Starvation mode

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 calories

Thanks for the detailed info! Wow, that is a lot of carbs. I think in my case it would have to be used very sparingly. Lol. I am going to do it, though. I'll keep keep it in my pocket for now. Thanks

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?

Obviously body composition matters.

I believe they accounted for this. I have quoted the relevant part of the video:

"if you look at obese individuals in an in-patient setting under very tightly controlled circumstances on liquid formula diets, no messing around, no nonsense, 24-hour observation, they take about 50kcal per kg of lean body mass to keep themselves at this higher body weight. And if you look at never obese people, here schematized in purple, they require exactly the same number of calories to maintain their body when when you normalize it to their metabolic or lean body mass. But if you take this person and have them lose 10% or more of their body weight, or, schematized here, return them to the a body composition identical to a never obese person, they require about 15-20 % less calories to maintain this body weight then they did to maintain this or that a never-obese person takes to maintain theirs.

And again, there's a lot of data behind this we've studied this in about a 100 subjects now."

So they are comparing lean body masses.

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. Just like if you leave your car idling, it continues to burn fuel.

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.

The problem is sometimes if you aren't giving it enough fuel it will start taking calories from the wrong spots (muscle). Weights been a life long issue with me. I was 202 pounds, I'm 5'9". I had a 'doctor' put me on a 1,000 calorie a day diet, no carbs. I was working out twice a day (cardio in the am, weightlifting in the afternoon). it took 2 weeks for me to start struggling with my weights, I actually had to go down in the weights I was lifting. I ended up losing pounds but my body fat went up within the month. I don't understand why the body took energy from my muscle instead of my fat, but I guess everyone is different! I think it's really just trial and error.

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?

Obviously body composition matters.

I believe they accounted for this. I have quoted the relevant part of the video:

"if you look at obese individuals in an in-patient setting under very tightly controlled circumstances on liquid formula diets, no messing around, no nonsense, 24-hour observation, they take about 50kcal per kg of lean body mass to keep themselves at this higher body weight. And if you look at never obese people, here schematized in purple, they require exactly the same number of calories to maintain their body when when you normalize it to their metabolic or lean body mass. But if you take this person and have them lose 10% or more of their body weight, or, schematized here, return them to the a body composition identical to a never obese person, they require about 15-20 % less calories to maintain this body weight then they did to maintain this or that a never-obese person takes to maintain theirs.

And again, there's a lot of data behind this we've studied this in about a 100 subjects now."

So they are comparing lean body masses.

And what I would say to that is in their never obese person and they lose 10% of their body weight....
If 10% BW is loss, how much is LBM? Again, if LBM is lost during weight loss, then YES energy requirements will be less.

Again, I am 170 lbs right now
If I were to lose 10%, that would be 17lbs
I would be at 153 lbs.
You know how much LBM I would prolly lose in that kind of drop??
Especially if I didn't exercise (which we are not told in what manner the test subjects would lose the weight)
LBM is a very quick and easy energy resource to tap, and if you have no need for it (i.e. not lifting weights during weight loss), that will be the preferred energy store, not fat. If you don't use it, you lose it.

So in this video you watched, there are a lot of variables they are not addressing.
LBM matters
weight loss matters
how the weight loss is achieved matters
what is theory and what is actual matters.

So you can believe or go by whatever you like that is fine, your body.....
but I would not let this video be the only thing you go by, when addressing your own needs.

I love it, the first sensible conversation I have seen on this subject. Whenever I stop losing weight, I'd go to seek help and be told "I'm not eating enough". Really? Then I should be very thin from the years of eating too much, right?:flowerforyou:

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.

Were you obese before? If not, you probably don't have anything to worry about.

The fact that you have a history of ED, for me, makes this a conversation you need to have with your therapist, doctor, nutritionist. Not taking information that is being tossed around here and applying it to yourself. It's not wise. This is a whole different game. Many of us are looking to get general health. Some of us, including myself are playing with straight vanity and superficial goals. You are focusing on your life, health, mental, physical. Your future existence.

I apologize, I know none of this is good for me to be involved in but it is quite a huge source of constant anxiety. I do have a therapist that I see, as well as a doctor (I can't afford a nutritionist), and while I do occasionally bring up my fears, both of them know very little about this area. I can assure you that I'm only on this website because it is currently helping me eat more, not less, but it's still difficult to know what I should be doing to offset so-called "metabolic damage" so that I can actually eat normally, which is all I really want at the moment. Or if there's actually anything I can do at all.

Were you obese before? If not, you probably don't have anything to worry about.

I was significantly overweight during my childhood (until the age of around 13), but no, I was not obese.

Holy crap to this thread. If you stop losing for a long while, cut your calories. That's what you did when you started this whole thing...DUH

Mail - you are obsessed with this video. You've made your point.

Holy crap to this thread. If you stop losing for a long while, cut your calories. That's what you did when you started this whole thing...DUH

or lift heavier

Holy crap to this thread. If you stop losing for a long while, cut your calories. That's what you did when you started this whole thing...DUH

or lift heavier

another DUH

Yes, as BF goes down, leptin levels do as well.

Leptin is a hormone that is secreted to burn off fat....
So if your BF% is low, then leptin in your system will be also.

That jives with what the video says.

The video then goes on to explain the physiological changes that appear to happen as a result of lower leptin levels. Namely a cascade of other hormonal changes that result in fat-level restoration mechanisms kicking in, like increased hunger and reduced metabolism.

that would prolly be ghrelin.
Just cut back on carbs....
That is what drives hunger and ghrelin

Holy crap to this thread. If you stop losing for a long while, cut your calories. That's what you did when you started this whole thing...DUH

Absolutely. If your weight loss stalls, you've got to cut your caloric intake even more. The hard part here is you're going to have to cut it 15-20% less than someone of your weight who was never overweight.

Mail - you are obsessed with this video. You've made your point.

A lot of people are still saying things that contradict it.

Your point has been made. people disagree about everything. That is the point about studies like this and science in general..contradict the findings.

A lot of people are still saying things that contradict it.

None of what I have said contradicts it....
Sounds like we are pretty much on the same page....

My only disagreement is the Energy level drop.......I disagree with that....
I also think that the more LBM you have, the more you can eat while still losing weight....
I mean I am over 3000 cals/day....and I ain't seeing my weight go up....which is a bit frustrating.

My only disagreement is the Energy level drop.......I disagree with that....

I don't know what you mean by an "energy level drop".

Metabolism evidently does decline with fat loss as the body tries to counter the loss.

I also think that the more LBM you have, the more you can eat while still losing weight....
I mean I am over 3000 cals/day....and I ain't seeing my weight go up....which is a bit frustrating.

I'm sure that is correct, since the more LBM you have the higher your metabolism will be.

And what I would say to that is in their never obese person and they lose 10% of their body weight....
If 10% BW is loss, how much is LBM? Again, if LBM is lost during weight loss, then YES energy requirements will be less.

Watch the video. The relevant part starts at 35:00. It appears that they are comparing LBM.

But to me the take-away is that if you take an average joe who was never obese who weights 170 pounds, and compare his metabolism to another average joe who was once 250 pounds and lost down to 170 pounds, the once-250-pound joe is going to have a metabolism that is about 15-20% slower than the always-170-pound joe.

The study is interesting. I have heard this before. I didn't watch the video, but get the gist from what you've posted, so thanks for the info.