Starvation mode is a myth

Options
1235

Replies

  • ngrugle0
    ngrugle0 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    I would also add that Ranger School is hardly a typical experience and would be very difficult to recreate in daily life, so, again, there are limits to what can be generalized from that study. As with any scientific research, it's important to understand what conclusions can be drawn and generalized and which results require more research to fully understand the implications.
  • bananabrownie
    Options
    I actually just had an argument with my friend (a competitive swimmer) about starvation mode the other night at dinner. He said that starvation mode happens when you don't eat first thing waking up, and I said no it happens when you don't eat enough food for a long period of time (many weeks). I don't know who won but reading this was a very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for posting :D
  • magj0y
    magj0y Posts: 1,911 Member
    Options
    I think i will stick with what my DR, Dietary Nurse and Diabetes Nurse have told me. Anything less than 1200 cals a day and your body is not getting the nutrients you need. Regardless of loosing weight...it should be about being healthy.

    *your* body would. A healthy person who is 5'1 and a healthy weight can easily get everything she needs in 1200 cals.
    *I* can easily get by on 1200 cals a day because I'm a good & knowledgeable cook. I know which low-cal foods that keep you feeling full, longer. I know which foods are higher in protein and can build a very square meal that is dense in everything but calories.
  • joeysox
    joeysox Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    i did a diet of 650cals a day for 5 months... i looked awful, felt awful no chance of exercise either! without dosing up on supplements its not sustainable and real food is better than supplements x
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    I actually just had an argument with my friend (a competitive swimmer) about starvation mode the other night at dinner. He said that starvation mode happens when you don't eat first thing waking up, and I said no it happens when you don't eat enough food for a long period of time (many weeks). I don't know who won but reading this was a very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for posting :D

    As an FYI - your friend was wrong, very wrong
  • joeysox
    joeysox Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    "*I* can easily get by on 1200 cals a day because I'm a good & knowledgeable cook."


    this is a good point what magj0y said, a few people have messaged me asking about my recipes because i eat plenty but stay within my limits a lot of people start a diet by cutting everything out! its not sustainable it makes people miserable. Thats what is good about this site you can swap ideas with people instead of eating boring food x
  • Juliejustsaying
    Juliejustsaying Posts: 2,332 Member
    Options
    bumpity bump bump bump
  • belgerian
    belgerian Posts: 1,059 Member
    Options
    Or read this link http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science. From what I got out of that study is that starvation mode does exist but your BF hits about 5 percent. Granted cutting calories way low to loose weight is not healthy nor is it sustainable but does not immediatly put you in starvation mode I. Again I am no expert by far I have just came to my own conclusions by what I have read and what has worked for me. If you do cut calories lower your metabilsim will slow down but this can be made up by excersise.
    Myself I cut my calories down to about 1600 cal a day and excersised about 1000 calories or more every other day I was at about 280 5 ft 11 and the weight fell off. I am at about 180 eat anwhwere between 1600 to 3000 a day depending on how I feel and I normally burn at least 1000 per day on excersise. I have maintained for 2 years now.
  • willwillywilson
    Options
    Not speaking from a scientific standpoint at all and bearing in mind everyone is different but for me I almost always come in under what MFP recommends I need to be eating. I'm always full, I eat 5-6, maybe even 7 times a day, and I never feel tortured like I'm starving. My weight loss is consistent and I feel like strength training is keeping my muscle on and tight, though probably not gaining much like I would if I wasn't on a diet. Totally unscientifically speaking I'm guessing there is a big difference bodily between true starvation and eating a comfortable amount while not getting quite as many calories as "normal."
  • bushidowoman
    bushidowoman Posts: 1,599 Member
    Options
    It may indeed be a myth.
    But the first time I ever heard the term was when I was whining to my doctor about not losing any weight despite dieting and working out. He said I wasn't taking in enough calories for the workouts I was doing. I blew him off, thinking that was ridiculous. If I'm not losing weight eating 1400 cals a day, what sense does it make to increase to 1800 cals?!
    Can you believe that when I finally followed his advice, I started losing weight? Thirty pounds, reached my goal, felt great. :smile:
    If it's just a myth, call me a happy fool.
  • WillardsMommy1
    Options
    I think someone should go get their RMR tested...that is pretty scientific & accurate I believe...then do three months eating 800 calories per day. & then get their RMR tested again. I think that would be the actual scientific proof right?

    I used to eat 800 calories per day 6x a week & then one day eat 2000-3000. I lost ten pounds getting my BMI to underweight...shortly thereafter i got my RMR tested & it was normal, if not even higher than the average 1200. This was after about 6 months of MOST days being so hungry I was practically fainting & then 1 day being so full I felt like I would puke.

    The problem that I had was that the entire time I was only focused on getting to a number, I wasn't really developing healthy habits or gathering good knowledge & experience in order to change my lifestyle to maintain that lower weight. I was able to stay at that lower weight maybe 6-9 months but as soon as I went back to not thinking about my weight every waking moment I gained some of it back. I'm still at a healthy weight but now I want to get back down to a lower weight where I feel more comfortable in my clothes. It is almost easier to want to drastically cut calories again than to wait & do it slowly and see results that are hopefully maintainable.


    Anyway...kind of got off topic. I think my main point is that in my experience with VLCDieting the "starvation mode" itself is pretty much a myth but MAN it is NOT worth it. No healthy habits are gained in my opinion.
  • mhouston2011
    Options
    How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
  • belgerian
    belgerian Posts: 1,059 Member
    Options
    Can we discuss this and add links to scientific sites that prove your point please.

    IS STARVATION MODE A MYTH? NO! STARVATION MODE IS VERY REAL AND HERE’S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF

    QUESTION:

    Tom, I was wondering if you had seen the 6 part e-mail series sent out by [name deleted] from [website deleted]. if you look at the last part, he basically states that “starvation mode” is a bunch of crap made up in order to sell diet programs. He didn’t mention you, but it almost sounds like he’s talking about you specifically. How do you feel about this?

    ANSWER:

    I’m afraid the person who wrote that article is mistaken about starvation mode. Not only does his article contain technical errors, but anyone who sees what kind of products he promotes will realize where all his biases come from if you simply read between the lines a little bit. The pot calls the kettle black.

    He accuses those of us who use the term “starvation mode” as being unscientific and he even says “dont buy diet books if they mention the starvation mode.” Yet in a moment, it will become clear that he is the one who doesn’t appear very well read in the scientific literature on the effects of starvation and low calorie diets.
    The effects of starvation mode are indeed sometimes overblown and there are myths about the starvation mode, like it will completely “shut down” your metabolism (can’t happen - you’d be dead if your metabolism stopped), or that if you miss one meal your metabolism will crash (doesn’t happen that fast, although your blood sugar and energy levels may dip and hunger may rise).

    Another myth about starvation mode is that adaptive reduction in metabolic rate (where metabolism slows down in response to decrease calorie intake) is enough to cause a plateau. That is also not true. it will cause a SLOW DOWN in progress but not a total cessation of fat loss.

    As a result of these myths, I have even clarified and refined my own messages about starvation mode in the past few years because I don’t want to see people panic merely because they miss a meal or they’re using an aggressive caloric deficit at times. I find that people tend to worry about this far too much.

    However, starvation response is real, it is extremely well documented and is not just a metabolic adaptation - it is also a series of changes in the brain, mediated by the hypothalamus as well as hormonal changes which induce food seeking behaviors.
    Here is just a handful of the research and the explanations that I have handy:

    Ancel Key’s Minnesota starvation study is the classic work in this area, which dates back to 1950 and is still referenced to this day. In this study, there was a 40% decrease in metabolism due to 6 months of “semi-starvation” at 50% deficit.

    Much or most of the decrease was due to loss of body mass, (which was much more pronounced because the subjects were not weight training), but not all of the metabolic decline could be explained simply by the loss of body weight, thus “metabolic adaptation” to starvation was proposed as the explanation for the difference.

    Abdul Dulloo of the University of Geneva did a series of studies that revisited the 1300 pages of data that keys collected from this landmark study, which will not ever be repeated due to ethical considerations. (it’s not easy to do longitudinal studies that starve people, as you can imagine)
    Here’s one of those follow up studies:

    “Adaptive reduction in basal metabolic rate in response to food deprivation in humans: a role for feedback signals from fat stores. Dulloo, Jaquet 1998. American journal of clinical nutrition.

    Quote:

    “It is well established from longitudinal studies of human starvation and semistarvation that weight loss is accompanied by a decrease in basal metabolicrate (BMR) greater than can be accounted for by the change in body weight or body composition”

    “the survival value of such an energy-regulatory process that limits tissue depletion during food scarcity is obvious.”

    Also, starvation mode is a series of intense food seeking behaviors and other psychological symptoms and if you do any research on the minnesota study and other more recent studies, you will find out that starvation mode as a spontaneous increase in food seeking behavior is very, very real.

    Do you think sex is the most primal urge? Think again! Hunger is the most primal of all human urges and when starved, interest in everything else including reproduction, falls by the wayside until you have been re-fed.

    There are even changes in the reproductive system linked to starvation mode: It makes total sense too because if you cannot feed yourself, how can you have offspring and feed them - when you starve and or when body fat drops to extremely low levels, testosterone decreases in men, and menstrual cycle stops in women.

    Starvation mode is not just adaptive reduction metabolic rate - it is much more.

    There IS a controversy over how much of the decrease in metabolism with weight loss is caused by starvation mode, but the case is extremely strong:
    For example, this study DIRECTLY addresses the controversy over HOW MUCH of a decrease in metabolism really occurs with starvation due to adaptive thermogenesis and how much is very simply due to a loss in total body mass.

    Doucet, et al 2001. British journal of nutrition. “Evidence for the existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss.”
    quote:

    “It should be expected that the decrease in resting energy expenditure that occurs during weightloss would be proportional to the decrease in body substance. However, in the case of underfeeding studies, acute energy restriction can also lead to reductions in resting energy expenditure which are not entirely explained by changes in body composition.”

    Starvation response is even a scientific term that is used in obesity science textbooks - word for word - CONTRARY to the claim made by the expert mentioned earlier who thinks the phrase, starvation mode is “unscientific.”

    Handbook of Obesity Treatment, by wadden and stunkard
    (two of the top obesity scientists and researchers in the world )
    quote:

    “The starvation response - which is an increase in food seeking behavior - is most likely mediated by the decrease in leptin associated with caloric deprivation.”

    Textbooks on nutritional biochemistry also acknowledge the decrease in metabolism and distinguish it as an adaptive mechanism, distinct from the decrease in energy expenditure that would be expected with weight loss. In this case, the author also mentions another downside of very low calorie diets: spontaneous reduction in physical activity.

    Biochemical And Physiological Aspects of Human Nutrition by SM. Stipanauk, professor of nutritional sciences, Cornell University (WB Saunders company, 2000)

    Quote:

    “During food restriction, thermic effect of food and energy expenditure decrease, as would be expected from reduced food intake and a reduction in total body mass. Resting metabolic rate, however declines more rapidly than would be expected from the loss of body mass and from the decline in spontaneous physical activity due to general fatigue.

    This adaptive reduction in resting metabolic rate may be a defense against further loss of body energy stores.”
    Granted, it is more often referred to as “metabolic adaptation” or “adaptive reduction in metabolic rate.” However, starvation mode and starvation response are both terms found in the scientific literature, and they are more easily understood by the layperson, which is why I choose to use them.

    Another effect of starvation mode is what happens after the diet: A sustained increase in appetite and a sustained reduction of metabolic rate that persists after the diet is over. Although controversial, this too is documented in the literature:

    American Journal clinical nutrition 1997. Dulloo “post starvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans.”

    American Journal Clin Nutrition 1989, Elliot et al. “Sustained depression of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss”
    quote:

    “Resting metabolic rate of our obese subjects remained depressed after massive weight loss despite increased caloric consumption to a level that allowed body weight stabilization.”
    and Dulloo 1998:

    “The reduction in thermogenesis during semistarvation persists after 12 weeks of restricted refeeding, with its size being inversely proportional to the degree of fat recovery but unrelated to the degree of fat free mass recovery.”
    By the way, this explains what some people refer to as “metabolic damage” and although this is not a scientific phrase, you can see that it too is a reality. It is the lag time between when a diet ends and when your metabolism and appetite regulating mechanisms get back to normal.

    Last, but certainly not least, and perhaps the best indicator of starvation mode is the hormone LEPTIN. you could spend weeks studying leptin and still not cover all the data that has been amassed on this subject.

    Leptin IS the anti starvation hormone. Some people say leptin IS the starvation mode itself because it regulates many of the negative effects that occur during starvation.

    leptin is secreted mostly from fat cells and it signals your brain about your fat stores. If your fat stores diminish (danger of starvation), your leptin decreases. If your calorie intake decreases, your leptin level decreases.

    When leptin decreases, it essentially sounds the starvation alarm. In response, your brain (hypothalamus) sends out signals for other hormones to be released which decrease metabolic rate and increase appetite.

    In summary and conclusion:

    There is no debate whatsoever about the existence of starvation mode - IT EXISTS and is well documented.
    There is also no debate whatsoever that metabolic rate decreases with weight loss. It happens and is well documented, and it is a reason for plateuas.

    There’s really only ONE debate about starvation mode that is — HOW MUCH of the starvation mode is comprised of adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and how much is due to loss of total body mass and increased feeding behaviors?

    Researchers are still debating these questions, in fact just earlier this year another study was releasd by Major and Doucet in the international journal of obesity called, “clinical significance of adaptive thermogenesis.”

    Here’s a quote from this latest (2007) study:

    “Adaptive thermogenesis is described as the decrease in energy expenditure beyond what could be predicted from the changes in fat mass or fat free mass under conditions of standardized physical activity in response to a decreased energy intake, and could represent in some individuals another factor that impedes weight loss and compromises the maintenance of a reduced body weight.”

    I respect the work that other fitness professionals are trying to do to debunk diet and fitness myths, but this fellow didn’t seem to do his homework and totally missed the boat on this article about starvation mode.

    What’s really odd is that he didn’t quote a single study in his article, despite his repeated reference to “scientific research.”

    If he wanted to argue against adaptive reduction in metabolic rate and chalk starvation mode up purely to increase in food seeking behaviors… and if he wanted to attribute the decreased metabolism with weight loss purely to lost body mass, he easily could have done that. But he didn’t cite ANY studies. He just expects us to take his word for it that “starvation mode is a myth,” and people like me who use the phrase starvation mode are “unscientific”

    Either way you argue it - and whatever you choose to call it - “starvation response” is a scientific fact and that’s why low calorie diets are risky business and mostly just quick fixes.

    The rapid weight loss in the beginning is an illusion: Starvation diets catch up with you eventually… just like other habits such as smoking appear to do no harm at first, but sooner or later the damage is done.

    For years I’ve considered it so important to understand the consequences of starvation diets that my entire burn the fat program is built around helping you recover from metabolic damage from past diet mistakes, to avoid the starvation mode, or to at least keep the effects of the starvation mode to a minimum so you can lose the fat and keep the muscle.

    Sincerely,
    Your friend and “Burn The fat coach”

    Tom Venuto, CSCS, NSCA-CPT
    www.BurnTheFat.com

    On all these studies I would ask what are the Body Fat percentages at the beginning vs the end of the study and the ages and how much physical activity the test subjects were. You give none of that information.
  • ironanimal
    ironanimal Posts: 5,922 Member
    Options
    How about this for an idea......why can't everyone just do what works best for them. If I can sustain on 1000 calories a day and feel fine, no problems, doctor actually says my health is better right now than she has ever seen it, then I will do that. If you feel that 1000 calories isn't sustainable for you, then you eat more and feel better. Everyone is a winner. I wont' judge you for eating more and you don't judge me for eating less.
    Yes people should really stop expressing concern for others and let them continue with self-destructive behaviours that will lead to permenant, irreversible damage further down the road.

    Damn people and all their caring and facts.
  • deaddawn
    deaddawn Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    In all things, the fact that someone with the resources hasn't bothered to study it, does not make it true or untrue.

    As a young adult, a 700 calorie diet made me super thin. As a middle aged person it does not. Why? I haven't a scientific clue. It just is. I've stopped trying to do it that way because it just doesn't work for me. I don't need a study to tell me what works for me. I'm unhappy and in a crappy mood on 700 calories too. I make lots of mental mistakes as well.

    As an older adult, I'm over worrying about crap that doesn't matter. So what if the starvation thing works for you. Do it. Knock yourself out. Why are you so concerned about everyone else's thinking? As a matter of fact, go do it and write a blog or a book about your success!
  • Skinnyminimee
    Options
    Why is the magic number 1200? there is no logical reason. It's such bull**** and it's sad that so many doctors and nurses encourage that.

    http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.abstract

    I suggest you all read this.
  • OspreyVista
    OspreyVista Posts: 464 Member
    Options
    Ha - in one of the diets I was on years ago, 700 calories would be a cheat day. I had them fairly often because I was put on 480 calories per day. I got the weight off within a few months, sure enough, and I still had muscle because I worked out about 4 times per week. BUT the second I was off that diet I started to put the weight right back on. I think that's the real danger. Extremely low calorie diets just aren't satisfying enough for the long term, and who wants to take weight off only to put it back on again?

    This right here. "the Army did a study. i think it was called the Minnesota study. look it up. they starved the participants. they lost weight until they got down to ~5% BF and then the real "starvation mode" began. they looked like the people from Auschwitz by that point. nobody on this site is close to that point, except maybe some of the 18 year old girls with EDs or the lifters with low BF because of a cut." There is a scientific study stating that you have to be really low in BF % in order to reach starvation mode. BUT I agree that the real problem is that eating lower calories is not sustainable, and your more than likely to regain it all back. I'm not saying it's healthy either, but when I was new to this lifestyle, this information would have been nice to know, even if I don't want to eat at lower calories. And I've researched online about starvation myth and there really isn't much out there about it.
  • Skinnyminimee
    Options
    and starvation mode DOES exist. AFTER you have used all of your fat stores, and this only occours in most people after about 40 days with absolutley no food.
  • pfftx
    pfftx Posts: 11
    Options
    As a recovering anorexic with years of experience periodically eating 0-400 cals a day, I can confirm that starvation mode is ABSOLUTELY a myth. You don't stop losing weight when you eat so little--in fact you lose at a breakneck pace if you have the willpower for it. As the OP said, it's just simply not something your body does unless you are real third-world type starving.

    That being said, eating that little is a terrible idea, which is why almost all medical professionals (and mfp, either for liability or out of the same misapprehension that many here have) say not to do it. From a health standpoint, it's devastating. Women stop getting their periods, you get terrible overwhelming lethargy, you can't think, you start passing out when you have the slightest exertion. LOTS of bad bad stuff.

    So yeah, there's no such thing as "starvation mode" (for modern first world mfp-ers).Your metabolism will keep on trucking just fine even if you quit eating entirely for weeks at a time. AND you will lose weight REALLY fast. But you will really screw your health, have no energy to exercise (if you pass out from the mere exertion of standing up, what do you expect) and if and when you do allow yourself to eat again you'll eat like a shipwrecked sailor who hasn't seen real food in years (or at least it's really really hard not to).

    I'm with the OP. I find all the nonsense pseudo science silly. Starvation mode IS a myth, but keep it above 1000 cals anyway for your health and sanity.

    Afterthought: also I'm hypothyroid. Still no "metabolism stopping from eating too little"
  • emtjmac
    emtjmac Posts: 1,320 Member
    Options
    700 calories a day is ridiculous. Unless directed by a doctor, why would anyone think of doing that?