Starvation mode is a myth!
Options
Replies
-
I get really tired of people posting stuff about the Minnesota starvation experiment and the Holocaust as if they are at all relative to conditions people are facing with extreme caloric deficits in modern situations, particularly in situations where weight loss and adaptive thermogenesis have seemingly stalled.
Colloquial starvation mode is a myth in the sense that you don't go into starvation/survival mode after eating VLCD for 2 days. However, VLCD for extended periods of time has proven ill-effects on both metabolism and the health of those people utilizing it.
I'm over 400lbs and my doctor does not recommend VLCD despite my acute sense of calorie counting for intake and burn, not because he doesn't think I can stick to it, but because it's completely unhealthy for someone of my stature to eat less than 2000 calories a day.
You can continue to put out this bull all you want but at the end of the day, the examples are poor ones, and there are a multitude of medical and research studies that have shown that metabolism, fat burning potential, and energy conversion all take a serious hit if a person forces their body to subsist on far lower calories.
Oh, and this idea that the body will draw from fat over muscle if you exercise is complete bunk. Tell that to my brother, who lost weight working out and ate jars of peanut butter every day because for as much as he would lift, his body was eating away the muscle. He wasn't anorexic, but he looked like a skeleton. And take me, I'm very well insulated but have a huge amount of muscle tissue as well, working out a LOT and eating well, yet large deficits have contributed to muscle destruction.
Starvation is a clinical condition that can be diagnosed in the obese. I'm proof positive of that. Maybe you should research some of the studies done on the long-term effect anorexia nervosa has on the metabolic rate of patients in recovery before you start spouting the same old rhetoric we get thrown around here. There are people on here with actual, real and serious disordered eating situations that read crap like this and use it as permission not to address the terrible things they are doing to their bodies.0 -
I get really tired of people posting stuff about the Minnesota starvation experiment and the Holocaust as if they are at all relative to conditions people are facing with extreme caloric deficits in modern situations, particularly in situations where weight loss and adaptive thermogenesis have seemingly stalled.
Colloquial starvation mode is a myth in the sense that you don't go into starvation/survival mode after eating VLCD for 2 days. However, VLCD for extended periods of time has proven ill-effects on both metabolism and the health of those people utilizing it.
I'm over 400lbs and my doctor does not recommend VLCD despite my acute sense of calorie counting for intake and burn, not because he doesn't think I can stick to it, but because it's completely unhealthy for someone of my stature to eat less than 2000 calories a day.
You can continue to put out this bull all you want but at the end of the day, the examples are poor ones, and there are a multitude of medical and research studies that have shown that metabolism, fat burning potential, and energy conversion all take a serious hit if a person forces their body to subsist on far lower calories.
Oh, and this idea that the body will draw from fat over muscle if you exercise is complete bunk. Tell that to my brother, who lost weight working out and ate jars of peanut butter every day because for as much as he would lift, his body was eating away the muscle. He wasn't anorexic, but he looked like a skeleton. And take me, I'm very well insulated but have a huge amount of muscle tissue as well, working out a LOT and eating well, yet large deficits have contributed to muscle destruction.
Starvation is a clinical condition that can be diagnosed in the obese. I'm proof positive of that. Maybe you should research some of the studies done on the long-term effect anorexia nervosa has on the metabolic rate of patients in recovery before you start spouting the same old rhetoric we get thrown around here. There are people on here with actual, real and serious disordered eating situations that read crap like this and use it as permission not to address the terrible things they are doing to their bodies.
I agree with most of this based on what I've read, but the study I posted earlier in this thread, while small, does show that there could be muscle preserving benefits to exercise. The people who exercised didn't even eat their calories back, which means they were in a deficit larger than the sedentary subjects.0 -
You do realize that at over 400 lbs you eating 2000 calories a day is extremely similar to someone 160 lbs eating 1200 calories a day? And also the fact that your brother had 1 individual result is absolutely meaningless.I get really tired of people posting stuff about the Minnesota starvation experiment and the Holocaust as if they are at all relative to conditions people are facing with extreme caloric deficits in modern situations, particularly in situations where weight loss and adaptive thermogenesis have seemingly stalled.
Colloquial starvation mode is a myth in the sense that you don't go into starvation/survival mode after eating VLCD for 2 days. However, VLCD for extended periods of time has proven ill-effects on both metabolism and the health of those people utilizing it.
I'm over 400lbs and my doctor does not recommend VLCD despite my acute sense of calorie counting for intake and burn, not because he doesn't think I can stick to it, but because it's completely unhealthy for someone of my stature to eat less than 2000 calories a day.
You can continue to put out this bull all you want but at the end of the day, the examples are poor ones, and there are a multitude of medical and research studies that have shown that metabolism, fat burning potential, and energy conversion all take a serious hit if a person forces their body to subsist on far lower calories.
Oh, and this idea that the body will draw from fat over muscle if you exercise is complete bunk. Tell that to my brother, who lost weight working out and ate jars of peanut butter every day because for as much as he would lift, his body was eating away the muscle. He wasn't anorexic, but he looked like a skeleton. And take me, I'm very well insulated but have a huge amount of muscle tissue as well, working out a LOT and eating well, yet large deficits have contributed to muscle destruction.
Starvation is a clinical condition that can be diagnosed in the obese. I'm proof positive of that. Maybe you should research some of the studies done on the long-term effect anorexia nervosa has on the metabolic rate of patients in recovery before you start spouting the same old rhetoric we get thrown around here. There are people on here with actual, real and serious disordered eating situations that read crap like this and use it as permission not to address the terrible things they are doing to their bodies.0 -
Oh, and this idea that the body will draw from fat over muscle if you exercise is complete bunk. Tell that to my brother, who lost weight working out and ate jars of peanut butter every day because for as much as he would lift, his body was eating away the muscle. He wasn't anorexic, but he looked like a skeleton. And take me, I'm very well insulated but have a huge amount of muscle tissue as well, working out a LOT and eating well, yet large deficits have contributed to muscle destruction.
I read somewhere muscle loss (or being skinnyfat) has more to do with not eating enough protein rather than excessive exercise. Some please clarify preferable with a source.
No we most certainly are not. I have been active on these forums a very short time and have seen countless threads about people not losing weight on 1200 calorie diets. They are either not counting correctly, or they are immune to physics.
You wouldn't believe the number of people immune to physics!in...for people who think they can defy the energy balance equation.
"Starvation mode" may not exist or the term may be used incorrectly and/or not applicable to dieters, but now you guys are just beating up on strawmen.
Seriously. Someone put it best when they said most "why am I not losing weight" topics end up like this:
OP: Im not losing weight help.
Reply1: Are you logging everything?
Reply2: Are you weighing everything?
Reply3: You are not eating enough your body is holding on to fat, you need to eat more.
Reply4: Its probably water weight
OP: THANKS #3! I'll eat more!0 -
This is so true. People hear what they want to hear!
Seriously. Someone put it best when they said most "why am I not losing weight" topics end up like this:
OP: Im not losing weight help.
Reply1: Are you logging everything?
Reply2: Are you weighing everything?
Reply3: You are not eating enough your body is holding on to fat, you need to eat more.
Reply4: Its probably water weight
OP: THANKSI #3! I'll eat more!0 -
I get really tired of people posting stuff about the Minnesota starvation experiment and the Holocaust as if they are at all relative to conditions people are facing with extreme caloric deficits in modern situations, particularly in situations where weight loss and adaptive thermogenesis have seemingly stalled.
Colloquial starvation mode is a myth in the sense that you don't go into starvation/survival mode after eating VLCD for 2 days. However, VLCD for extended periods of time has proven ill-effects on both metabolism and the health of those people utilizing it.
I'm over 400lbs and my doctor does not recommend VLCD despite my acute sense of calorie counting for intake and burn, not because he doesn't think I can stick to it, but because it's completely unhealthy for someone of my stature to eat less than 2000 calories a day.
You can continue to put out this bull all you want but at the end of the day, the examples are poor ones, and there are a multitude of medical and research studies that have shown that metabolism, fat burning potential, and energy conversion all take a serious hit if a person forces their body to subsist on far lower calories.
Oh, and this idea that the body will draw from fat over muscle if you exercise is complete bunk. Tell that to my brother, who lost weight working out and ate jars of peanut butter every day because for as much as he would lift, his body was eating away the muscle. He wasn't anorexic, but he looked like a skeleton. And take me, I'm very well insulated but have a huge amount of muscle tissue as well, working out a LOT and eating well, yet large deficits have contributed to muscle destruction.
Starvation is a clinical condition that can be diagnosed in the obese. I'm proof positive of that. Maybe you should research some of the studies done on the long-term effect anorexia nervosa has on the metabolic rate of patients in recovery before you start spouting the same old rhetoric we get thrown around here. There are people on here with actual, real and serious disordered eating situations that read crap like this and use it as permission not to address the terrible things they are doing to their bodies.
You should know, the muscle burning component of the starvation response is *WILDLY* exaggerate and misunderstood. The body has to exist in a highly prolonged state of starvation before significant protein from muscle is utilized as energy for metabolism.
Scope this out:
After the exhaustion of the glycogen reserve, and for the next 2–3 days, fatty acids are the principal metabolic fuel. At first, the brain continues to use glucose, because, if a non-brain tissue is using fatty acids as its metabolic fuel, the use of glucose in the same tissue is switched off. Thus, when fatty acids are being broken down for energy, all of the remaining glucose is made available for use by the brain.
After 2 or 3 days of fasting, the liver begins to synthesize ketone bodies from precursors obtained from fatty acid breakdown. The brain uses these ketone bodies as fuel, thus cutting its requirement for glucose. After fasting for 3 days, the brain gets 30% of its energy from ketone bodies. After 40 days, this goes up to 75%.[6]
Thus, the production of ketone bodies cuts the brain's glucose requirement from 80 g per day to about 30 g per day. Of the remaining 30 g requirement, 20 g per day can be produced by the liver from glycerol (itself a product of fat breakdown). But this still leaves a deficit of about 10 g of glucose per day that must be supplied from some other source. This other source will be the body's own proteins.
After several days of fasting, all cells in the body begin to break down protein. This releases amino acids into the bloodstream, which can be converted into glucose by the liver. Since much of our muscle mass is protein, this phenomenon is responsible for the wasting away of muscle mass seen in starvation.
However, the body is able to selectively decide which cells will break down protein and which will not. About 2–3 g of protein has to be broken down to synthesize 1 g of glucose; about 20–30 g of protein is broken down each day to make 10 g of glucose to keep the brain alive. However, this number may decrease the longer the fasting period is continued in order to conserve protein.
Starvation ensues when the fat reserves are completely exhausted and protein is the only fuel source available to the body. Thus, after periods of starvation, the loss of body protein affects the function of important organs, and death results, even if there are still fat reserves left unused. (In a leaner person, the fat reserves are depleted earlier, the protein depletion occurs sooner, and therefore death occurs sooner.)
The ultimate cause of death is, in general, cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest brought on by tissue degradation and electrolyte imbalances.
^Pay mind to the timescales involved here. Serious destruction of muscle mass occurs very late in the game...sometime right before you start to actually DIE.0 -
No we most certainly are not. I have been active on these forums a very short time and have seen countless threads about people not losing weight on 1200 calorie diets. They are either not counting correctly, or they are immune to physics.
You wouldn't believe the number of people immune to physics!in...for people who think they can defy the energy balance equation.
"Starvation mode" may not exist or the term may be used incorrectly and/or not applicable to dieters, but now you guys are just beating up on strawmen.
After reading that comment about vitamins and metabolic cells, I stand corrected.
I was trying to argue that some traits of "starvation mode" can happen in extreme starvation, but of course that generally doesn't apply to dieters.0 -
]You do realize that at over 400 lbs you eating 2000 calories a day is extremely similar to someone 160 lbs eating 1200 calories a day? And also the fact that your brother had 1 individual result is absolutely meaningless.
The reality of it is my doctor said not to eat less than 2000, as that would be considered almost VLCD for me. He didn't say eat 2000, he said don't drop under that. His *actual* recommendation for me is in the 3200 range, which is slightly under my BMR.
My brother is an example, but he's definitely not the only one. Even so though, one example contrary to your statements is enough to say that you are not infallible and that there are exceptions.
I just find this whole thing funny, because it's all written out as if no one has ever said it before... and yet, people say this bunk all the time. Using the same exact examples, stating the same exact conclusions, without consideration to any research done on modern starvation and refeeding issues.
For the record, 1200 calories is not considered a VLCD. It is considered the lowest healthy recommendation for the average height person with normal metabolic function. VLCD is the active choice to eat a calorie intake that would be considered anorexic for the person in question. As I've stated in numerous threads as well as several well-researched blog entries about eating disorders and misconceptions about starvation, bariatric patients are rarely recommended to eat a calorie intake of less than 1200, and standard protocol calls for no less than 1100 even for the most obese and sedentary bariatric patients. One could say that these patients are, in essence, the ones that are in the most desperate place to lose weight, and yet, they are still not recommended to eat a VLCD, and their diets are heavily supplemented.
Doctors do not recommend VLCDs generally because they are nutritionally inadequate for the vast majority of the population, both through calories and through nutrients. Numerous studies have also shown that people that consistently eat less than 900 calories a day can see life-long impacts to their metabolic function that cannot be reversed with rehabilitation. Eating VLCD for a long period of time can cause thyroid function to come to a stand still, making it increasingly harder to lose weight, and exceptionally easier to gain weight on lower amounts of food. My personal situation is one that I've found in several people over the years... Where I ate 900 calories or less each day for several years, and gained significantly when raising my intake to an otherwise modest cut of 1600.
Blanket statements about the entire population are completely irresponsible. The BEST response to someone that states they believe they are in "starvation mode" or that they are eating low calories and not losing, that swears that they are measuring and weighing everything and monitoring burns appropriately, is to advise them to make an appointment with a physician that can do diagnostics and advise them on their specific situation. Claiming that starvation mode doesn't exist is just not true. It may not exist in the way a lot of people on MFP worry about, but it does exist. It is a serious medical condition that requires intervention and guided rehabilitation. Nothing you say, and no arguments or declarations of BS you make, will render that fact non-existent. You can tout your take on it all you want... it doesn't make you right.
