How genuine is "starvation mode"?

2»

Replies

  • branbuds
    branbuds Posts: 624 Member
    Agree!

    I wonder if the OP is referring to the "starvation mode" that is often referred to when someone posts, as you say,

    1. Hold onto fat when we eat too little
    2. Create fat when we eat too little

    It is irritating to see the above advice offered so often when someone complains about losing weight too slowly or not at all.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    OP, what was your body fat % and lean body mass before starting, and then after?
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    I usually go into starvation mode whenever I am depressed and not happy it lasts for a few days to a week
    Not eating enough during depression is not the same as starvation mode. Not at all.
  • fit_little_britt
    fit_little_britt Posts: 8
    most normal people will not hit starvation mode.
    trust me.
    I have been battling an eating disorder since I was about 15 and my body is *ruined* from starvation mode...because I essentially ate under 750 calories (eventually I stopped eating for periods of up to two weeks) and forced myself to throw up.
    starvation mode isn't going to happen because you only ate 1200 calories or missed a meal or aren't losing weight.
    your body may have just gotten used to your routine and needs change
    starvation mode happens when you STARVE YOUR BODY AND IT WANTS NUTRIENTS SO IT STORES EVERYTHING (WATER INCLUDED) THAT YOU CONSUME.
    and your metabolism certainly suffers. mine has.
    i think a lot of you are worried about something that isn't going to happen. weight loss just tends to slow down once you get closer to your range.
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    most normal people will not hit starvation mode.
    trust me.
    I have been battling an eating disorder since I was about 15 and my body is *ruined* from starvation mode...because I essentially ate under 750 calories (eventually I stopped eating for periods of up to two weeks) and forced myself to throw up.
    starvation mode isn't going to happen because you only ate 1200 calories or missed a meal or aren't losing weight.
    your body may have just gotten used to your routine and needs change
    starvation mode happens when you STARVE YOUR BODY AND IT WANTS NUTRIENTS SO IT STORES EVERYTHING (WATER INCLUDED) THAT YOU CONSUME.
    and your metabolism certainly suffers. mine has.
    i think a lot of you are worried about something that isn't going to happen. weight loss just tends to slow down once you get closer to your range.

    Very much agreed.

    I've written a couple blog posts discussing the establishment of starvation and clinical diagnosis of starvation in eating disordered individuals, due to the fact that so many people on MFP do not understand that it is a real situation that faces a small percentage of people.

    Common misconceptions:
    1. Starving individuals are emaciated
    2. Fat people can't have eating disorders
    3. Starving and dying of starvation are the same thing (how many times are people try to compare people actively starving themselves to the bloated bellies in Africa?)
    4. Eating disorders are curable
    5. There are no long-term damages to metabolism caused by disordered eating.

    It is true that the average, normal person is not going to experience starvation mode. However, those of us that battle the beast, so to speak, have firsthand experience with the physiological and psychological impact.
    My own experience of progressive undereating and anorexia cycled to a period of time where I would starve myself, then have emotional binge events, during which I gained almost the entirety of my excess weight. My disordered response turned to bulimia after a certain point, to try and counteract the binge aspect, but by then, I was screwed.

    It's taken a very long time for me to establish solid recovery mode, but I still have problems at times. Luckily, with the combination of thyroid hormone treatment and therapeutic refeeding, I have been able to more or less normalize my metabolism. Unfortunately, it didn't turn around until I had hit 485 pounds.

    Things can get better, but every day, it's a choice. We make active decisions to combat our inclinations, and many people just don't have the capacity to understand that.
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    Apparently I can't edit my typos and it's driving me crazy. CRAZY I TELL YA! :)
  • katesnewbody
    katesnewbody Posts: 62 Member
    no, I took a break and ate about 2000 calories a day when not dieting
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Hi guys!

    I just never really understood the whole "oh, if you eat less than the magical number of 1200 cals per day, your body will fight back, and cling to fat to preserve itself!"
    I lost a good 20 pounds (doesn't sound like much, but I was not overweight when I started losing weight, so it;s a relative victory :) by eating 700-1200 a day, usually under 1200.

    I shed inches at a steady rate, as I was actually more focused on inches than weight, since weight can fluctuate from day to day due to water intake/retention and other functions. It's been 2 years and the most I've gained back is 2-3 pounds over holidays and my inches have stayed the same.

    I don't know if I'm a different case or something, but wouldn't that suggest the whole "starvation mode" thing is sort of a myth people sue to scare others about undereating? Any discussion on this? :)

    You're not a different case. If you barely eat, you will lose weight. And contrary to popular belief, not all people will look like a bowl of muscle-less jelly after fast weight loss either.

    The rate of loss is far less important than the ability to maintain AFTER the loss. And this is where the majority of people fail. They are unable to go from eating at a severe deficit to increasing calories and maintaining. They either go crazy from the deprivation, binge, and not lose weight. Or they do lose weight, still go crazy from the deprivation and obsession with food, and then work overtime to OVEReat and make up for what they did not have. And BOOM, fat again.

    Personally, I've lost fast and I've lost slow. In both cases I've regained weight. Slow weight loss offered me ZERO advantages, and one key disadvantage; it made the tedious work of losing slowly seem like an even bigger waste since I gained it all back at a similar rate I did after swift weight loss.

    If you're able to lose fast and make a sane transition back, do it. That's what I do now. I'm very much able to deal with deprivation in a way that does not send me binging, or obsessing about food. I'd rather lose quickly and then stabilize, because I have a very healthy relationship with food and hunger that allow me to do that now. So I do deep cuts, and if/when I need to take breaks from the cuts, I do and will just eat what I like. However that strength took a very long time to develop, with a lot of trial and error. I no longer "love" food, and am not obsessed with eating, which helps a lot.

    So I prefer to cut fast, and then maintain. I don't have any real issues anymore being able to transition from deep cuts to "normal" eating.
  • DamianaKitten
    DamianaKitten Posts: 479 Member


    If you're able to lose fast and make a sane transition back, do it. That's what I do now. I'm very much able to deal with deprivation in a way that does not send me binging, or obsessing about food. I'd rather lose quickly and then stabilize, because I have a very healthy relationship with food and hunger that allow me to do that now. So I do deep cuts, and if/when I need to take breaks from the cuts, I do and will just eat what I like. However that strength took a very long time to develop, with a lot of trial and error. I no longer "love" food, and am not obsessed with eating, which helps a lot.

    So I prefer to cut fast, and then maintain. I don't have any real issues anymore being able to transition from deep cuts to "normal" eating.

    And just how often do you have to do those "deep cuts"? :huh:

    If you are cycling through "deep cuts" and then "normal" eating, you are not developing a healthy relationship with food. Success is losing the weight and keeping it off. If you haven't been able to do that, your "deep cut" followed by "normal" eating isn't really normal eating, it's going back to over eating.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    I think it's very real in some cases.I have never really had much of an appetite even though I have been overweight most of my life. I've been trying to lose weight by exercising for the last couple of years and haven't lost anything no matter what I do,and actually gained weight when I started eating salads in hopes it would help me start losing.I recently started using MFP and had to start making myself eat to even get to the 1200 calories. I've never tried to starve myself, I simply wasn't hungry or would forget to eat when I did feel hungry,and averaged eating once a day .I make everything from scratch, eat healthy food and rarely go out to eat. The same week I started forcing myself to eat 3 times a day,and get at least 1200 calories in,I lost 5# . When I get hungry now,I feel like I haven't eaten in a week and have to find food,so I assume my metabolism is awake now and starting to work .

    My 400lbs cousin use to make the exact same claims. I "barely eat" and am "hardy hungry" is a common narrative amongst the overweight and obese.

    And then, as if by magic, they start calorie counting and eating "1200 calories a day", and voila, they're suddenly losing.

    It's not because of starvation mode. You didn't lose because eating more kick started your metabolism. You simple were eating far more calories than you were accountable for, but didn't realize it because it didn't "feel" like a lot. Now it seems like you're eating more calories, but you really aren't. It just feels that way because you are finally actually paying attention meticulously to your intake.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member


    And just how often do you have to do those "deep cuts"? :huh:

    If you are cycling through "deep cuts" and then "normal" eating, you are not developing a healthy relationship with food. Success is losing the weight and keeping it off. If you haven't been able to do that, your "deep cut" followed by "normal" eating isn't really normal eating, it's going back to over eating.

    HA!

    Sorry, barking up the wrong tree. This grown man doesn't do internet eating disorder diagnosis from the peanut gallery.

    I lost weight and maintained it for years. I have a great relationship with food now, even better than then. During this particular weight loss cycle I cut 45 lbs, maintained for a year and a half, before launching back into more active weight loss.

    Thanks for your concern, but I'm doing very well.

    P.S. I said "normal" eating. I rarely consume over 2,500 calories a day. I can count on two hands how many days I've truly "overeaten" in the last 3 years.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,377 Member
    Try these links for some actual Science...

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

    I'm going to add another. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    I personally hate the term "starvation mode" because of how misunderstood the concept is. To quote one of the best movies ever..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    "Chronic undereating" or "sustained malnutrition" would both be more useful and accurate. It's eating an insufficient number of calories over a long period of time, which is distinctly different from anorexia nervosa. (Anorexia nervosa, clinically speaking, has some very specific diagnostic criteria. Plenty of people can have an unhealthy relationship with food and be underfed without actually being anorexic).

    Eating under 1200 calories isn't the same thing, unless you sustain that for a long period of time. It's still not a good idea, but we should be able to articulate the difference between having short periods of eating too little vs. being chronically underfed.
  • ashbridgewater
    ashbridgewater Posts: 1
    I recently was reading about macros and in order to determine the amount of calories you should never cut lower than, you must consider your lean body mass, not your overall mass. For example, someone at 20% body fat will need less calories than someone only at 10% body fat. Muscle burns nutrients and calories. So the 1200 calorie assumption is way too general for everyone to go by.
  • katesnewbody
    katesnewbody Posts: 62 Member
    thank you SO much! what you are saying makes total sense! AT LAST someone who is making sense, and isn't trying to scare me away from undereating. (which, by the way, is essentially what dieting IS.)


    and as for overweight people who claim they "barely" eat, I agree 100%. You CANNOT maintain a body mass that high without eating the calories to sustain it. If you could, people wouldn't starve to death in third world countries; they'd simply be obese, without eating much. so I call BS on the poster who claimed they ate barely anything while they were overweight/obese.
  • katesnewbody
    katesnewbody Posts: 62 Member
    thank you SO much! what you are saying makes total sense! AT LAST someone who is making sense, and isn't trying to scare me away from undereating. (which, by the way, is essentially what dieting IS.)


    and as for overweight people who claim they "barely" eat, I agree 100%. You CANNOT maintain a body mass that high without eating the calories to sustain it. If you could, people wouldn't starve to death in third world countries; they'd simply be obese, without eating much. so I call BS on the poster who claimed they ate barely anything while they were overweight/obese.

    AH that was meant to be a reply to "Iwishyouwell".
  • charleenboyle
    charleenboyle Posts: 1
    I know for a fact that "starvation mode" exists. It isn't called STARVATION MODE it is called DIET INDUCED HYPOTHRYOIDISM or LOW T3 SYNDROME just in case you'd like to look those things up.

    It shows as low T3 in a Free T3 thyroid test. Basically since you aren't eating enough your body slows down everything so that it can continue to function.

    Your heart rate will be in the 50's, you won't lose weight no matter what you do, you'll be extremely tired, you might have shortness of breath, and be really cold all the time. Among other things...

    Granted you'd have to be eating under 1200 calories for over a month and up to 6 months in order for this to happen and most people have no idea it is happening. They stop losing weight, get discouraged, stop their diet...then pack on the pounds.

    You can literally mess up your metabolism forever. And let me tell you something...it isn't fun. I know what I'm talking about. It happened to me (is happening) and now if I stray from my current eating habits I'll gain weight - and I have to take T3 supplements. I'm still very very tired...all the time.

Categories