Starvation mode is a myth!

vismal
vismal Posts: 2,463 Member
I have seen countless threads in my short time here on the forums and I see a very common theme. Many people are talking about starvation mode. This is a mythical mode that body switches into when you eat to little. Supposedly you stop losing fat because, well, no one seems to know, you just do. In reality this does not occur! The body does not cease to lose fat when large caloric deficits are present. This is supported by both research and anecdotal observation. Before I go on let me clairify that I am not an advocate of VLCD (very low calorie dieting) and I will explain why in this post. I simply wish to dispel the myth that is "starvation mode".

The Minnesota starvation experiment is one of the best research studies done to prove this point. Subjects went on "starvation" level calories for a prolonged period of time. Did their bodies shift into starvation mode and stop losing fat? No! On average subjects lost 25% of their total body weight, and they were of healthy weight for height prior to beginning the experiment. They did see a slowdown of their metabolic rates (calories needed to maintain bodily functions). But this was just a slowdown. It in no way stopped weight loss.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, we can look to some of mankind's darkest moments to see a glimpse of starvation mode NOT occurring. How many fat Holocaust survivor pictures do you see? How many obese people does one notice in countries where prolonged famine has led to people not eating for days? When people go on prolonged hunger strikes or fast for religious purposes do they typically weigh the same or a great deal less then when they started?

So what does happen to the body during periods of VLCD? In the short term, not much. You can VLCD for 2 weeks with very little metabolic changes. What about longer? Well this is when some negative side effects will start to occur. Decreases in energy level, training performance, sex drive, mood, and resting metabolic rate can occur. Again, the decrease in RMR WILL NOT be enough to halt fat loss.

So if starvation mode really doesn't exist why do so many people stop losing weight after periods of eating low levels of calories? There are many answers. My belief is a lot of people suck at counting calories. Many people measure solid foods in things like cups and tablespoons. Those things are meant to measure liquids. If you start weighing your food you will see how much you have really been overeating. I starting weighing peanut butter and found that my typical 1 tbsp was actually 2 when weighed out. That's a 100 calorie difference. I used to eat peanut butter daily. That's 700 calories at the end of the week which equates to an entire lb of potential fat loss ruined at the end of a month. And that is just 1 food! Are you guessing what 4oz of steak is? I bet your estimation is off. Recent studies show people can underestimate the calories in a meal by upwards of 40%. Weighing solid foods is a big step towards accurate calorie counting. Remember, MFP is only as good as the information you enter!

Another reason weight loss can stall on VLCD is water retention. Dieting in general is a stress to the body. Cortisol levels can increase and cause water retention to occur. How many of you have been stalled for 2-3 weeks then had a cheat day then magically lost 3 or 4 lbs within the next couple of days? Lots of us! This is due to water retention. Once the body enters a period of overfeeding it can release a lot of the water it has been holding. Alcohol can have this same effect.

I said I would talk about why I do not advocate VLCD. It sucks! Both mentally and physically it just flat out sucks! It is very hard to stick to long term. The decrease in sex drive alone is enough to send me running for the hills. Your training will suffer, your energy levels will suffer, your mood will suffer, your significant other will most certainly suffer (see sex drive)! The one thing that will not occur however, is "starvation mode".

So what is the answer to breaking a plateau or stall? First and foremost make sure your calorie counting is on point. I would venture a bet that over 75% of the people on here that think they are eating 1200 calories a day are actually eating WAY more then that. Either through poor tracking, not weighing food, eating out where estimation is common, having cheat days, or simply lying to themselves, their calorie count is simply not low enough to create a deficit. Make sure your counts are SPOT ON!

Are you eating back exercise calories? Well I'm again going to bet that you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are from exercising. I do not eat back exercise calories. When setting my caloric goal I keep my level of exercise in mind. I'd much rather eat 2500 calories a day and not worry about exercise calories then eat 2000 calories a day and try to count back very much estimated exercise calorie burn. If my weight loss stalls at 2500 I simply will reduce the number. I find that eating the same calories every day makes adjustment much easier. The only time I would actually eat back calories is if I do some sort of endurance event. If you typically don't exercise much but then kayak for 6 hours while on vacation, sure eat some of those back. Bu fort your day to day normal exercise I simply find it is easier to just account for that in your calorie goal.

Finally, sometimes you just need to wait. A stall is not a stall unless 3 weeks has gone by. By that time any weight loss being masked by by water retention should be starting to give way. If you are freaking out because 5 days went by with no weight loss, relax and give it some time. If you are in a deficit, the weight will eventually subside. Thanks to anyone who made it this far, long post, I know!



TL/DR: Starvation mode doesn't exist but their are plenty of other reasons why very low calorie dieting is bad (if your calorie count is accurate).
«13456

Replies

  • Tla0126
    Tla0126 Posts: 207 Member
    Thank you for your well thought out explanation. It will certainly give me something to think about if I stall for a week or two... And I know you're spot-on when it comes to portion size. Weighing is always accurate. Always.
  • This content has been removed.
  • eddiecastro77
    eddiecastro77 Posts: 30 Member
    Fantastic post!
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    +1 for this.

    The starvation mode myth was born from the real adaptive thermogenesis whereby your body can slightly dial down its metabolic functions to help make up for a large caloric deficit. It is not magic though, it cannot ever dial down your metabolism so low that you are at a caloric surplus once again. There are certain essential functions that make up the bulk of your BMR including your brain function, your heart beat, your organ function and your body temperature that your body cannot just turn off.

    There is no point at which eating less calories results in less weight loss.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Vismal, what have you started???

    hah hah yeah, here it comes.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,377 Member
    Hmmmm, I don't think you've lost enough weight for people to believe you. :wink: Nice post!
  • gemmamummy
    gemmamummy Posts: 185 Member
    Great post, spot on! :-)
  • horrorfan
    horrorfan Posts: 42 Member
    People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.

    Edit to say: this is why people who suffer from anorexia have bodies that look unhealthy. They are "skinny fat people". All fat and no muscle due to starvation mode
  • vzgregg
    vzgregg Posts: 44 Member
    great post!
  • vismal
    vismal Posts: 2,463 Member
    People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.
    Much of what you say is incorrect. If calories are low but you lift weights and get in adequate protein the body will not attack muscle first. Especially if you have lots of fat present. Doctors don't put people on vlcd because the likelihood they'll stick to it is nill.
  • dmenchac
    dmenchac Posts: 447 Member
    People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.

    Yes its called adaptive thermogenesis and takes years and years to happen. Not one week or two.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.
    Much of what you say is incorrect. If calories are low but you lift weights and get in adequate protein the body will not attack muscle first. Especially if you have lots of fat present. Doctors don't put people on vlcd because the likelihood they'll stick to it is nill.
    Agreed. I read alot about fasting and started it 6 weeks ago and they really emphasize weight training during it.
    They talk about there is such thing as a starvation mode, but it is so far off from what people really think it means. Most think starvation mode would set in if you ate little for a period of time, but in reality it is more like you describe. In the fasting literature it says it took bodies over 72+ hours of fasting to see much of a change in the metabolism.

    and to the person who said why wouldnt Drs put overweight patients on 500 calorie diets?
    Probably for a few reason, one of which being if they are overweight do you really think they can start just eating 500? No way.
    Plus they would lose weight too fast
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.

    Yes its called adaptive thermogenesis and takes years and years to happen. Not one week or two.

    Years and years is a bit of an exaggeration, the minnesota starvation experiment was 24 weeks for example.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    Vismal, what have you started???

    hah hah yeah, here it comes.

    hehe in with my new fav pineapple greek yogurt to watch this unfold...esp considering I saw a thread today that had 2 pages of starvation mode and gaining muscle at a deficet...
  • dmenchac
    dmenchac Posts: 447 Member
    People don't stay away from the starvation mode because it makes them not lose fat. People stay away because it is unhealthy to deprive your body of essential fruits, veggies, vitamins, and minerals. Your body will feed on muscle first. That's why you continue to lose. That's why starving people are weak but a lot don't die on very little calories. The body knows how to survive. If starvation mode weren't existent, doctors would put all overweight patients on 500 calorie diets. Some of what you say is true: you will lose SOME fat and your metabolism from one week of VLCD won't be harmed much, but there is such a thing as starvation mode.

    Yes its called adaptive thermogenesis and takes years and years to happen. Not one week or two.

    Years and years is a bit of an exaggeration, the minnesota starvation experiment was 24 weeks for example.

    Half a year close enough :D

    Point was, starvation mode does exist, but not in the capacity that people claim on this website
  • shmulyeng
    shmulyeng Posts: 472 Member
    Oh are you in for it!

    I agree with almost everything in this post. Ever since I started with MFP, I've been getting the message at the end of the day warning me about starvation mode. Since I was losing weight I kept at it. At one point, after being warned by the app, all these posts on the forums as well as friends, I upped my calories a bit. I immediately stopped losing. I went back to what I was doing and ever since I've been pretty successful. I can attribute the success to not eating back my exercise and weighing most of my food (both pitfalls mentioned by the OP).

    My continued approach is to listen to my body. As long as my energy level is high, I don't try to eat more. If I ever feel fatigued, I up my calories for a few days.

    Thanks OP
  • RatherBeFishing
    RatherBeFishing Posts: 61 Member
    I have seen countless threads in my short time here on the forums and I see a very common theme. Many people are talking about starvation mode. This is a mythical mode that body switches into when you eat to little. Supposedly you stop losing fat because, well, no one seems to know, you just do. In reality this does not occur! The body does not cease to lose fat when large caloric deficits are present. This is supported by both research and anecdotal observation. Before I go on let me clairify that I am not an advocate of VLCD (very low calorie dieting) and I will explain why in this post. I simply wish to dispel the myth that is "starvation mode".

    The Minnesota starvation experiment is one of the best research studies done to prove this point. Subjects went on "starvation" level calories for a prolonged period of time. Did their bodies shift into starvation mode and stop losing fat? No! On average subjects lost 25% of their total body weight, and they were of healthy weight for height prior to beginning the experiment. They did see a slowdown of their metabolic rates (calories needed to maintain bodily functions). But this was just a slowdown. It in no way stopped weight loss.

    As far as anecdotal evidence goes, we can look to some of mankind's darkest moments to see a glimpse of starvation mode NOT occurring. How many fat Holocaust survivor pictures do you see? How many obese people does one notice in countries where prolonged famine has led to people not eating for days? When people go on prolonged hunger strikes or fast for religious purposes do they typically weigh the same or a great deal less then when they started?

    So what does happen to the body during periods of VLCD? In the short term, not much. You can VLCD for 2 weeks with very little metabolic changes. What about longer? Well this is when some negative side effects will start to occur. Decreases in energy level, training performance, sex drive, mood, and resting metabolic rate can occur. Again, the decrease in RMR WILL NOT be enough to halt fat loss.

    So if starvation mode really doesn't exist why do so many people stop losing weight after periods of eating low levels of calories? There are many answers. My belief is a lot of people suck at counting calories. Many people measure solid foods in things like cups and tablespoons. Those things are meant to measure liquids. If you start weighing your food you will see how much you have really been overeating. I starting weighing peanut butter and found that my typical 1 tbsp was actually 2 when weighed out. That's a 100 calorie difference. I used to eat peanut butter daily. That's 700 calories at the end of the week which equates to an entire lb of potential fat loss ruined at the end of a month. And that is just 1 food! Are you guessing what 4oz of steak is? I bet your estimation is off. Recent studies show people can underestimate the calories in a meal by upwards of 40%. Weighing solid foods is a big step towards accurate calorie counting. Remember, MFP is only as good as the information you enter!

    Another reason weight loss can stall on VLCD is water retention. Dieting in general is a stress to the body. Cortisol levels can increase and cause water retention to occur. How many of you have been stalled for 2-3 weeks then had a cheat day then magically lost 3 or 4 lbs within the next couple of days? Lots of us! This is due to water retention. Once the body enters a period of overfeeding it can release a lot of the water it has been holding. Alcohol can have this same effect.

    I said I would talk about why I do not advocate VLCD. It sucks! Both mentally and physically it just flat out sucks! It is very hard to stick to long term. The decrease in sex drive alone is enough to send me running for the hills. Your training will suffer, your energy levels will suffer, your mood will suffer, your significant other will most certainly suffer (see sex drive)! The one thing that will not occur however, is "starvation mode".

    So what is the answer to breaking a plateau or stall? First and foremost make sure your calorie counting is on point. I would venture a bet that over 75% of the people on here that think they are eating 1200 calories a day are actually eating WAY more then that. Either through poor tracking, not weighing food, eating out where estimation is common, having cheat days, or simply lying to themselves, their calorie count is simply not low enough to create a deficit. Make sure your counts are SPOT ON!

    Are you eating back exercise calories? Well I'm again going to bet that you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are from exercising. I do not eat back exercise calories. When setting my caloric goal I keep my level of exercise in mind. I'd much rather eat 2500 calories a day and not worry about exercise calories then eat 2000 calories a day and try to count back very much estimated exercise calorie burn. If my weight loss stalls at 2500 I simply will reduce the number. I find that eating the same calories every day makes adjustment much easier. The only time I would actually eat back calories is if I do some sort of endurance event. If you typically don't exercise much but then kayak for 6 hours while on vacation, sure eat some of those back. Bu fort your day to day normal exercise I simply find it is easier to just account for that in your calorie goal.

