just the weight loss. These studies are a little less compelling imo as there are not that many.
If you mean by 'starvation mode' you no longer will lose weight (water retention aside) - I do not think that you will find one.0 -
From a motivational POV, it's a nightmare. I remember reading about an older study in which subjects fixated on food in both the short and long term. One subject's satiety levels got totally messed up and would not stop eating once released.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions