Starvation mode
Replies
-
I thought this was a fun read:
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
"Seriously. It’s not real. It’s a myth.
As long as you create a caloric deficit (meaning consume less calories than your body burns, or burn more calories than you consume… just different ways of saying the same thing), then you will lose weight every single time regardless of whether you’re creating a deficit that is small, moderate or large.
Even if your calorie intake is dangerously low (not recommended at all, just making a point), you will still lose weight.
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”0 -
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Again, if that were the case....then we need to go tell all those kids over in Ethiopia how to do starvation mode right.......
Cause they are getting it all wrong.0 -
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Again, if that were the case....then we need to go tell all those kids over in Ethiopia how to do starvation mode right.......
Cause they are getting it all wrong.
He uses an example like that in the article - I thought this line was so funny0 -
I don't think most people associate "starvation mode" with literally starving to death, but good on you all who went down that road. I think it's more likely in reference to the problem you get when you undereat and your body decides to hang on to every last calorie out of some biological programming (OMG THERE'S A FAMINE!!).
Weight loss is more than calories in v calories out, sorry. I've eaten 1200 cals for weeks and lost NOTHING, even gained a kg or two, and upped my calories to 1300 or 1400 and started losing again regularly. Lots of people have experienced this. Eating too little and not losing? Up your calories by 100 - 200 and start losing again.
To do a refeed, is that a day or a meal? Or a big bag of potato chips?
How high do you go and how often?0 -
Is there literally anything you can do to improve adaptive thermogenesis? Because the notion that I might have to eat 400+ fewer calories (20% reduction in my BMR) than the average person just to maintain a healthy weight for the rest of my life is incredibly depressing to me. So much so that I find it very demotivating. I don't want to have to eat a low number of calories and exercise for hours a day just to be able to eat a more sensible amount.
Not that was expounded upon by Dr. Liebel in the video.
Their extrapolation based on NIH long-term weight loss databases seem to indicate that the metabolism slowdown exists at least 3-4 years out.
It is depressing. It's also insightful as to why so many weight loss attempts fail long-term. As Dr. Liebel says early on in his video, it's trivial to gain weight with just a few years of a 3% surplus. Imagine now a 15%-20% surplus when you try to eat "normally".0 -
Quoted wrong0
-
I haven't watched your video and will in a few minutes. But I'm not sure where it would be getting that adaptive thermogenesis is the fault of reduced Leptin. Seems like a stretch. And reduced Leptin isn't something the majority suffer from. People can have that issue as obese but generally you're looking at very lean individuals that have to be concerned with that.
ETA: Can't load your video on my phone. Will have to wait till later. Also, not getting suckered into another conversation with you on why people can't succeed like you do with food addiction. It's boring, tiresome and honestly just a little pathetic at times with all the excuses for failure.
The video has nothing to do with food addiction, and no one has brought that up in this thread until you did.
The video discusses the physiological responses to body fat mass loss, and its impact on long-term weight loss.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the video.0 -
Ugg can't get this to quote right :indifferent:0
-
.0
-
I've been at a deficit for about a year now, with 1 month pause in between for maintenance. Lost 45 pounds, no lowered metabolism by more than it should be, definitely not 20% lower. How do you explain that?Is there literally anything you can do to improve adaptive thermogenesis? Because the notion that I might have to eat 400+ fewer calories (20% reduction in my BMR) than the average person just to maintain a healthy weight for the rest of my life is incredibly depressing to me. So much so that I find it very demotivating. I don't want to have to eat a low number of calories and exercise for hours a day just to be able to eat a more sensible amount.
Not that was expounded upon by Dr. Liebel in the video.
Their extrapolation based on NIH long-term weight loss databases seem to indicate that the metabolism slowdown exists at least 3-4 years out.
It is depressing. It's also insightful as to why so many weight loss attempts fail long-term. As Dr. Liebel says early on in his video, it's trivial to gain weight with just a few years of a 3% surplus. Imagine now a 15%-20% surplus when you try to eat "normally".0 -
Leptin will only be a concern for people who are sitting ~8% BF
This is not what the video says.Yes possible, again as I mentioned earlier, if you are smaller than what you were before, your energy requirements are less.
If said individual has also lost a lot of muscle during their fat loss period, well that is going to lower energy demands as well.....
Hence people who are obese or overweight, I always encourage they do weight training while they lose......
Keep as much lean mass as possible.....helps keep energy requirements up.
So this is not metabolic damage...
Things are working as they should be.
No, no, no. This is not the conclusion of the video.