    Finally, sometimes you just need to wait. A stall is not a stall unless 3 weeks has gone by. By that time any weight loss being masked by by water retention should be starting to give way. If you are freaking out because 5 days went by with no weight loss, relax and give it some time. If you are in a deficit, the weight will eventually subside. Thanks to anyone who made it this far, long post, I know!



    TL/DR: Starvation mode doesn't exist but their are plenty of other reasons why very low calorie dieting is bad (if your calorie count is accurate).

    Looks a lot like what Lyle McDonald wrote in his Rapid Fat Loss book a few years back.
  • Pirate_chick
    Pirate_chick Posts: 1,216 Member
    Ahww yeah! *high five* Excellent post.

    giphy.gif
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,377 Member
    I link to this post a lot when people start crying "starvation mode". http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/475726-very-low-calorie-diets-and-metabolic-damage
  • gemmamummy
    gemmamummy Posts: 185 Member
    .esp considering I saw a thread today that had 2 pages of starvation mode and gaining muscle at a deficet...
    [/quote]
    Which part of the forum was this on? I would be interested to read about it. Thanks :-)
  • somerisagirlsname
    somerisagirlsname Posts: 467 Member
    giphy.gif
  • LaneB89
    LaneB89 Posts: 93 Member
    I'm inclined to believe that starvation mode is a myth, but aren't there quite a few scientific studies that lend themselves to the existence of adaptive thermogenesis? At least one study I read saw an energy expenditure of a full 30% less in a formerly obese person than a person who was the same weight but had never been obese, and this lowered energy expenditure persisted far beyond the period of dieting. 30% is quite significant - that's the difference between a healthy diet of 2000 calories and a sparse and frankly hard to maintain 1400 calorie diet.
  • Yagisama
    Yagisama Posts: 595 Member
    I understand that the term "Starvation mode" is largely used incorrectly here and elsewhere.

    It's been a long time since I took biochemistry and nutrition classes, but I remember that metabolic pathway efficiencies would differ based on nutrient availability. For example, hexokinase/glucokinas affinity would differ.

    Basically, it's not that the body would stop losing fat, but that the body would be extremely efficient at storing fat and turning glucose into glycogen.

    That is what I've always assumed "Starvation mode" to be. Conversely if your intake is above a certain level, then there is a point that the enzymes are saturated and you will not absorb all of what you eat.
  • Jestinia
    Jestinia Posts: 1,153 Member
    I'm inclined to believe that starvation mode is a myth, but aren't there quite a few scientific studies that lend themselves to the existence of adaptive thermogenesis? At least one study I read saw an energy expenditure of a full 30% less in a formerly obese person than a person who was the same weight but had never been obese, and this lowered energy expenditure persisted far beyond the period of dieting. 30% is quite significant - that's the difference between a healthy diet of 2000 calories and a sparse and frankly hard to maintain 1400 calorie diet.

    The study I saw was %20. But it's still enough to matter. Of course, if there is ever a famine, I know I'll starve at least %20 slower than most people who haven't been on a diet recently. And then I shall wait for them to expire and eat them.
  • GretaGirl8
    GretaGirl8 Posts: 274 Member
    I am just going to refrain.

    deleted post.
  • livinatthegym
    livinatthegym Posts: 81 Member
    Lol. I love this topic.
  • LaneB89
    LaneB89 Posts: 93 Member
    The point is everyone claims that metabolic adaptation can't neutralize a deficit, while studies are showing that it can do exactly that. The most common weight loss target recommended is TDEE - 20%, and metabolic adaptation can cause you to burn 20-30% less calories.
  • csy108
    csy108 Posts: 58 Member
    Doctors don't put people on vlcd because the likelihood they'll stick to it is nill.

    Presumably also because the people will fail to get essential nutrients, and because eating a prescribed VLCD will teach people nothing about healthy food choices for the rest of their lives.
  • dmenchac
    dmenchac Posts: 447 Member
    The point is everyone claims that metabolic adaptation can't neutralize a deficit, while studies are showing that it can do exactly that. The most common weight loss target recommended is TDEE - 20%, and metabolic adaptation can cause you to burn 20-30% less calories.

    No, the point is 99.999999% of people who claim they are in adapative thermogenesis aren't even close.
  • rainbowunicorns720
    rainbowunicorns720 Posts: 48 Member
    I read this yesterday in a much longer post but I hope a lot of people see this.