Fact or Fiction? Starvation mode?

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

yep...^^.

sorry but its been proved a myth

You keep saying that... why? I'd love to see a cited source.

If you're overweight, then throw all concern about "starvation mode" out the window. It won't happen. T. If you can count all your ribs just by looking in the mirror then you might actually be entering this zone, other than that a total myth. Your weight is a function of how much you eat and how many calories you burn during the day. Your body won't quit burning calories just because you eat less than you did at one time in the past.

E=MC^2 is a basic understood fact but people want to forget that energy is equivalent to mass on this website for some reason. If you have too much mass, you're taking in too much energy. Decrease the energy replacement and you'll lose mass. Science n stuff, yo!

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

Spot on. Do a google search for the military's study on starvation mode. You will find that it is very difficult to send your body into starvation mode. The subjects were already very lean and subjected to extreme deficits and exercise. Bottom line, most people who say they are not losing weight due to being in starvation mode, are more than likely just not counting calories correctly.

Fiction.I am overweight so my body has fat Reserves...Think of hibernating Bears-They eat a LOT before Winter so that their bodies can live off of that fat while they sleep..My body will live off of my Fat when I dont feed it enough...thats the intended function of body fat..to feed us when food is scarce.

I don;t know if it's truth or myth but I know from my own experience that when eating low cal for long time, weight loss will eventually stop and very hard (almost impossible) to break.

do you find when that happens, you still have a decent amount of bodyfat?

I have been looking at why.... i was not losing weight i exercise 40 mins a day hard have built muscle " believe i was eating less than 1000 calories, i am 45@ 90kg male looking aerobic fitness so i am putting in the effort and for the last two weeks have not loss a cracker... OK here why i need more info :

every so called good site say' my normal calorie intake as a male of age and weight is approx 2600 to sustain current weight with minimal exercise some say as high as 3000 .... so let do the science if ineed this much FUEL to RUN a normal life then if i increase the phyical exercise by a factor of 5 then the science would tell you more fuel is needed

So if put less fuel in , exercise by a factor of 5 more.... the laws of science tell me i will need to access fuel else where "FAT" to replace fuel i am not intaking otherwise i will feel total loss of energy and fatigue......." i dont'"

so what is really going on....!

I am an engineer so i personally need to know !! i always try to find the fact from the fiction...

So below is the best information i have found in my own research.... and it points the finger directly at the real problem ....ME

I will know more in a week or two after follow a calorie plan on myfitnesspal exactly !

see below
Starvation-mode (or starvation-response) is the popular theory that the body “reacts” to dieting by lowering its metabolic rate in order to preserve itself. According to the theory a dieter could be following a reduced-calorie eating plan—to the letter—and still not lose an ounce. Furthermore, the purported solution is that one needs to eat more in order to lose weight.

The theory is an attempt to explain why people aren’t losing weight although they report (to their weight loss coach, or fellow dieters) that they are indeed following their diet and exercise program.

What are the problems with the theory?

Metabolic rates don’t actually drop enough to significantly slow weight loss (if someone is indeed adhering to a reduced-calorie target). There can be a small reduction in (resting) metabolic rate when you reduce your calorie intake. For most people—since they're eating 1,200 or more calories per day—that drop won’t be more than 5%. For the minority of people that eat fewer calories (which should only occur under medical supervision) the reduction may be 5- to 15%. In neither case will weight loss STOP, or stall, beyond what’s explainable by those changes. Under no circumstances will EATING MORE be necessary. Not everyone will experience this reduction in metabolism, but for those that do it dissipates a week or so after they resume a calorie intake level that matches (or exceeds) the physiolgical needs of their current body weight.[ii]

Studies of “diet-resistant” subjects consistently find normal metabolic rates, AND underreporting of calorie intake. There are four studies on obese subjects who were referred to metabolic labs for further analysis because they were not losing weight while reporting energy intakes that should have been resulting in weight loss of 1- to 2-pounds per week. In each case (other than 2 subjects with hypothyroid status) all subjects among these three studies were found to have metabolic rates within the normal range—no starvation mode happening—and to be simply underreporting their energy intake. [iii],[iv],[v],[x]

Subjects underreported by an average of 1,453 calories per day in the study by Buhl, by 1,000 calories per day in the study by Skov, and by 1,053 calories per day in the study by Lichtman. The hypothyroid subjects also underreported by 800 to 900 calories per day. In the study by Heymsfield, where subjects underreported by an average of almost 1,200-calories per day, he discusses potential causes of underreporting of energy intake including: inadequate calorie knowledge, inaccurate portion estimates, memory disturbance (forgetting), inaccurate food labeling, and psychosocial motivation (conscious or not).

Heymsfield was able to show in his patient group however, that the same subjects were able to accurately report, "when they believed the researcher would be able to check the accuracy of their reporting," which apparently supported psychosocial motivation. To explore that further the study subjects (and a control group) were administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The subjects scored significantly higher than controls in key areas, confirming the tendency toward both conscious impression management (the purposeful tailoring of one's responses to display a positive image to others), and unconscious self-deception (described as the tendency to distort information to preserve a more virtuous self image [in this case, as a stringent dieter]).

Clearly, underreporting of energy intake is a complicated phenomenon. What we do know for sure it that it's a widespread problem, and while it occurs across all BMI groups the degree of underreporting also increases as BMIs increase.

Research looking at chronically undernourished populations has also failed to find evidence supporting starvation mode.[vi],[vii],[viii]

Despite widespread anecdotal reports of problems with starvation mode, there isn’t a single published case study documenting an individual in starvation mode in the medical literature. Apparently medical science has yet to find a person that doesn’t lose weight (as expected by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) when underfed. Should we be surprised that—like GRAVITY—this law of physics applies to everybody?

The starvation mode theory certainly is appealing from the standpoint that it lets both the dieter and their coach off the hook—lack of progress is blamed on something out of the dieters' control.[ix] It’s a sad situation however, after all, there is nothing to problem-solve if you believe your body is betraying you. No path forward. On the the other hand, some may find playing the martyr rewarding (consciously or not), after all, there's a lot of attention to be gained.

The Bottom Line: Given the laws of physics, the notion that some people need to eat more to kick start weight loss is inherently flawed. Starvation mode is simply VERY popular mythology. Carefully tracking your calorie intake and exercise can actually reinforce that your body works just as it should. See the advise at the end of my blog on weight loss plateaus for more suggestions. Having your metabolic rate measured can also give you peace of mind. You can trust that:

Positive energy balance leads to weight gain
Negative energy balance leads to weight loss, and
Only neutral energy balance supports a stable weight
All the Best,
-Dorene

sorry but its been proved a myth

You keep saying that... why? I'd love to see a cited source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

This exactly!

To an extent its true. When I was 15 I went without power for two weeks with no money just canned food. I wont get into details but I went to school just to eat free school lunch, and in those two weeks i lost 15lbs. No exercising.

sorry but its been proved a myth

not.

True "starvation mode" is when your body begins to burn lean muscle for fuel, due to a lack of fuel availability elsewhere, either in calories consumed, or stored in fats. It is an actual thing, and it does not happen until you're as lean as you can be - about 6% body fat for men. So most of us here don't need to worry about that kind of starvation mode.

However, it's still true that if you consistently net less than your body needs to function, your body will assume this is the "new normal" and compensate by slowing metabolic function. It'll still burning fat for fuel, but your rate of weight loss will slow. This is not "starvation mode," but it's usually what people mean when they talk about it here.

And that's the important part. It doesn't matter what we call it--the term as we have come to mean it represents a physiological response that is absolutely TRUE.

This makes very good sense on the subject-

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Ahh the other myth..................you can't eat below BMR

I don't think "starvation mode" is real, but I do know that I plateaued after eating to low calories and didn't start losing again until I increased them.