Starvation Mode..blah blah blah lol

Good question! I wonder the same..waiting on responses :-D

Great question... I thought the weight loss would be a result of consuming fewer calories and burning more. So, when I burn 700 calories at the gym, I certainly don't want to come home and eat an extra 700... I must be over-thinking it at this point?

when you go into "starvation mode" you lose your electrolites which helps you lose weight, also you it uses your bodies amino acids for fuel instead of glycogen which takes away your muscle, and stores the glycogen which turns into fat

Everyone is different, but it is recommended that you eat a decent amount of calories or your metabolism will essentially shut down. If you're eating too few calories its also hard to get all the nutrients you need. If you're needing to eat these calories because you burned them during exercise, tone it down a bit because your body cannot recover properly on inadequate nutrition. There's more to it but thats the idea. If multiple sources are telling you this, don't you think its worth considering? It's not about stuffing yourself, but getting proper nutrition. Being under by 100 calories is ok being under by 500 (consistently) is not.

I recently wrote an entire article about this on my MFP blog. See here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/stroutman81/view/the-starvation-mode-20677

From what I've read "Starvation mode" is the body adjusting to a lower caloric intake. Essentially the fewer calories you eat the fewer calories your body burns. They ran one or two studies (you'll have to google) where they took some test subjects below 1200 calories a day. It was "Semi-starvation" as actually starving them wasn't possible.

From what I remember the test subjects BMR dropped along with their caloric intake. IIRC at 50% of their regular calories their BMR was something like 40% of their normal BMR. It's important to note though that even at 50% of their regular calories and at 40% of their normal BMR they were still losing weight.

There was another study (it could have been the same one) that indicated that obese people had a physiological response to drastically reduced calories that kept onto lean muscle and they burned their fat stores faster than lean people.

In short the fewer calories you eat the lower your BMR goes. Which from a physiological perspective makes a lot of sense. Your body conserves the energy stores it has when it is not getting enough calories.

I've also heard anecdotal evidence on other boards that not eating every 2 or 3 hours puts your body into a "starvation mode". I don't know if I agree with this as I haven't found any scientific evidence to support this. Your blood glucose does drop and I not eating every few hours can make people hungrier and tend to gorge when they do eat. But I haven't seen any studies that said eating 2000 calories a day in 3 sittings versus 6 sittings is better for you or you burn more calories by eating 6 timers a day.

I've also heard anecdotal evidence when people plateau at a given weight range after that increasing their caloric intake for a week or so will help "restart" their weight loss. I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support this theory either but so many people have had this work for them I would not be surprised if their was some other mechanism at work. Perhaps increasing their calories gives them more energy to work harder and break themselves out of plateau? I'm not sure.

I feel like I am eating all the time and yet I am still not reaching my calories for the day. I don't want to stuff myself when I am not hungry.

Erika

Eat some nuts or have a glass of milk or a piece of cheese. All higher in calories and fill in those calorie gaps

From what I've read "Starvation mode" is the body adjusting to a lower caloric intake.

It's the adjustment to that as well as the actual tissue loss. The tissues, themselves, are "tied into" a giant feedback loop. For instance, body fat is one of the primary places Leptin is created. Leptin happens to be a signaling hormone (among many other things) that let's your brain know you're fed. So when we lose fat, we also reduce our Leptin levels, and what follows in a healthy functioning person is a cascade of hormonal shifts (things like insulin, peptide YY, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, etc.) that signal the body to slow things down a bit.

Even without those things, if we say metabolism or total energy requirements are comprised of basal metabolic rate (bmr), thermic effect of activity (tea) and thermic effect of food (tef), it's obvious that "metabolism" or energy requirements are going to fall as weight falls simply b/c things like bmr and tea are going to fall.

On the bmr front, there's simply less tissue to support which leads to a lower caloric need.

On the tea front, it's not going to "cost" you as much energy to move around after you lose weight, thus reducing energy needs.

All of this is part of the adaptive process that many people collectively like to call the starvation mode.

If you read my article that I posted above, one of the biggest misconceptions is that it only happens when you starve yourself. In reality, your body will adjust to the stress of weight loss regardless of the size of your calorie deficit. Sure, you can increase or decrease the rate of adaptation, but it's going to happen one way or the other.

It's biologically hardwired into us thanks to our evolutionary history.

They ran one or two studies (you'll have to google) where they took some test subjects below 1200 calories a day. It was "Semi-starvation" as actually starving them wasn't possible.

From what I remember the test subjects BMR dropped along with their caloric intake. IIRC at 50% of their regular calories their BMR was something like 40% of their normal BMR. It's important to note though that even at 50% of their regular calories and at 40% of their normal BMR they were still losing weight.

There are actually a number of studies out there on the subject. You might be remembering the Minnesota Starvation Experiment where researchers took already thin men and put them on low calorie diets for extended periods of time. The goal was to learn about the bodies adaptive response to prolonged, extreme hypocaloric diets so that we'd have some therapeutic/clinical applications for rehabbing Nazi concentration camp prisoners.

There's actually a book that's out there that doesn't go into all of the scientific data but it does describe the story behind the research and it's quite good... I highly recommend it to those interested.

As far as the actual paper goes, it's one of the most often cited when metabolic slowdown comes into discussion. Rightfully so, too, as it is one of, if not the largest ever recorded slowdown in metabolism in research history.

There was, as you mentioned, a 40% reduction in in metabolism. However, it should be noted that this occurred after half a year of eating 50% of calories in already lean mean.

Most people don't reduce calories by that much and most people aren't lean trying to get leaner. Fatter people don't have to worry nearly as much about muscle loss and metabolic slowdown as do their leaner counterparts. So while the study is interesting, it's not as applicable as many folks make it out to be.

What's more is MOST of that reduction in metabolism was accounted for by the reduction in tissue. As noted above, obviously if you have less tissue, it's not going to "cost you" as many calories to maintain yourself and it's not going to "cost you" as many calories to move around. That was by and large the majority of the metabolic slowdown.

However, there was an adaptive component too. By that, I mean metabolism was lower than would be expected based solely on the reduction in weight. This stemmed from what most folks label as the "starvation mode," which is a reduction in metabolic rate that goes beyond what's expected when weight is lost and it stems from things I mentioned above. To truly understand it, as it's quite complex, you need to have a firm handle of neuroendocrinology as it's primarily rooted in adaptations of the hormonal and brain systems.

There was another study (it could have been the same one) that indicated that obese people had a physiological response to drastically reduced calories that kept onto lean muscle and they burned their fat stores faster than lean people.

Sorry, I'm replying as I read along. And though I'm quoting you, I'm really replying to everyone in hopes of clearing up any misconceptions that exist.

As I noted above, you're spot on. Fatter folks don't have near as much to worry about when it comes to starvation mode.

In short the fewer calories you eat the lower your BMR goes. Which from a physiological perspective makes a lot of sense. Your body conserves the energy stores it has when it is not getting enough calories.

Just remember it's not all about calories, as I noted at the start. And it's not just about a reduction in metabolism. For instance, in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, it was proven that part of that adaptive process to prolonged hypocaloric eating would be an increase in thoughts of food... even an infatuation if you will. These men literally dreamed of food as some would dream of sex. Essentially your neurophysiology and endocrine system adapt in such a way that literally drive you to eat.

Why?

Because "many moons" ago this is how humans survived. Evolution happens at an excruciatingly slow pace. We, as humans, are still hardwired to survive times of famine that our ancestors had to inevitably endure when winter rolled around and all the food either died or headed for the equator.

Fattening up just to survive little to no calories during other parts of the year were a way of life, and said way of life influenced our biology.

I've also heard anecdotal evidence on other boards that not eating every 2 or 3 hours puts your body into a "starvation mode". I don't know if I agree with this as I haven't found any scientific evidence to support this. Your blood glucose does drop and I not eating every few hours can make people hungrier and tend to gorge when they do eat. But I haven't seen any studies that said eating 2000 calories a day in 3 sittings versus 6 sittings is better for you or you burn more calories by eating 6 timers a day.

Exactly so. In fact, there's some neat stuff coming out of the intermittent fasting crowd where meal frequency is altered drastically and results are very impressive. For those interested, good Martin Berkhan.

The moral of the story is if it took the men in the Starvation Experiment referenced above 6 months to realize a relatively small starvation response, you're sure as heck not going to see a difference in metabolic rate after a couple of hours.

I've also heard anecdotal evidence when people plateau at a given weight range after that increasing their caloric intake for a week or so will help "restart" their weight loss. I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support this theory either but so many people have had this work for them I would not be surprised if their was some other mechanism at work. Perhaps increasing their calories gives them more energy to work harder and break themselves out of plateau? I'm not sure.

There's actually quite a bit of data that supports this notion. For the most part, it goes back to the hormonal regulators of metabolism and yes, in a way, upping calories "resets" some of the metabolic adaptations that happened. Do some research into Leptin metabolism and refeeds. I've said too much already in this post and my intent is not to bore folks, believe it or not!

first of all, I am in starvation mode now and it SUCKS! I was eating less than 1200 cals every day and losing weight every week. I was so happy! I lost 20lbs in 2 1/2 months!! I haven't lost any weight for almost 2 1/2 months now. My weight hadn't budged a bit, not even the inches!

Once your body is in starvation mode, it stops losing. Once you start eating the right amount of calories your body needs, you start gaining. It's a horrible feeling. I wish I had never done the low calorie thing, I totally regret it. I don't know when I'll start losing again, but it sure is taking a long time.

I suggest eating your recommended amount of cals. eat nuts! just a few of them have a lot of GOOD calories, you won't be stuffed!!

LOL, you are not in starvation mode. That is called a stall. Please research before stating something such as this. This is how the rumors of "starvation mode" stay alive.

You would have to have been consuming 500-600 calories per day for an extended amount of time to go into a starvation mode type scenario..........

meant to quote that sorry. =D