And I will clarify that I am not claiming to be the exception to physics or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that a person with a history of disordered eating issues and VLCD/crash dieting can have a compromised "status quo" metabolic rate. If they are not aware of their metabolic status, they can mistakenly assume that average burns and intake rates apply to them, thus rendering their progress possibly non-existent. This is not the same as having a disease. It's a biological mode of survival. It took 7 years of back and forth, of people thinking I was lying about what I ate and what I did, before someone actually listened, and helped me understand why it was happening. By then, the damage was done, and I refuse to sit idly by and watch other people suffer the serious consequences that come with this issue, often promoted by people that make blanket statements about how it's impossible to gain when you are eating under the average BMR and who claim that you can't be fat and starving at the same time.
Starving and dying of starvation are two wholly separate things from a medical perspective... Which is why things like the Minnesota experiment don't apply. Those men elected to go without food for a short period of time. What it *did* prove is that a person in starvation state will gain exponentially when fed again. Rehabilitation for a starvation state starts at 1200 calories, and is increased to 2000 rapidly, and maintained until a healthy weight is achieved.
In this, you can see a difference, though. Take a person with complete lack of food vs. an anorexic patient. Long-term studies of anorexia show that the anorexic patient requires a higher number of calories and rate of intake in order to maintain a healthy weight once achieved than a person that has never suffered from an eating disorder. One could tentatively conclude that in this, it is worse to eat VLCD(which the majority of anorexic do) than to eat nothing at all.0 -
So glad you posted this! I have been thinking about this a lot here lately! It didn't make since to me but it almost made me feel like I was hurting my weight loss to not eat my calories!0
-
THANK YOU!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).0 -
^I refuse to sit idly by and watch other people suffer the serious consequences that come with this issue, often promoted by people that make blanket statements about how it's impossible to gain when you are eating under the average BMR and who claim that you can't be fat and starving at the same time.
Yagisama....do you see what we are talking about now? These special snowflakes?
If you have a caloric deficit, you WILL lose weight NO EXCEPTIONS. The metabolism may slow down but never to the point where you stop losing or even gain.
Thank you amwbox and mrm27....great info there.0 -
OP here is my short synopsis…
starvation mode the way that people on MFP describe it as missing snack one out a million, or chronically under eating = no
starvation mode for poor people in Africa and other third world count ire that are actually starving = yes
metabolic adaptation for chronic under eaters = yes…0 -
No starvation please. Because "Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation" and that is not good.:blushing:0
-
"Starvation mode" does exist...but almost always only in cases of ACTUAL starvation. As in zero calorie intake. A VLCD would have to be religiously stuck to literally for months before it started to take hold and delve into effects of the starvation response.
Its not hard to figure out that prolonged caloric restriction can be bad for you...but people are very swift to equate a low calorie diet to starvation. They aren't even close to the same thing.0 -
It's not just calorie counting. It's calorie counting at much lower than any calculator will tell you to. I'm nearing maintenance at 1600 calories a day. You really think it's OK or sustainable for me to drop another 500 off that as a 6 ft male to keep losing? My body will fight back
wait you are 6 foot 24 year old male and your maintenance is 1600?????
I am 34 year old male 5-10 and my maintenance is 2700 I am cutting right now on 22000 -
You wouldn't believe the number of people immune to physics!in...for people who think they can defy the energy balance equation.
for real ….0 -
Oh, and this idea that the body will draw from fat over muscle if you exercise is complete bunk. Tell that to my brother, who lost weight working out and ate jars of peanut butter every day because for as much as he would lift, his body was eating away the muscle. He wasn't anorexic, but he looked like a skeleton. And take me, I'm very well insulated but have a huge amount of muscle tissue as well, working out a LOT and eating well, yet large deficits have contributed to muscle destruction.
I read somewhere muscle loss (or being skinnyfat) has more to do with not eating enough protein rather than excessive exercise. Some please clarify preferable with a source.
No we most certainly are not. I have been active on these forums a very short time and have seen countless threads about people not losing weight on 1200 calorie diets. They are either not counting correctly, or they are immune to physics.
You wouldn't believe the number of people immune to physics!in...for people who think they can defy the energy balance equation.
"Starvation mode" may not exist or the term may be used incorrectly and/or not applicable to dieters, but now you guys are just beating up on strawmen.
Seriously. Someone put it best when they said most "why am I not losing weight" topics end up like this:
OP: Im not losing weight help.
Reply1: Are you logging everything?
Reply2: Are you weighing everything?
Reply3: You are not eating enough your body is holding on to fat, you need to eat more.
Reply4: Its probably water weight
OP: THANKS #3! I'll eat more!
you forgot the part where OP gets mad at everyone when they say that OP's logging is off and then OP rage quits...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions