Starvation Mode?

Options
GnosisGnosis
GnosisGnosis Posts: 148
in Health and Weight Loss
I ate like 1138 calories yesterday and it said summit about starvation mode. After 4 years of training, I have looked into this many times and have found no scientific evidence to the existence of any "Starvation Mode" - Can you provide some cited evidence as to the existence of this mode? I can provide some counter evidence.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

"Starvation mode has not been seen to occur until at least 3 days of complete fasting, and it looks as if more time than that is really necessary to show a correlation to a significant decrease in metabolic rate."

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

"Myth: Eating too little puts you in Starvation Mode Starvation mode is a myth that was popularized due to the Minnesota Starvation Experiment in which subjects were given 50% of their daily calorie intake for months. The result? Well, they lost weight until they had almost no weight left to lose and their bodies simply could not get the calories ANYWHERE. Concisely put: starvation mode happens when you are, quite literally, wasting away. Not when you have a simple caloric deficit. Your body will make up for it with fat stores. That's what they're for. Do not worry about starvation mode."

http://examine.com/faq/how-do-i-stay-out-of-starvation-mode.html <---- Link complete with citations and sources (http://examine.com/faq/how-do-i-stay-out-of-starvation-mode.html#ref2)

Replies

  • kelbelltacosmell
    kelbelltacosmell Posts: 1
    Options
    Thanks for posting this as I have just joined this site yesterday and today having all my meals except dinner its telling me I have only had 87 calories because of my exercise. This was doing my head in as I have been eating at every meal and the thought of having over 1100 calories for dinner I just didnt know what to do.
    This was very informative Thanks
  • yellowsnowdrop
    yellowsnowdrop Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    Yet another inspiring post. I'm eating healthy and have just started working out, I walk every day up to 7 miles and yet every day MFP tells me I'm eating not enough and need to eat more which is an impossibility.
    The whole starvation mode thing had worried me silly but maybe not anymore.
  • carolyn0613
    carolyn0613 Posts: 162 Member
    Options
    To lose weight you need to have a calorie deficit. MFP recommends that we lose 1lb a week and calculates that as a deficit of 500 calories a day.

    If you eat the amount of calories that gives you that 500 cal deficit, you will lose weight. Most people here have found that works for them and a steady slower weight loss is easier to do, and keep doing, than a crash diet. On a month to month basis you should see steady losses (although week to week you might despair a little!)

    If you exercise, you burn more calories. So in order to get to that magical 500 calories deficit, you need to replace the calories you burn. This means eating more. If you find that the 500 cal deficit means that you are struggling and eating more than that, doing exercise will help.

    On top of this there is evidence that doing exercise will help maintain the muscles you have, meaning that as you slim down, you will not become as flabby - the weight is lost from your fat deposits rather than from your muscles.

    There is some evidence that a faster weight loss puts stress on the body, causing hormonal changes such as an increase in corstisol and other stress chemicals. There is quite a bit of evidence that high cortisol causes weight gain. This means that we are not doing the best thing for our bodies and our health and weight loss can suffer as our bodies try to cope with the stress
  • GnosisGnosis
    GnosisGnosis Posts: 148
    Options
    Carolyn, everything you have posted is completely irrelevant to this thread. I am asking for non-anecdotal, scientifically sound studies that prove that starvation mode even exists. If MFP is really interested in getting the most objectively sound information to their subscribers, this is something that should have already been done, which is why I've posted in website suggestions. I have posted links to peer-reviewed studies that show that starvation mode does not exist unless you fast for your review, but you seem to have completely skipped them.
  • carolyn0613
    carolyn0613 Posts: 162 Member
    Options
    "There is some evidence that a faster weight loss puts stress on the body, causing hormonal changes such as an increase in corstisol and other stress chemicals. "
    Massive weight loss decreases corticosteroid-binding globulin levels and increases free cortisol in healthy obese patients: an adaptive phenomenon?(Pathophysiology/Complications)(Clinical report)
    Manco, Melania ; Fernandez - Real, Jose M. ; Valera - Mora, Maria E. ; Dechaud, Henri ; Nanni, Giuseppe ; Tondolo, Vincenzo ; Calvani, Menotti ; Castagneto, Marco ; Pugeat, Michel ; Mingrone, Geltrude
    Diabetes Care, June, 2007, Vol.30(6), p.1494(7) [Peer Reviewed Journal]
    CONCLUSIONS—After massive weight loss in morbidly obese subjects, an increase of free cortisol was associated with a simultaneous decrease in CBG levels, which might be an adaptive phenomenon relating to environmental changes. This topic, not addressed before, adds new insight into the complex mechanisms linking HPA activity to obesity.

    "There is quite a bit of evidence that high cortisol causes weight gain."
    Obesity and cortisol
    Björntorp, Per ; Rosmond, Roland
    Nutrition, 2000, Vol.16(10), pp.924-936
    Description: Cortisol in obesity is a much-studied problem. Previous information indicates that cortisol secretion is elevated but that circulatory concentrations are normal or low, suggesting that peripheral disappearance rate is elevated. These studies have usually not taken into account the difference between central and peripheral types of obesity. Recent studies using saliva cortisol have indicated that the problem is complex with both high and low secretion of cortisol, perhaps depending on the status of the function of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal gland axis. A significant background factor seems to be environmental stress. The results also suggest that the pattern of cortisol secretion may be important. Other neuroendocrine pathways are also involved, including the central sympathetic nervous system, the gonadal and growth hormone axes, and the leptin system. In concert, these abnormalities seem to be responsible for the abnormal metabolism often seen in central obesity. Several associated polymorphisms of candidate genes may provide a genetic background. Cortisol conversion to inactive metabolites may be a factor increasing central signals to secretion and may add to the increased secretion of cortisol induced by centrally acting factors. Perinatal factors have been found to be involved in the pathogenesis of obesity and its complications. The mechanism involved is not known, but available information suggests that programming of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis may be responsible.

    I also have a problem with 'starvation mode' as although I believe that the evidence I have illustrated above shows that there is an effect of reducing calories too far and too fast which can cause a paradoxical weight gain but clearly these people are not 'starving'. Perhaps it would be better labeled as 'Stress' mode.

    I do apologise for not reading your initial post properly and providing the links as requested. I hope that this makes up for it and that it shows that my final point was relevant. I would also argue that the other points set the scene for the final point...
  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    When people refer to starvation mode, what they really should be talking about is thermogenic adaptation. Eating very low calories on certain days here and there will not doing anything, but eating low calories for a prolonged period of times will cause your metabolism to slow and adapt to the decreased calorie intake, and will decrease metabolic capacity. If you'd like you can read the paper I linked too.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567126
  • FitForeverAgain
    FitForeverAgain Posts: 330 Member
    Options
    How about we stop trying to be scientists / nutritional gurus. 98% of the things we pontificate about on these forums can be boiled down to these simple things:

    1) Don't sweat the details.
    2) Eat cleaner, take in less than you use daily.
    3) Workout longer and more intensely.
    4) Repeat the above every day.
    5) You will screw up. If that happens, start at 1 - keep going.

    All the other theories and whitepapers, etc just confuse the hell out of people. There are no secret plateaus, magic pills or shortcuts. It hurts. It takes time. In fact, in the time you've spent looking up whitepapers and bickering, you could have had another workout in...or motivated someone else to do the same.

    Good day - go work out.
  • Showcase_Brodown
    Showcase_Brodown Posts: 919 Member
    Options
    In fact, in the time you've spent looking up whitepapers and bickering, you could have had another workout in...or motivated someone else to do the same.

    It feels like this is a "do, don't think" way of approaching things. While some are satisfied with just going though the motions, others are hungry to understand the finer points of what is going on. It's worthwhile to look things up and discuss if it means you'll understand something better than you did.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    I am paraphrasing Lyle McDonald as I don't remember the exact words, but he said based on his extensive research there is no point at which reducing consumption does not result in an increase in the deficit. There were a lot of "buts" about what is healthy and sustainable and all that, but as far as I know the OP is correct and the scenario commonly described here where weight loss stops or reverses when calories are lowered has never been proven to happen. I have done similar research but not nearly as thorough as Lyle, which is why I reference him. I also believe it does not happen. Crazy stuff does happen when people have very little body fat and I don't think it is good for you to go too low, but that is an opinion. I think 1200 without eating back exercise calories ("net" does not seem to be anything dietitians recognize, BTW) is about as low as you should go and you want more than that after you lose enough body fat.
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    I am paraphrasing Lyle McDonald as I don't remember the exact words, but he said based on his extensive research there is no point at which reducing consumption does not result in an increase in the deficit. There were a lot of "buts" about what is healthy and sustainable and all that, but as far as I know the OP is correct and the scenario commonly described here where weight loss stops or reverses when calories are lowered has never been proven to happen. I have done similar research but not nearly as thorough as Lyle, which is why I reference him. I also believe it does not happen. Crazy stuff does happen when people have very little body fat and I don't think it is good for you to go too low, but that is an opinion. I think 1200 without eating back exercise calories ("net" does not seem to be anything dietitians recognize, BTW) is about as low as you should go and you want more than that after you lose enough body fat.

    I had a link to Lyle's actual quote:
    Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

    In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

    But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
    squirreled away. Besides that quote, there are links to a lot more to support what the OP is saying.
    http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode
  • maybeazure
    maybeazure Posts: 301 Member
    Options
    I have to admit that the little warning that MFP gives at the bottom of the page if I am even 1 calorie below 1200, is a pet peeve of mine too. I know that it's a computer program and it only looks at one day's totals, and doesn't take into account that yesterday I might have eaten 1500. I do understand that also that they want to encourage people to lose in as healthy a way as possible. But I do wish they would pick different verbiage than "starvation mode."
  • GnosisGnosis
    GnosisGnosis Posts: 148
    Options
    How about we stop trying to be scientists / nutritional gurus. 98% of the things we pontificate about on these forums can be boiled down to these simple things:

    1) Don't sweat the details.
    2) Eat cleaner, take in less than you use daily.
    3) Workout longer and more intensely.
    4) Repeat the above every day.
    5) You will screw up. If that happens, start at 1 - keep going.

    All the other theories and whitepapers, etc just confuse the hell out of people. There are no secret plateaus, magic pills or shortcuts. It hurts. It takes time. In fact, in the time you've spent looking up whitepapers and bickering, you could have had another workout in...or motivated someone else to do the same.

    Good day - go work out.

    I've got 7 posts, you've got what 200? How much time could you have spent working out? I work out more than you! Nee nee na nee nee! At 40 years old, you should be beyond the point of bro-science. It's time to put on some big boy pants and learn about the mechanisms by which your physiology functions, it will only make you more effective at what you do. I think my points have spoken for themselves, but MFP doesn't seem interested anyway.
  • GnosisGnosis
    GnosisGnosis Posts: 148
    Options
    "There is some evidence that a faster weight loss puts stress on the body, causing hormonal changes such as an increase in corstisol and other stress chemicals. "
    Massive weight loss decreases corticosteroid-binding globulin levels and increases free cortisol in healthy obese patients: an adaptive phenomenon?(Pathophysiology/Complications)(Clinical report)
    Manco, Melania ; Fernandez - Real, Jose M. ; Valera - Mora, Maria E. ; Dechaud, Henri ; Nanni, Giuseppe ; Tondolo, Vincenzo ; Calvani, Menotti ; Castagneto, Marco ; Pugeat, Michel ; Mingrone, Geltrude
    Diabetes Care, June, 2007, Vol.30(6), p.1494(7) [Peer Reviewed Journal]
    CONCLUSIONS—After massive weight loss in morbidly obese subjects, an increase of free cortisol was associated with a simultaneous decrease in CBG levels, which might be an adaptive phenomenon relating to environmental changes. This topic, not addressed before, adds new insight into the complex mechanisms linking HPA activity to obesity.

    "There is quite a bit of evidence that high cortisol causes weight gain."
    Obesity and cortisol
    Björntorp, Per ; Rosmond, Roland
    Nutrition, 2000, Vol.16(10), pp.924-936
    Description: Cortisol in obesity is a much-studied problem. Previous information indicates that cortisol secretion is elevated but that circulatory concentrations are normal or low, suggesting that peripheral disappearance rate is elevated. These studies have usually not taken into account the difference between central and peripheral types of obesity. Recent studies using saliva cortisol have indicated that the problem is complex with both high and low secretion of cortisol, perhaps depending on the status of the function of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal gland axis. A significant background factor seems to be environmental stress. The results also suggest that the pattern of cortisol secretion may be important. Other neuroendocrine pathways are also involved, including the central sympathetic nervous system, the gonadal and growth hormone axes, and the leptin system. In concert, these abnormalities seem to be responsible for the abnormal metabolism often seen in central obesity. Several associated polymorphisms of candidate genes may provide a genetic background. Cortisol conversion to inactive metabolites may be a factor increasing central signals to secretion and may add to the increased secretion of cortisol induced by centrally acting factors. Perinatal factors have been found to be involved in the pathogenesis of obesity and its complications. The mechanism involved is not known, but available information suggests that programming of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis may be responsible.

    I also have a problem with 'starvation mode' as although I believe that the evidence I have illustrated above shows that there is an effect of reducing calories too far and too fast which can cause a paradoxical weight gain but clearly these people are not 'starving'. Perhaps it would be better labeled as 'Stress' mode.

    I do apologise for not reading your initial post properly and providing the links as requested. I hope that this makes up for it and that it shows that my final point was relevant. I would also argue that the other points set the scene for the final point...

    Fair points, and I agree. I think stress is detrimental to more than just your physical health, your mental health too. And since we need to be mentally strong to continue to be fit, it certainly has a point. Thank you for elaborating. I don't think a correlation necessarily indicates a causation, though. It's all about mind-set and nutrition. If you're eating 1200 calories a day you should probably be getting a nutritional supplement as well, and I definitely wouldn't suggest doing it for too long.

Categories