Starvation mode over-exaggerated

3laine75 · February 2014

Yes you're right. I also don't understand when people say 'eat more' when others have stalled.

It's usually underestimating calories in and inaccurate logging that cause the stall or gain.

I would still be unlikely to advocate or encourage someone to eat below 1000 cals though, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Annie_01 · February 2014

I have to say I don't look at macros at all (just calories). But I know what I am eating is healthy. Lots of fruit, raw veg and salads, humus, tzatki, fish, chicken, porridge, bran flakes, roasted vegetables, pulses etc.

And I am not purposely eating less than 1,200 a day. I have just been tracking it and realising I am eating between 700-1000. I am not stupid, and if I am hungry I eat. I am just finding I am not particularly hungry.

I would say my lifestyle is fairly sedentary but I do simple weights every other day and cardio (20 mins) four times a week. As well as walking 30-40 minutes 5 times a week. Of course I have the odd day where I have a pizza and calories add up and I am probably nearer the 1,800 mark but that probably happens once every 2 weeks or so.

So basically I am just finding I am naturally eating 700-1000 and don't really understand the argument from some people on here that I should be increasing this?

I have no idea how much that you are burning through exercise but even if it is only 200 calories that means on some days that you are only netting 500. In essence on those days you are only giving you body 500 calories to do all the work that it needs to do to not only keep you healthy but to keep you alive.

I try to net 1200 to 1300 hundred calories which means that I have to eat between 1450 to 1550 depending on what type of workout that I do. I average losing 2lbs a week. I estimate that I burn...give or take...around 250 calories through exercise. I can usually tell if I have burned more than that because I am hungrier...so I will eat extra that day.

I pay attention to my body...if I have a week that I am hungry a lot for some reason...I will up my calories to compensate for that...I still lose weight.

I am not going to tell you how to do it...just educate yourself on what you are doing. Don't depend on just reading MFP for your info...go to some more scientific sites...medical sites...read....read...read. Then decide what you think is right for you. I have learned a lot on MFP but before I will follow some of the advice I will do some independent research from reliable sources.

neanderthin · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

Not necessarily. Your getting adequate energy, most nutrients are derived from the foods we consume, so if you eat too little it would difficult to meet those needs. A multi, fish oil, vit D is what I am using right now, but I live in Canada otherwise I wouldn't use vit D. .

3laine75 · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

189 at 5'7 is not massively overweight. I'll stick my neck out here and say that if I were you, I'd be eating more. There's no way you can be adequately hitting your macros, never mind micros at that deficit.

cwolfman13 · February 2014

The way people talk about it here, doesn't work that way.

That said what you're doing isn't healthy at all...I seriously doubt you're getting anything remotely resembling proper nutrition...you're also going to do a number on your hormones which is likely to slow you down pretty quick and you're probably going to lose a lot of muscle eating like that as well. Don't be surprised when your hair starts falling out due to malnutrition as well...enjoy...

A lot of folks eating 1200 calories or less are also taking dietary supplements so malnutrition concerns are not there. I know a lot of folk take a good multi-vitamin when dieting. I personally take a lot of dietary supplements and have done so for a number of years. You simply can't say someone is going to have nutritional problems on a low calorie diet unless you know they aren't taking dietary supplements. Obviously, the quality of food on lower calorie diets matters too in providing the necessary micronutrients. The issue of eating lower calories becomes one of listening to your body. If all health modalities are good and you feel good then there is no reason to force yourself to eat more if you don't feel like it. For some, the 'eat more' mantra may be what is stopping them from losing the desired weight. Just saying...

Yeah...there's not like a million threads with little girls losing their hair and cracking nails and losing their periods, etc due to mal-noutrition here on MFP...not at all...just sayin'

So are you pro-ana?

csuhar · February 2014

If I recall correctly, the big deal with the "1200" number, itself, is that 1200 calories is estimated to be the amount of food that will provide adequate nutrients. As others have said, you can probably meet your nutrient needs with less, but it will probably need more focus to do so.

The broader "starvation mode" theory is that the body has a survival mechanism that will try to slow down your metabolism if it detects a "famine" by virtue of what you're consuming. You don't necessarily stop losing weight, but it becomes a slower process.

I think there's also something of a hidden "danger" in that, if your metabolism is reduced to that "starvation" level, if you eat above that, metabolically you'd be in a surplus and your body is going to hold onto that. So, even though a caloric needs calculator may say you should be losing or maintaing at a given level, you'd be gaining because constant consumption of lower calorie levels has prompted your metabolism to adjust.

But such a number would be different for everyone. I'm 6'2 and pretty active and just my BMR tends to be in the neighborhood of 2000 calories without factoring in that activity. So eating 1200 calories would probably be more detrimental to me and my performance than it would to someone who is smaller and / or less active.

That's why I'm an advocate of saying we each need do sit down, assess our situation from multiple perspectives, spend the time to use the calculators, and trust the numbers. By "assessing our situation from multiple perspectives", I mean to make sure we look at various ways to gauge our health beyond simple weight. So, we should look at a combination of things like our weight, BMI, BMR, activity level, and body composition. We may find out that, while our mental goal may be to lose 50 pounds, we might not have that much material to lose on our bodies.

If the numbers indicate that eating at or below 1200 is what you should do, then consider it, but make sure you still take in all the other nutrients you need beyond simple calories.

Annie_01 · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

Unless you get testing done...you have no way of knowing if you are getting the enough of those nutrients from stored fat. The best way is to track it through the foods that you consume. I am 5'6" and 192...I have a lot of fat! Even at 1500 calories I was not getting enough of several things that I need. One was iron...another was potassium and calcium. I take a multi for the iron because no matter what I ate I just couldn't get it to where it needed to be. For the potassium and calcium I made sure to add in enough foods to meet those...even then my potassium seems to be always right below the minimum required.

How would you determine what nutrients you are getting from your stored fat?

xCarpeDiemx24 · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

Unless you get testing done...you have no way of knowing if you are getting the enough of those nutrients from stored fat. The best way is to track it through the foods that you consume. I am 5'6" and 192...I have a lot of fat! Even at 1500 calories I was not getting enough of several things that I need. One was iron...another was potassium and calcium. I take a multi for the iron because no matter what I ate I just couldn't get it to where it needed to be. For the potassium and calcium I made sure to add in enough foods to meet those...even then my potassium seems to be always right below the minimum required.

How would you determine what nutrients you are getting from your stored fat?

Sorry my mistake I meant calories and energy not nutrients.

csuhar · February 2014

*edited- saw the clarification I was going to make happened while I was typing.*

princessariane · February 2014

The complications are true. My dad went on a drastic lifestyle change where he consumed way too few calories, and ended up with gallstones and eventually surgery to remove it. Talk to a nutritionist before eating only 700 calories a day.

jmv7117 · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

Not necessarily. Your getting adequate energy, most nutrients are derived from the foods we consume, so if you eat too little it would difficult to meet those needs. A multi, fish oil, vit D is what I am using right now, but I live in Canada otherwise I wouldn't use vit D. .

I'm in Canada too. Just an FYI, the research is coming out on the negative effects of Vitamin D supplementation with the recommendation the supplements be removed from the shelves. I bought some and had only taken one dose when I read the first warning. I'll see if I can find the link for you.

Quasita · February 2014

I speak up on a lot of VLCD and "starvation" posts because people are often misinformed.

Starvation mode is not so much a myth as it is a clinical condition that develops over the course of long-term VLCD. Generally speaking, eating/netting under 1000 calories a day is considered anorexic and/or bulimic levels, and it concerns me greatly to see people advocating what is basically a voluntary eating disorder development.

This is not me saying that you can't get nutrients or feel "okay" on VLCD. I know there are many people who do... also many people that are certain that if they take a bunch of vitamins to make up for what they don't get in food, they are okay. Well, vitamins are great to a certain extent but many OTC pills do not breakdown nearly enough to provide their listed contents in full. Many also pretty much require that you eat something substantial when you take them, in order to keep them from emptying out of the stomach. If you take vitamins on an empty stomach, you're wasting money, most likely.

Anyway, the way people worry about starvation on this site is kinda crazy. While it is true that if you push past your hunger signals, your body will eventually give up, it is not exactly a good thing.

I tend to fall back on this logic. Someone who has had gastric bypass surgery will be given a dietary plan that is very specific. A sedentary patient looking to lose significant amounts of weight from GB will not be scheduled to eat any less than 1000 calories, and they are put on a strict regimen of supplements as well. If you are not a bypass patient, why would you eat like one?

Studies have come out that suggest that while we like to think 3500calories=1 pound, our bodies don't work like that. Cutting 3500 calories a week will not guarantee that you will lose a pound. Cutting more than that doesn't guarantee that you will lose any faster... and in reality, it will set you up to GAIN faster if you increase calories, and lose slower when you're trying to lose. Speaking as someone that destroyed their body's natural metabolic response through VLCD, and is still working 15 years later to fix all the damage, I would highly recommend reviewing your thought process on it.

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Quasita · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

Not necessarily. Your getting adequate energy, most nutrients are derived from the foods we consume, so if you eat too little it would difficult to meet those needs. A multi, fish oil, vit D is what I am using right now, but I live in Canada otherwise I wouldn't use vit D. .

I'm in Canada too. Just an FYI, the research is coming out on the negative effects of Vitamin D supplementation with the recommendation the supplements be removed from the shelves. I bought some and had only taken one dose when I read the first warning. I'll see if I can find the link for you.

I have seen no research on this, but plenty of new studies that suggest Vitamin D is a super-supplement for people suffering from nerve disorders. Recent studies show preliminary results supporting the use of high doses as a means to combat MS and things like fibromyalgia. I'm very interested in this link that you've apparently found, but I tend to defer to the NIH or Mayo Clinic for any information regarding health.

After writing my response, I decided to plug "Vitamin D warnings" in to a search engine. The NIH still widely supports the use of it to treat many conditions. The only stories I could find that suggested retail market impact are dated back in 2011.
While there is a risk of toxicity with this vitamin, like any other, there are a lot of reasons to incorporate supplementation, especially during the winter. People just need to monitor and regulate with their physicians.

neanderthin · February 2014

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Don't think starvation mode is a medical term, but it's not surprising that a Dr might use it to describe metabolism dysfunction or that they may not understand it fully.

Quasita · February 2014

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Don't think starvation mode is a medical term, but it's not surprising that a Dr might use it to describe metabolism dysfunction or that they may not understand it fully.

Starvation is very much a medical term, and is repeatedly documented as a diagnosis attributed to patients with eating disorders. My chart literally says "starvation mode" under the analysis of my blood work. There are thyroid tests that they can do that demonstrate the unique situation that is starvation mode, that is not the same as thyroid dysfunction or hypo/hyper-thyroidism.

It's very easy to find a ton of resources that describe starvation as a clinical term. Starvation is defined as prolonged mal-nourishment resulting in significantly low levels of not only calories, but vitamins and other nutrients. There is a difference between being completely starved, and being just in starvation. One has a high mortality rate, one a high morbidity rate. Both are terribly damaging to the human body.

The diagnosis has been repeated several times, by several facilities. Just because a person hasn't heard of it doesn't make it less of a reality. I don't EVER want to see someone else have to deal with the crap I've had to deal with. The perpetuation of this idea that VLCD has no long term effect is ludicrous to me.

Azchange · February 2014

tl;dr

under X amount and metabolism slows. you need nutrients. multivitamins generally suck.

end

neanderthin · February 2014

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Don't think starvation mode is a medical term, but it's not surprising that a Dr might use it to describe metabolism dysfunction or that they may not understand it fully.

Starvation is very much a medical term, and is repeatedly documented as a diagnosis attributed to patients with eating disorders. My chart literally says "starvation mode" under the analysis of my blood work. There are thyroid tests that they can do that demonstrate the unique situation that is starvation mode, that is not the same as thyroid dysfunction or hypo/hyper-thyroidism.

It's very easy to find a ton of resources that describe starvation as a clinical term. Starvation is defined as prolonged mal-nourishment resulting in significantly low levels of not only calories, but vitamins and other nutrients. There is a difference between being completely starved, and being just in starvation. One has a high mortality rate, one a high morbidity rate. Both are terribly damaging to the human body.

The diagnosis has been repeated several times, by several facilities. Just because a person hasn't heard of it doesn't make it less of a reality. I don't EVER want to see someone else have to deal with the crap I've had to deal with. The perpetuation of this idea that VLCD has no long term effect is ludicrous to me.

Thanks for the information, I'll take a look at it more closely.

neanderthin · February 2014

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Don't think starvation mode is a medical term, but it's not surprising that a Dr might use it to describe metabolism dysfunction or that they may not understand it fully.

Starvation is very much a medical term, and is repeatedly documented as a diagnosis attributed to patients with eating disorders. My chart literally says "starvation mode" under the analysis of my blood work. There are thyroid tests that they can do that demonstrate the unique situation that is starvation mode, that is not the same as thyroid dysfunction or hypo/hyper-thyroidism.

It's very easy to find a ton of resources that describe starvation as a clinical term. Starvation is defined as prolonged mal-nourishment resulting in significantly low levels of not only calories, but vitamins and other nutrients. There is a difference between being completely starved, and being just in starvation. One has a high mortality rate, one a high morbidity rate. Both are terribly damaging to the human body.

The diagnosis has been repeated several times, by several facilities. Just because a person hasn't heard of it doesn't make it less of a reality. I don't EVER want to see someone else have to deal with the crap I've had to deal with. The perpetuation of this idea that VLCD has no long term effect is ludicrous to me.

Thanks for the information, I'll take a look at it more closely.

Well, so far I haven't found the term "starvation mode" in 4 medical reference dictionaries, I'll keep looking.

SephiraRose · February 2014

So much information I have been curious about this as well.

purpleleopard76 · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.

189 at 5'7 is not massively overweight. I'll stick my neck out here and say that if I were you, I'd be eating more. There's no way you can be adequately hitting your macros, never mind micros at that deficit.

This ^^

Out of interest - what is your BMR?

I am 5'3" and 179 lbs. My BMR is aroung 1550 cals - so that's what my body would need for my organs to function properly and keep me alive if I laid in bed all day and did nothing. At 189 lbs and 5'7" your BMR has got to be higher than mines. At a minimum this is what I would be eating.

I have a desk job and workout 3 or 4 times a week (mostly strength training with occasional intervals) so I'm not overly active and my maintenance calories are around 2000 - 2400 per day depending on my workouts.

If I go below 1500 calories I feel shaky and get headaches so I tend to not go there. I don't see the point in deliberately making myself feel crap and running the risk of a binge later because I haven't fuelled my body properly.

I haven't lost a whole lot of pounds on the scale, but I have lost a lot of inches. That's because while losing body fat I have managed to gain a few pounds of lean muscle which helps to boost metabolism and burn the fat. I don't even use the scale as a guide anymore, I use a tape measure, the mirror and my clothes.

I could cut my calories and lose "weight" quicker (ie body fat, water AND lean muscle) but this will only serve to lower my metabolic rate, meaning that when I go back to eating normally at maintenance my metabolism will be slower and therefore there is a real risk of gaining back some of the lost fat. One of the keys to lasting weight / fat loss is maintaining your metabolic rate which means maintaining lean muscle mass while losing body fat, which means not cutting calories so drastically that your body effectively eats itself for energy.

Low calorie diets will cause long-term hormonal effects including appetite control hormones which leads to binge eating.
Each time you crash diet you exchange muscle for fat and slow your metaboilsm even more. Then when the weight goes back on it goes on as fat because your not burning off those extra calories as efficiently as before.

Here starts the yo-yo diet cycle. You restrict the calories again and once again the body will break down muscle for fuel, reducing metabolism even more and for those who have done one low calorie diet after another, wondering why it's getting harder and harder each time to lose weight, it's because eventually lean body mass is reduced so much through continual low calorie dieting and metabolism has slowed so much, that the diets that worked before no longer work. Each time you gain back weight your body fat % is higher than before as you've reduced lean muscle mass. Even if weight is not gained back you will be "skinny fat" with low muscle tone.

Personally I think the best way forward is to increase the calories to a sensible level (usually by deducting a percentage from your maintenance calories, not below BMR), strength train to increase lean muscle and yes the number on the scale may go up, but you will be healthier, less irritable, sleep better, have more energy and better skin/hair. You will lose fat if you have a calorie deficit and increase metabolism if strength training and eating enough protein, and who cares about the number on the scale if your body composition changes and you get smaller and feel stronger and healthier.

For me, and I'm sure lots of others will agree, eating at such a low calorie intake can only be a form of torture and who would want to deliberately starve and torture themselves. I would rather have food as my friend and enjoy eating and move my *kitten* a bit more to create that calorie deficit.

Please rethink your diet for your own sake and eat more to prevent health problems in the future. :flowerforyou:

Quasita · February 2014

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Don't think starvation mode is a medical term, but it's not surprising that a Dr might use it to describe metabolism dysfunction or that they may not understand it fully.

Starvation is very much a medical term, and is repeatedly documented as a diagnosis attributed to patients with eating disorders. My chart literally says "starvation mode" under the analysis of my blood work. There are thyroid tests that they can do that demonstrate the unique situation that is starvation mode, that is not the same as thyroid dysfunction or hypo/hyper-thyroidism.

It's very easy to find a ton of resources that describe starvation as a clinical term. Starvation is defined as prolonged mal-nourishment resulting in significantly low levels of not only calories, but vitamins and other nutrients. There is a difference between being completely starved, and being just in starvation. One has a high mortality rate, one a high morbidity rate. Both are terribly damaging to the human body.

The diagnosis has been repeated several times, by several facilities. Just because a person hasn't heard of it doesn't make it less of a reality. I don't EVER want to see someone else have to deal with the crap I've had to deal with. The perpetuation of this idea that VLCD has no long term effect is ludicrous to me.

Thanks for the information, I'll take a look at it more closely.

Well, so far I haven't found the term "starvation mode" in 4 medical reference dictionaries, I'll keep looking.

Then you didn't read my response appropriately. I stated that starvation is a medical condition, and there's plenty of documentation to support that. I didn't claim that the term "Starvation Mode" would be in a medical dictionary... I stressed the more detailed definition of starvation.

I guess I have to rephrase for nitpckers. I was clinically diagnosed with starvation. My thyroid was noted as functioning in "starvation mode" as in its function reflected a state of starvation.

I generally encourage people to not only read more indepth writing on starvation, but to also read about Refeeding Syndrome. I have dealt with (and still deal with) both, and again, I have no desire to see people follow the same path.

Whatever term you want to use... starvation, adaptive thermogenisis, famine mode, etc. It all comes back to the same concept, where the metabolism will slow down drastically, and the body response is to hoard caloric stores when calories are made available, because the VLCD long term use dieter has established that they will not provide adequate nutrition and energy support.

neanderthin · February 2014

P.S. Before anyone jumps, I was doing VLCD for about 7 years, coupled with bingeing disorder issues. I gained 150+ lbs in less than 2 years and it took 1.5 of hormone therapy to "reprogram" my metabolic response. Clinically diagnosed with starvation mode, it's on my medical charts, it's so far from a myth in my life.

Don't think starvation mode is a medical term, but it's not surprising that a Dr might use it to describe metabolism dysfunction or that they may not understand it fully.

Starvation is very much a medical term, and is repeatedly documented as a diagnosis attributed to patients with eating disorders. My chart literally says "starvation mode" under the analysis of my blood work. There are thyroid tests that they can do that demonstrate the unique situation that is starvation mode, that is not the same as thyroid dysfunction or hypo/hyper-thyroidism.

It's very easy to find a ton of resources that describe starvation as a clinical term. Starvation is defined as prolonged mal-nourishment resulting in significantly low levels of not only calories, but vitamins and other nutrients. There is a difference between being completely starved, and being just in starvation. One has a high mortality rate, one a high morbidity rate. Both are terribly damaging to the human body.

The diagnosis has been repeated several times, by several facilities. Just because a person hasn't heard of it doesn't make it less of a reality. I don't EVER want to see someone else have to deal with the crap I've had to deal with. The perpetuation of this idea that VLCD has no long term effect is ludicrous to me.

Thanks for the information, I'll take a look at it more closely.

Well, so far I haven't found the term "starvation mode" in 4 medical reference dictionaries, I'll keep looking.

Then you didn't read my response appropriately. I stated that starvation is a medical condition, and there's plenty of documentation to support that. I didn't claim that the term "Starvation Mode" would be in a medical dictionary... I stressed the more detailed definition of starvation.

I guess I have to rephrase for nitpckers. I was clinically diagnosed with starvation. My thyroid was noted as functioning in "starvation mode" as in its function reflected a state of starvation.

I generally encourage people to not only read more indepth writing on starvation, but to also read about Refeeding Syndrome. I have dealt with (and still deal with) both, and again, I have no desire to see people follow the same path.

Whatever term you want to use... starvation, adaptive thermogenisis, famine mode, etc. It all comes back to the same concept, where the metabolism will slow down drastically, and the body response is to hoard caloric stores when calories are made available, because the VLCD long term use dieter has established that they will not provide adequate nutrition and energy support.

I don't care anymore, thanks. lol

rocknlotsofrolls · February 2014

@OP, I think some of us are brain-washed to believe just about anything we hear or see. Starvation mode is just another crappy myth that's been busted just like the ole "don't eat at bedtime" crapola.

Oh sure, there is a starvation mode alright. It's when you go without eating ANYTHING for a while. Not sure how long, but probably a couple of days would be my guess.

Edited to stess the word "ANYTHING"

Quasita · February 2014

@OP, I think some of us are brain-washed to believe just about anything we hear or see. Starvation mode is just another crappy myth that's been busted just like the ole "don't eat at bedtime" crapola.

Oh sure, there is a starvation mode alright. It's when you go without eating ANYTHING for a while. Not sure how long, but probably a couple of days would be my guess.

Edited to stess the word "ANYTHING"

Incorrect. Starvation can be confirmed at as much as 1600 calories for some average people, depending on their caloric needs. Whether you want to recognize that or not is your business, but the science backs me up on this one.

As stated before, there is a difference between starvation and *complete* starvation. You can eat and be starved. Anorexics are starved and most eat every day, just very little... at least during the beginning stages of the disease. It's the perpetuation of the idea that if you want to lose weight, just eat less than you have been that helps to drive the anorexic to stop eating completely... and at that point, we're talking death.

Even severely restricted diets will result in the reduction of vital organs in size and functionality.

jmv7117 · February 2014

If someone has body fat then they are getting adequate calories and energy from that fat to make up for the deficit, so starvation mode as it's described here, is never going to happen. If someone has no body fat (5-7) to supply those deficit calories and energy, the body deems this real starvation and will protect the low amount of body fat that remains and use muscle, organs etc for that energy so it has a little more time before it actually shuts down our organs and then dies.

That makes a lot of sense actually. Clearly I have fat (I am overweight - 5"7 and 189lb) so by this argument I am still getting all the nutrients from the stored fats.
[/quote]Not necessarily. Your getting adequate energy, most nutrients are derived from the foods we consume, so if you eat too little it would difficult to meet those needs. A multi, fish oil, vit D is what I am using right now, but I live in Canada otherwise I wouldn't use vit D. .
[/quote]

I'm in Canada too. Just an FYI, the research is coming out on the negative effects of Vitamin D supplementation with the recommendation the supplements be removed from the shelves. I bought some and had only taken one dose when I read the first warning. I'll see if I can find the link for you.
[/quote]

I have seen no research on this, but plenty of new studies that suggest Vitamin D is a super-supplement for people suffering from nerve disorders. Recent studies show preliminary results supporting the use of high doses as a means to combat MS and things like fibromyalgia. I'm very interested in this link that you've apparently found, but I tend to defer to the NIH or Mayo Clinic for any information regarding health.

After writing my response, I decided to plug "Vitamin D warnings" in to a search engine. The NIH still widely supports the use of it to treat many conditions. The only stories I could find that suggested retail market impact are dated back in 2011.
While there is a risk of toxicity with this vitamin, like any other, there are a lot of reasons to incorporate supplementation, especially during the winter. People just need to monitor and regulate with their physicians.
[/quote]

Here's the article I went through http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/17/vitamin-d-supplements.aspx Now this is Dr Mercola arguing that the newest Vitamin D controversy is wrong although the review he is referring to "The review found that people taking vitamin D supplements had an increased risk for hip fracture, prompting a call for stricter labeling on vitamin D supplements". The reviews also state that Vitamin D is useless against preventing cancer and heart disease. I'm concerned over the reports of increased fractures at higher doses and more so "The analysis, published in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology,8 looked at 40 previously published randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplements, with or without calcium, concluding that vitamin D supplements do not reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, or bone fractures in the general population by more than 15 percent.". I'm still following up on this and will continue to do so before I start taking it even though I had hoped to get some relief from SAD.

xscat · February 2014

"Starvation mode": maybe.

But you might want to try google the word "Leptin".

BornxVillain · February 2014

Medically, I am not fit to give anyone advice.

I would never want to be in a calorie intake below 1,200 honestly. I average 1.1k - 1.2k a day just fine, and still (somedays) have some hunger pangs, maybe it's because I'm different or eating a little too small of nutrients - whatever it may be, I would never want to because one day I want to eat 'normally' at one point without gaining a hog-load of weight again, and I could maintain 1,200 for the rest of my life happily, honestly - but 700, 800? Goodness no! I am trying to teach my body to get used to the foods that are going in and teach it to metabolize those foods with ease AND lose some weight, not give it a small amount of food and expect that my metabolism will be a lean-mean-fighting machine, because it won't. I'm preparing my body for life after I reach my GW, I'm not gonna let it become my demon. When I was eating 500 calories a day, I got diagnosed with gallstones, at 15 years old and I was hospitalized later on with pancreatitis due to one of my gallstones lodging within my pancreas - I almost died.. at 15 years old because I wanted so badly to be skinny, but now, after my two surgeries and getting back on the bandwagon 2 years later, I know that if I ever want to be healthy AND a lean mean calorie burning machine, I have to feed myself an adequete amount of food so later on in life if I do decide hey, I would really love an ice cream cone today - It won't jepoardize everything I worked for. That's my own personal opinion, and you are more than welcomed to your own.

I hope you are happy and healthy!

Starvation mode over-exaggerated

Replies

Categories