Obviously, people who weigh less require fewer calories. That is not what this video says.
What it says is that if you are fat and you lose weight, your metabolism will be lower than someone of the same weight who has never been fat.
And this effect has been extrapolated out to 3-4 years.0 -
"Seriously. It’s not real. It’s a myth.
As long as you create a caloric deficit (meaning consume less calories than your body burns, or burn more calories than you consume… just different ways of saying the same thing), then you will lose weight every single time regardless of whether you’re creating a deficit that is small, moderate or large.
Even if your calorie intake is dangerously low (not recommended at all, just making a point), you will still lose weight.
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”
It is absolutely true that no matter what your metabolism does, if you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight.
It is also absolutely true, however, that when you lose weight, your metabolism will slow down trying to restore your fat stores to their previous level, which means in order to hit a deficit you will have to consume 15%-20% fewer calories than someone of your same body mass who has never been overweight.
Which means it is harder to achieve that deficit.0 -
I've been at a deficit for about a year now, with 1 month pause in between for maintenance. Lost 45 pounds, no lowered metabolism by more than it should be, definitely not 20% lower. How do you explain that?
Maybe you are special, I don't know.
All I know is the video says that in an extremely controlled study, with people in clinical scenarios with rigorously controlled diets with over 100 people over a 3-4 week period they saw reduced metabolisms in the 15%-20% range, and based on long-term weight loss database information managed by the NIH they have extrapolated this condition out to 3-4 years.
I personally experience the symptoms described in the video, which I found very heartening to hear after years of people telling me there was something wrong with me if I was hungry while losing weight. There's not. Evidently this is a quite common response to loss of body fat mass.0 -
"Seriously. It’s not real. It’s a myth.
As long as you create a caloric deficit (meaning consume less calories than your body burns, or burn more calories than you consume… just different ways of saying the same thing), then you will lose weight every single time regardless of whether you’re creating a deficit that is small, moderate or large.
Even if your calorie intake is dangerously low (not recommended at all, just making a point), you will still lose weight.
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”
It is absolutely true that no matter what your metabolism does, if you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight.
It is also absolutely true, however, that when you lose weight, your metabolism will slow down trying to restore your fat stores to their previous level, which means in order to hit a deficit you will have to consume 15%-20% fewer calories than someone of your same body mass who has never been overweight.
Which means it is harder to achieve that deficit.
I just quoted that little bit of the article I like
It's a long article
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
It goes on and on here's another snip
"The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this."0 -
But the topic here is metabolic reduction
I don't think it is. I don't think that is especially controversial--the question is whether how you lose the weight makes a difference (the study heybales cited suggests that it does).
How "starvation mode" gets used too often is for the claim that if you eat too little your body will hold onto fat and stop losing weight.0 -
I don't think most people associate "starvation mode" with literally starving to death, but good on you all who went down that road. I think it's more likely in reference to the problem you get when you undereat and your body decides to hang on to every last calorie out of some biological programming (OMG THERE'S A FAMINE!!).
Weight loss is more than calories in v calories out, sorry. I've eaten 1200 cals for weeks and lost NOTHING, even gained a kg or two, and upped my calories to 1300 or 1400 and started losing again regularly. Lots of people have experienced this. Eating too little and not losing? Up your calories by 100 - 200 and start losing again.
To do a refeed, is that a day or a meal? Or a big bag of potato chips? How high do you go and how often?
Refeeds are done doing high carbs....
So I think the formula is like 15kg * LBM in kg == your glycogen stores.
Try to eat that much in carbs, moderate protein, and very little fat.
So for me, I am around 160 - 165lb = 75kg
So for me if I my glycogen is depleted and I am doing a refeed, I need to eat around 1200 gr in carbs.
that is like 4800 calories
But I would prolly do about 800 - 900 gr (unless I knew I had depleted my stores)....so ~2700 calories0 -
Leptin will only be a concern for people who are sitting ~8% BF
[/quote]This is not what the video says.
I would advise reading about it and draw your own conclusions, but I could be mistaken with my readings on the issue.....so I fully accept that possibility.Yes possible, again as I mentioned earlier, if you are smaller than what you were before, your energy requirements are less.
If said individual has also lost a lot of muscle during their fat loss period, well that is going to lower energy demands as well.....
Hence people who are obese or overweight, I always encourage they do weight training while they lose......
Keep as much lean mass as possible.....helps keep energy requirements up.
So this is not metabolic damage...
Things are working as they should be.No, no, no. This is not the conclusion of the video.
Obviously, people who weigh less require fewer calories. That is not what this video says.
