The Science of "Starvation Mode"

Options
The Science of "Starvation Mode"

I am not promoting any diet or particular intake level. The reason for this post is to encourage MFP members to learn more about the science behind "starvation mode". For those of you that like science I suggest reading some scientific studies on the topic. Wikipedia contains a lot of helpful citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

From Wikipedia:
"Starvation response in animals is a set of adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that reduce metabolism in response to a lack of food."

This basically means that after a certain point metabolism can slow down. Metabolism never stops as long as we are alive. The relevant question is how much metabolism slows.

From Wikipedia:
"Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source."

Naturally, a morbidly obese person has an abundant supply of fat stores to begin with and can go a much longer period of time before burning significant lean muscle tissue for fuel (the same reason why a fat bear can hibernate for a much longer period than a bear who was lean before winter began). For this reason, scientific studies of long term very low calorie diets are ONLY conducted on overweight individuals. If someone is very lean to begin with they are at a much greater risk of losing lean muscle mass while eating under TDEE. For centuries before food became so easily available we had periods of feast and famine. During the famine period most people ate very low calorie diets. Some of them died. Who was more likely to survive? Naturally the people who were very overweight before the famine began (unlike today, for much of history it was the rich population who was obese, often by choice for this very reason). People who were very lean before the famine began often did not do well. This is the same reason very low calorie diets should not be used over the long term by underweight people today.

Remember, starvation mode relates not to metabolism stopping completely, but the "adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that reduce metabolism in response to a lack of food." Anyone who eats at a deficit to TDEE will lose weight over time. If you believe this is not the case for you, then you are either incorrectly measuring your intake or incorrectly calculating your TDEE. Any other explanation defies science. The magnitude and speed of the metabolic slowdown will depend on the individual.

Again from Wikipedia:
"The magnitude and composition of the starvation response (i.e. metabolic adaptation) was estimated in a study of 8 individuals living in isolation in Biosphere 2 for two years. During their isolation, they gradually lost an average of 15% (range: 9–24%) of their body weight due to harsh conditions. On emerging from isolation, the eight isolated individuals were compared with a 152-person control group that initially had had similar physical characteristics. On average, the starvation response of the individuals after isolation was a 180 kcal reduction in daily total energy expenditure. 60 kcal of the starvation response was explained by a reduction in fat-free mass and fat mass. An additional 65 kcal was explained by a reduction in fidgeting, and the remaining 55 kcal was statistically insignificant."

My only goal is to help more MFP members understand what "starvation mode" actually means as I believe it is among the most misunderstood terms in the forums. I am not advocating that anyone start a very low calorie diet. Just because "starvation mode" is misunderstood as applied to many people, does not mean I think a very low calorie diet is the best method for anyone. Each individual should make his/her own diet decisions with consultation with his/her doctor.

Long term very low calorie diets are NOT appropriate for anyone within either the normal or underweight ranges of the BMI tables. Nor are they appropriate for anyone with medical conditions unless under the care of a medical doctor. However please do not automatically that everyone who consumes under a certain number of calories will automatically enter "starvation mode" and immediately suffer a dramatic drop in metabolism even if they started out as very obese (meaning they have an abundant supply of energy stores). According to the studies cited by Wikipedia metabolism does not stop or even slow down in an overly dramatic fashion for individuals who are severely obese (again this would be a major concern for those who are lean to begin with).

If you want to see more examples, read Table 1 (test of carbohydrate metabolism) in this study of a 382 day fast of an otherwise healthy 27 year old morbidly obese male under medical supervision:

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

The good news is that better understanding can help you protect lean muscle mass as you diet. If you are already lean to begin with, huge calorie deficits are more likely to cause muscle loss.

For anyone who wants to lose weight, according to Wikipedia:
"Resistance training (such as weight lifting) can also prevent the loss of muscle mass while a person is energy-restricted."

For those of you that hope to learn more about the true definition of "starvation mode", I hope this post and citations will help clear up some common misunderstandings.
«13

Replies

  • CristinaL1983
    CristinaL1983 Posts: 1,119 Member
    Options
    Nice post. There are also tons of other studies out there on the effects of diet on BMR at varying levels of weight, calorie restriction and lengths of time. I have posted a ton of them so there are quite a few in my post history. Additional information can be found by going to scholar.google.com and typing in whatever you want to research. It will pull up some books and articles but mostly peer reviewed research and journal articles some free and some not free.

    Research does not really support what most people post on these boards.
  • ChristinaK69
    Options
    Thank you. Very valuable information!
  • lovelylittlegiggles
    lovelylittlegiggles Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    :)
  • metalvegan
    metalvegan Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    Great post!!
  • RainHoward
    RainHoward Posts: 1,599 Member
    Options
    never use wikipedia as a source.
  • Nikki31104
    Nikki31104 Posts: 816 Member
    Options
    I am not saying that any of this information is incorrect BUT Wikipedia is the least reliable source on the web. When I was in college we were not allowed to use it as a source ever. The site allows you to change any information without verification. I would find a different source. The Mayo Clinic has great information.
  • 1223345
    1223345 Posts: 1,386 Member
    Options
    People will always believe that your body goes into starvation if you don't eat every two hours thanks to folks like Jillian Michaels. I hope some of those people stop by to read this post.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    Options
    The trick to using wikipedia as a source is to use its sources.

    Also is this new thang of discounting the source rather than the statements this generation's ad hominem?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    never use wikipedia as a source.

    I was thinking/going to say the same thing...

    However, Starvation Mode is one of the most used terms on the threads and people really have no clue as to what they are saying. essentially, it boils down to the fact that you have to eat nothing for 72 hours to go into true starvation mode where you would start turning to muscle for energy; even at the 72 hour mark the effects of starvation mode are minimal. I would suggest anyone interested in finding the actual studies go to www.leangains.com...it is laid out pretty well there.
  • Brian_VA
    Brian_VA Posts: 125
    Options
    Holly cow. He lost 302 lbs (482 to 180) on a medically supervised fast for over a year. Can you imagine not eating anything for that long? I wonder what it was like to learn to eat again.
  • Rikki007s
    Rikki007s Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    Wikipedia can be a great source of information if you use it as a place to find sources just as he has done. Read the information and the sources before discounting someone's very well written and well forced post just because t mention Wikipedia.

    Great post!
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    Holly cow. He lost 302 lbs (482 to 180) on a medically supervised fast for over a year. Can you imagine not eating anything for that long? I wonder what it was like to learn to eat again.

    It undoubtedly felt wonderful to be 302 pounds lighter. He also probably could not have gotten down to 180 on a more gradual method.
  • faster_than_flash
    faster_than_flash Posts: 114 Member
    Options
    never use wikipedia as a source.

    Wikipedia has very accurate information. Your post is void..
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    Good post.
  • enigmachik
    enigmachik Posts: 150
    Options
    Wikipedia has been proven to be just as reliable as any other encyclopedia. I know it's counter intuitive because the information is editable by anyone, but the fact remains that misinformation doesn't last long on Wikipedia because it is quickly edited out.

    Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that Wikipedia scientific articles came as close to the level of accuracy as Encyclopedia Britannica and had a similar rate of serious errors. A study conducted by IBM found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"

    The reason it's banned from use for school research papers has nothing to do with it's reliability, and everything to do with how easy it would be to write a paper using only Wikipedia as a source. Your teachers want you to have to work harder than that.
  • RainHoward
    RainHoward Posts: 1,599 Member
    Options
    never use wikipedia as a source.

    Wikipedia has very accurate information. Your post is void..
    Yep, so good that most reputable sources won't touch it. So good that most college professors don't allow it. So good the the company its self admits it has problems with erroneous information. So good that some "definitions" end up locked because of bad information.

    Wikipedia is garbage.
  • MinimalistShoeAddict
    MinimalistShoeAddict Posts: 1,946 Member
    Options
    I am not promoting any diet or particular intake level. The reason for this post is to encourage MFP members to learn more about the science behind "starvation mode". For those of you that like science I suggest reading some scientific studies on the topic. Wikipedia contains a lot of helpful citations:

    I am sorry that many of you do not like Wikipedia. I mention the page because it is a source of well organized information that happens to mention multiple sources on the topic in question. Thank you for those that took the time to address the content of my post instead of debating whether or not Wikipedia was a reliable source. Feel free to tell me which source cited by Wikipedia you have a specific issue with. I have no interest in defending Wikipedia in general.
  • lawyerette
    lawyerette Posts: 301 Member
    Options
    Great post, regardless of cited sources. If people want to source data, they can click the reference links ;-)~
  • MinimalistShoeAddict
    MinimalistShoeAddict Posts: 1,946 Member
    Options
    never use wikipedia as a source.

    I was thinking/going to say the same thing...

    However, Starvation Mode is one of the most used terms on the threads and people really have no clue as to what they are saying. essentially, it boils down to the fact that you have to eat nothing for 72 hours to go into true starvation mode where you would start turning to muscle for energy; even at the 72 hour mark the effects of starvation mode are minimal. I would suggest anyone interested in finding the actual studies go to www.leangains.com...it is laid out pretty well there.

    Great post! I agree that the author of that website does a good job citing actual science. While 72 hours is an estimate (see citations below) I think the clear point is that that fasting for short periods will not trigger "starvation mode" People like myself who often fast for 24 hour periods, but still hit their weekly calorie targets are at no risk of harming their metabolism.

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

    In fact some studies have shown that short term fasting can actually cause a temporary boost to metabolism

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292
  • BarackMeLikeAHurricane
    BarackMeLikeAHurricane Posts: 3,400 Member
    Options
    Ah, now I remember why you're on my friends list :flowerforyou:

    Quality post, bro.