First hand experience with Starvation Mode.

Options
2»

Replies

  • FoodFitnessTravel
    FoodFitnessTravel Posts: 294 Member
    Options
    you say you're approaching disordered eating... take that as a red flag. What do you hope to achieve from this thread? Justifcation to carry on eating way too little?



    "Starvation mode" is a stupid term people use to refer to several changes that can occur in the human body (including behavioural changes) in response to eating too little. There's no "on/off" switch in your head called "starvation mode" - the longer you eat too little for, the more of these things change in ways that make it difficult to stick to a diet long term, or if you're determined enough to carry on eating way too little, will compromise your health

    short term changes may include:
    - obsessing about food
    - increased appetite (sometimes extremely increased)
    - appetite shutting down then coming back with avengence leading to binge eating
    - binge eating
    - feeling tired and run down/lacking energy

    medium term changes:
    - your body using lean mass as fuel to make up the deficit to preserve fat stores for longer, which results in the metabolism slowing because the muscle cells you've lost no longer require the energy they were using to stay alive
    - adaptive thermogenesis - this is further slowing of the metabolism that's not explained by body composition changes. This happens because your body tries to deal with the food shortage by directing less energy into non-essential functions, so you end up feeling cold all the time (less energy is spent heating you), your hair and skin look dull and your hair may fall out (less energy is being invested in keeping your skin and hair healthy), you have menstrual disturbances and your menstrual cycle may stop altogether (less energy being invested in reproduction, or even the reproductive system shutting down altogether), and similar, throughout the body. The result is the body saves energy, but your health deteriorates.
    -rebound fat gain if you binge (likely) or start eating normally again, due to a combination of your metabolism slowing and increased hunger (which may come out of nowhere while your hunger signals are switched off for much of the time)

    long term changes:
    - if the food shortage is really extreme, when your skeletal muscles and fat stores have all been used up keeping you alive, your body then metabolises your organs for energy. Death from multiple organ failure usually follows this.
    - if the food shortage isn't extreme enough for you to starve to death, your body may get to the point where it's burned off enough muscle tissue and done adaptive thermogenesis enough that your low number of calories is now maintenance. At which point you have poor health and all the health risks associated with being underweight and eating too little, yet eating more will result in fat gain. Note that it is possible to get your body out of this state through eating loads and doing exercise to rebuild your muscles,
    - it's hit and miss whether your body reaches this equilibrium first or starves to death first. Usually the calories taken in from binge eating or phases of overeating between the starve cycles to prevent people from starving to death, however this is all going to be stored as fat, and the result is "normal weight obesity" where the person's weight is in the healthy BMI range but their body fat percentage is in the obese range, and their skeletal muscle is wasted away and their bone density is low. With this you have both the health risks of a high body fat percentage combined with the health risks of being underweight (e.g. osteoporosis)



    My advice is get help for your disordered eating and stop looking for justification to carry on with it. "starvation mode" is a stupid term, but your body does adapt in ways that are counterproductive for long term success at dieting and bad for your health if you eat too little, especially if you eat too little for prolonged periods or intersperse starvation cycles with overeating or binge eating. So please just stop eating too little and get help for your disordered eating if you need to.

    This is maybe the most helpful comment i have read on this website. I am normally very restrictive with binge eating tendencies. Actually this weekend i binged so I was going to eat very light until Friday, "to get back to normal" but you made me reconsider. Maybe I should just continue like nothing happened. It makes sense and I've had some of the symptoms before i started with the bingeing episodes. Thank you!!
  • seltzermint555
    seltzermint555 Posts: 10,741 Member
    Options
    I am still totally up in the air on whether starvation mode exists. However, I know that in the past when I was at the top range of my weight...around 290-307 lb there were usually 3-4 weeks at a time that I would eat fewer than 900 cal daily and not lose a single pound. I would decide "I am going to lose this weight once and for all" and go on a diet of granola bar, cucumbers & carrots, 1 slice of frozen pizza and diet soda...and I would lose nothing. Not a single pound. I'm disinclined to believe that I had a rare metabolic disorder, since I've successfully lost 118 lb eating moderately and the last 73 lb in about 1 year by consuming between 1300-1700 calories daily.
  • brittany2188
    Options
    Thank you! I never really understood what "starvation mode" was. (Not that I thought I was ever near that or anything, just from other people discussing it.)
  • I definitely know I was in starvation mode because I logged all of my calories from when I had my eating disorder. Most websites say that at my height and weight (of the time), I should have been consuming anywhere from 1500-1900 calories. On some days, I was lucky if I could eat 500 -- and starvation mode is eating less than half of what you truly need. Considering that half for me was 750-950, I was definitely not doing my body any favors.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,087 Member
    Options
    The thing that annoys me about starvation mode being bandied around on sites like this is the way it trivialises true starvation mode - you know, people in famine areas in the third world who literally starve to death.
    Although very few people ever actually starve to death - what happens is that their emancipated bodies are so malnourished and so weak that they die of things like pneumonia and infective diahrroea ( needless to say, such people do not have access to antibiotics etc)

    Unless you have a mental illness causing extreme anorexia, you are not going to face starvation in first world countries.

    If you are posting on this site, you have electricity and Internet access - you are not somewhere where people are facing starvation mode.
  • Sonicz90x
    Sonicz90x Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    The thing that annoys me about starvation mode being bandied around on sites like this is the way it trivialises true starvation mode - you know, people in famine areas in the third world who literally starve to death.
    Although very few people ever actually starve to death - what happens is that their emancipated bodies are so malnourished and so weak that they die of things like pneumonia and infective diahrroea ( needless to say, such people do not have access to antibiotics etc)

    Unless you have a mental illness causing extreme anorexia, you are not going to face starvation in first world countries.

    If you are posting on this site, you have electricity and Internet access - you are not somewhere where people are facing starvation mode.
    And these people aren't "stalling" their weight loss because they're not eating enough. I hate that argument. So many people are ignorant of how the body actually works.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    The thing that annoys me about starvation mode being bandied around on sites like this is the way it trivialises true starvation mode - you know, people in famine areas in the third world who literally starve to death.
    Although very few people ever actually starve to death - what happens is that their emancipated bodies are so malnourished and so weak that they die of things like pneumonia and infective diahrroea ( needless to say, such people do not have access to antibiotics etc)

    Unless you have a mental illness causing extreme anorexia, you are not going to face starvation in first world countries.

    If you are posting on this site, you have electricity and Internet access - you are not somewhere where people are facing starvation mode.

    That's not "starvation mode" there's no such thing as "starvation mode" - that's starving to death. I believe the medical term is "marasmus"

    Just because people aren't suffering from marasmus does not mean that there are no physical or mental health consequences to eating too little. It also doesn't mean that there are no negative consequences that impact the long term success of people who diet by eating too little. This argument really annoys me, it's basically saying that unless the most extreme example applies, nothing else is real or worth talking about.

    As for anorexia... anyone with anorexia is potentially at risk of starving to death; it has the highest death rate of any mental illness because of this. There's no measure on how severe anorexia is, i.e. there's no such thing as "mild" anorexia. Someone either has anorexia or they don't, and if they have it they're at risk of starving to death if it's not treated and stopped. How close someone is to actually starving to death depends on how long they've been starving themselves and how much fat they had to begin with.

    And the negative health consequences of eating too little kick in long before marasmus does, and if someone isn't eating so little that they're in danger of actually starving to death, they are still at risk of some of the health consequences from eating too little even so. And the behaviours such as obsessing about food and binge eating that make long term maintenance of a healthy body composition extremely difficult, kick in much earlier. So even if they're not at risk of starving to death, they're still at risk of sabotaging their diet and messing up their body composition by being in a cycle of excessive restriction and binge eating, which leads to normal weight obesity, as lean muscle is burned up during the excessive restriction phases, and fat is stored during the bingeing/overeating phases.

    To ignore the consequences of eating too little just because most people are not in danger of suffering from marasmus is illogical and potentially dangerous. Especially given that this thread has been started by someone who says her eating is disordered and is clearly looking for justification to continue with disordered eating rather than getting help or trying to eat a regular, healthy diet.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,087 Member
    Options
    That's not what I'm saying.

    Yes I agree you could die of starvation or illnesses related to extreme under nourishment in a first world country if you had a mental illness whereby you starved yourself in the presence of food (Karen Carpenter, for example)
    I said that in my post.

    I do think there are spectrums of eating disorders - its not either you have one or you don't. Fortunately not everyone who has an eating disorder gets to that extreme.

    I agree there are health issues related to not eating enough even though food is available in first world countries - I didn't say otherwise.
    and I didnt say such issues should not be addressed.

    What I object to is the use of the word starvation and starving in non starving contexts - someone who under eats by, say, 500 calories a day may well have health issues - but they are not in starvation mode or starvation anything.

    Like when people have had breakfast and then say I'm starving, when is morning tea?
    They are not starving.

    Maybe I'm just being pedantic and yes, I know everyone knows the word starving in such context is not meant literally - but just annoys me.