What it says is that if you are fat and you lose weight, your metabolism will be lower than someone of the same weight who has never been fat.
And this effect has been extrapolated out to 3-4 years.
And think about why that is for a second....
Something else I had said.....Muscle and LBM
Demand for energy is higher for someone with more LBM...and your point and what you said prove that.
If two people both weigh 180 lbs.
But one is 30% BF vs the other who is 15%
Who has more Lean mass?
Whose demand for energy will be higher?
The person with more lean muscle....
Not the person with more fat....
All fat is, is an energy reserve...storage. You need no energy for storage0 -
It is also absolutely true, however, that when you lose weight, your metabolism will slow down trying to restore your fat stores to their previous level, which means in order to hit a deficit you will have to consume 15%-20% fewer calories than someone of your same body mass who has never been overweight.
I don't about your body "trying to restore your fat stores"....it is recognizing a decrease in energy coming in, and it is adapting to that shortage and trying to be more efficient and make better use of the energy it has currently stored in the body.0 -
"Seriously. It’s not real. It’s a myth.
As long as you create a caloric deficit (meaning consume less calories than your body burns, or burn more calories than you consume… just different ways of saying the same thing), then you will lose weight every single time regardless of whether you’re creating a deficit that is small, moderate or large.
Even if your calorie intake is dangerously low (not recommended at all, just making a point), you will still lose weight.
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”
It is absolutely true that no matter what your metabolism does, if you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight.
It is also absolutely true, however, that when you lose weight, your metabolism will slow down trying to restore your fat stores to their previous level, which means in order to hit a deficit you will have to consume 15%-20% fewer calories than someone of your same body mass who has never been overweight.
Which means it is harder to achieve that deficit.
I just quoted that little bit of the article I like It's a long article
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
It goes on and on here's another snip
"The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this."
If adaptive thermogenesis does indeed lead to a permanent metabolic drop of 20%, then it is definitely significant. For me - at 5'3, 120 pounds, my sedentary BMR would go from 1600 to 1200 just to maintain my weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
You are grasping onto that 20% to hard. First Look at your situation, you personally have no need to go into a large enough deficit to really have adaptive thermogenesis be that significant in the long run. Adaptions aren't permanent. They can be corrected."Seriously. It’s not real. It’s a myth.
As long as you create a caloric deficit (meaning consume less calories than your body burns, or burn more calories than you consume… just different ways of saying the same thing), then you will lose weight every single time regardless of whether you’re creating a deficit that is small, moderate or large.
Even if your calorie intake is dangerously low (not recommended at all, just making a point), you will still lose weight.
There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.”
It is absolutely true that no matter what your metabolism does, if you eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight.
It is also absolutely true, however, that when you lose weight, your metabolism will slow down trying to restore your fat stores to their previous level, which means in order to hit a deficit you will have to consume 15%-20% fewer calories than someone of your same body mass who has never been overweight.
Which means it is harder to achieve that deficit.
I just quoted that little bit of the article I like It's a long article
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
It goes on and on here's another snip
"The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
And it’s this successful decrease in overall body weight combined with that small (but real) amount of adaptive thermogenesis that causes people to eventually need to make adjustments at certain points so that weight loss continues happening (which, by the way, is a one sentence breakdown of what causes weight loss plateaus, why they’re common and normal, and what ultimately solves them).
It has nothing at all to do with “I’m eating too little and my weight loss stopped.” That’s nonsense, and literally every single study in existence supports this."
If adaptive thermogenesis does indeed lead to a permanent metabolic drop of 20%, then it is definitely significant. For me - at 5'3, 120 pounds, my sedentary BMR would go from 1600 to 1200 just to maintain my weight.
Well, that's the thing - I was in a large enough deficit. I've suffered from severe anorexia nervosa for years and drastically underate for very long periods of time, so the idea that I now have to intentionally restrict my intake permanently due to resulting adaptive thermogenesis is a bit terrifying and sort of makes me feel like I'll never be able to "relax" about food.0 -
The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.
It will only stop your weight loss if you don't cut your calories further to accommodate the drop in metabolism.
The effect is about a 15%-20% reduction in metabolism.
Obviously if you eat a deficit, which accommodates the 15-20% metabolic reduction, you will continue to lose weight.It’s mostly just enough to slow down progress a little over time. A much bigger factor slowing down weight loss progress over time is the fact that you’ve already lost a bunch of weight, so your body just isn’t burning as many calories as it initially was.
Meaning, your maintenance level has decreased because your body weight has decreased. So the calorie intake that caused lots of weight loss at 250lbs isn’t working as well (if at all) when you get down to 200lbs.
As I explained to someone else, what the video shows is that the reduction in maintenance calories is not just because you have less body mass. Obviously the smaller you are the less calories you need.
What the study in the video showed was that if you have been overweight and you lose weight, you will burn 15%-20% fewer calories to maintain your weight than someone of the same body mass who was never overweight.
That means if the normal weight maintenance intake for a person who has never been overweight is 1700 calories, if you have been overweight and lose weight to achieve the same body mass as that person you will have to eat 255 - 340 calories less each day to achieve maintenance.0 -
That is the great thing about the human body.
It is great at ADAPTING......
make use of that.
Don't be nervous about food......be smart about it.
Take your time, do your research.
Track things
Don't over think....
If you are tracking stuff, you will be able to pick up a lot of things about how your body reacts to what you eat....
Just pay attention.
Case in point..
I do calorie and macro cycling.
So Monday was a high fat/protein, low carb day (But I was well below my maintenance)
Tuesday when I went to the gym, I weighed in at 172
Tuesday was my high carb/protein, low fat day.
So when I weighed in on Wednesday, my weight came in at 170.....and my caloric intake for Tuesday was ~3400 calories....compared to Monday's 2400
So for me, my body holds water, when my fat intake is ~100gr (or more)0 -
[quote[How "starvation mode" gets used too often is for the claim that if you eat too little your body will hold onto fat and stop losing weight. [/quote]
That is true, but I've also heard a lot of counters to "starvation mode" saying that dieting does not affect metabolism unless you get down into single-digit body fat percentages.
And this is not true.
If you lose body fat, your body will reduce it's metabolism to try and return to previous body fat levels.0 -
What the study in the video showed was that if you have been overweight and you lose weight, you will burn 15%-20% fewer calories to maintain your weight than someone of the same body mass who was never overweight.
That means if the normal weight maintenance intake for a person who has never been overweight is 1700 calories, if you have been overweight and lose weight to achieve the same body mass as that person you will have to eat 255 - 340 calories less each day to achieve maintenance.
What it means is that LBM plays a huge role in energy/caloric demands.....
Just take a min to stop and think about the scenario you put out...
You are saying that two people of equal mass...
But one is overweight, the other is not.
So if they have equal mass, what does that tell you about their composition?0 -
OH nevermind my post is too confusing haha0
-
What the study in the video showed was that if you have been overweight and you lose weight, you will burn 15%-20% fewer calories to maintain your weight than someone of the same body mass who was never overweight.
That means if the normal weight maintenance intake for a person who has never been overweight is 1700 calories, if you have been overweight and lose weight to achieve the same body mass as that person you will have to eat 255 - 340 calories less each day to achieve maintenance.
What it means is that LBM plays a huge role in energy/caloric demands.....
Just take a min to stop and think about the scenario you put out...
You are saying that two people of equal mass...
But one is overweight, the other is not.
So if they have equal mass, what does that tell you about their composition?
and this is what i was trying to say kinda sorta in a different way I guess0 -
What the OP is asking is if there is a significant issue with metabolism dropping if you consume fewer calories.
The answer is no -- your body still has to burn calories to keep vital functions working and your body's metabolism is fairly efficient as it is.
People often talk about starvation mode because as they lose weight, their metabolism does slow down. However, most of the metabolic changes are actually not from eating fewer calories... it's from losing weight! The myth that fat people have slower metabolism is so pervasive that people forget that the heavier you are, the HIGHER your metabolism. As you lose weight, your body does not have to work as hard to, for example, stand up, walk around, lift your arms... because your body weighs less.
It's just like your vehicle -- if you fill it with bricks and bags of concrete, it will burn more fuel. If you make it lighter, it will burn less fuel. Your body works the same way.0 -
What the study in the video showed was that if you have been overweight and you lose weight, you will burn 15%-20% fewer calories to maintain your weight than someone of the same body mass who was never overweight.
That means if the normal weight maintenance intake for a person who has never been overweight is 1700 calories, if you have been overweight and lose weight to achieve the same body mass as that person you will have to eat 255 - 340 calories less each day to achieve maintenance.
What it means is that LBM plays a huge role in energy/caloric demands.....
Just take a min to stop and think about the scenario you put out...
You are saying that two people of equal mass...
But one is overweight, the other is not.
So if they have equal mass, what does that tell you about their composition?
and this is what i was trying to say kinda sorta in a different way I guess :drinker: :drinker: 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions