Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

Options
1356717

Replies

  • Dobsaya
    Dobsaya Posts: 235
    Options
    I try to fast once a week for religious reasons and I wear a bodymedia fit armband. I actually see my metabolism slowed for the entire day that I am fasting and my baseline at night is also lower when I fast. People can do what they please, but I know from experience that I only plateau when I eat too little.
  • Dobsaya
    Dobsaya Posts: 235
    Options
    This post is vey quetionable. I have a step-father who weighs close to 300 pounds. I turned him onto MFP and my mom logs all his calories for him. He is basically starving himself with 1200 calories a day and exercising about 2 hours. He was stagnant the first week on here and actually gained 2 pounds the second week. Even before this site he was eating this low calorie amount but this sight wants him to eat to lose and he can't see the science behind that either so his gains in weight loss continute to be very little.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Options
    Scientists have identified the first gene essential to extending the lives of animals on low-calorie diets, raising the prospects of a longevity pill.

    In earlier research, "caloric restriction" extended the life, sometimes 40% longer than average, of creatures ranging from mice to worms. Some studies in people and monkeys are exploring whether near-starvation diets, which consist of perhaps 70% of the calories consumed in a normal diet, will help them live longer, too.

    But "those diets are pretty tough to stick with," says Andrew Dillin of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., whose international team's gene research is reported in today's issue of the journal Nature. Discovery of the gene, called PHA-4, raises hopes that uncovering the genetic machinery behind caloric restrictions may enable people to skip starvation and still live longer.

    Other genes have been linked to low-calorie diets and life extension in the past, but in the new study, the team found that the presence or absence of PHA-4 in worms was the make-or-break factor in whether a starvation diet extended their lives, regardless of whether they had any of those other genes.

    Dillin calls PHA-4 the "primordial" gene underlying a process that likely arose in feast-or-famine conditions in the past, where creatures that evolved metabolisms that worked more efficiently under starvation conditions survived. Versions of the gene, which the team has patented in worms, are found in mammals, too, and the team is conducting experiments on mice to see its effect.

    "We are on the threshold of some pretty big discoveries in caloric restriction," says MIT biologist Leonard Guarente, who was not part of the PHA-4 study. A number of recent discoveries, such as last year's report by Harvard Medical School researchers that resveratrol, which is found in red wine, has life-extending properties in mice, also have boosted hopes for life-extension treatments.

    "My suspicion is that (treatment) won't be a substitute for a healthy lifestyle. You'll still need to go to the gym," Guarente says. "But if you are fit, we'll find something to make you fitter and if you aren't, we'll likely find something to help."

    In the study, Dillin's team turned their gene on and off by adding gene-silencing compounds to the worm's food. If similar experiments work in mice, a final step would be to try boosting the activity of the mammalian version of the gene, called Foxa1, in people.

    Starvation is nothing new in human history, Dillin notes, but in previous centuries people lacked antibiotics, sanitation and hospitals, likely disguising any longevity benefits hidden in famine.

    (c) USA TODAY, 2007

    I have read this several times. That because the metabolism is slowed down, the aging process also slows down, increasing our life expectency.

    I found this on Marks Daily Apple which also touches on the same notion about the gene in the above mentioned abstract.

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/pdf/anti_aging_report.pdf
  • Guinepig
    Guinepig Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Hmmm, never heard that! However I have heard that you can safely reduce your calories to very low amount for no more that 3 days at a time, then take a break, bring it back up to a reasonable amount for 4 days and do it again. It's supposed to work quite well without triggering the "starvation mode". I have never tried this though because I get sick if I don't eat enough.

    I have heard this also.
    But I am still sceptical about it (starvation mode) being untrue. Years of the starvation mode myth makes me want to do more research, because if it is indeed a myth, why do people not lose weight on very low calorie diets overtime?
  • kwardklinck
    kwardklinck Posts: 1,601
    Options
    I find it hard to get a balanced diet in if I eat below the 1200 number but maybe that's just me. What I can tell you is that I actually eat more food every day than my overweight friends. I'm losing and they're not.
  • mikeyrp
    mikeyrp Posts: 1,616 Member
    Options
    Being relatively new to MFP I have only just seen this debate in action...

    To me it seems like common sense to set a target intake based on what your body needs to function healthily whilst allowing you to loose weight. - And intake isn't just calories, its vitamins, minerals, carbs, protein, 'the right type of fats' etc

    Likewise - whilst in an ideal world we would consume a similar amount every day, there is going to be a reasonable amount of flexibility over daily consumption in, say, a week long period, so long as your average is OK.

    As for the 1200 Cal thing - Everyone is different - Start with recommended intake of someone your sex/age/weight - and see if you 1) loose weight and 2) don't feel tired (and are getting enough sleep and fluids). Adjust intake accordingly...
  • BigBoneSista
    BigBoneSista Posts: 2,389 Member
    Options

    Yes DO encourage people to eat healthy and watch their macro nutrients AND their micronutrients. Those are ridiculously important. No one is suggesting otherwise. The problem is, we're putting too much emphasis on this..... unit of measurement called a calorie and not enough emphasis on nutritional standards.

    AGREE!
  • CARNAT22
    CARNAT22 Posts: 764 Member
    Options
    So the point is you don't have to make 1200 cals per day??

    Is that an acccurate summary?
  • nk17
    nk17 Posts: 141 Member
    Options
    At first I was worried when I kept seeing the "Starvation Mode" notice. Then I listened to my body instead of the screen. It wasn't complaining, so I've gone right on starving and am feeling good and am not deprived. I pay careful attention to my nutrients though. Just recently I've noticed I have not enough Vitamin C in my diet, most likely due to the facts that orange juice tears up my stomach and tomatoes make me sick, which lets out the two key sources. But I've researched and will begin eating more papaya and kiwi and that should put me back in line. Bottom line, I feel, is to listen to your body. It will usually tell you when something isn't right.
  • dalbers
    Options
    Starvation mode has become a witch hunt. The magic number that makes your metabolic rate go at a snail's pace.

    And didn't I just read and call bunk on an article here yesterday about how low calories (700 a day) was causing some 185 lady to maintain weight due to this slowing of metabolism? This topic which I won't point out, had 4 pages of "bumps" to keep it on top!!!!
  • Swilson87
    Options
    I would caution everyone to be careful of how you accept advice from any source. Not to say that anything said here is just out and out wrong, but we must always remember the our bodies goal is homeostasis. How do we gain size in muscle? By placing a load on them (resistance training). Our muscles grow to handle the "new" load placed on them. From what I've studied, the starvation mode is not a myth, but may be misunderstood. My understanding of the it is when the body does not have adequate amounts of necessary macronutrients and has to look to other sources.

    Carbs are our main source of energy, so we need them. Once the carbs are depleted, the body targets fat stores. That's the basic premise behind low carb diets. You get to the fat sooner, but your energy levels are very low. This is where problems usually show. If the your carbs and calories are too low, your body may bypass the fat and begin to use protein (muscle) for energy. I'm sure we will all agree tha that would be counter productive. Could that be why you're not losing fat even though you've dropped your calories? Probably. Starvation mode does not shut the body down, but it will alter the way it rids itself of fat weight.
  • Ambrogio1
    Ambrogio1 Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    Every person is different. Some burn a ton more then they eat and don't lose weight. So many things go into weight loss.
    Most of the time if you burn more then you eat then you lose weight. Science isn't always right, I seen it

    Best to experience everything personal. Takes time to learn your body. There is no science behind that
    You hurt, take a rest
    Your hungry, eat
    Your not losing weight, change what you are doing
    Your losing weight, keep it moving!
  • RVLMonavie
    Options
    Thanks for posting this, I ignore the sites words of encoragement to eat 1200cal. But I am glad to read your post. Some time back I was able to drink Shakes Tea and supplements for 3 days just to get my body detox and that was noway near 1200cal. I moved to 2 shakes a day and one meal, that was still not 1200cals I lost the weight I was not hungry but I did miss food. afte 4pm I was hitting the restaurant or fridge for all it had but found my self being satisfied ratter quickly. My metabolism wasn't slow and my body never when on starvation mode. thanks againfor the post
  • Swilson87
    Options
    ....and yes the rate at which the body burns fat weight will decrease because of that homeostasis thing. In short the body says, " you're not feeding me, so I'm taking over to preserve life."
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Options
    I would caution everyone to be careful of how you accept advice from any source. Not to say that anything said here is just out and out wrong, but we must always remember the our bodies goal is homeostasis. How do we gain size in muscle? By placing a load on them (resistance training). Our muscles grow to handle the "new" load placed on them. From what I've studied, the starvation mode is not a myth, but may be misunderstood. My understanding of the it is when the body does not have adequate amounts of necessary macronutrients and has to look to other sources.

    Carbs are our main source of energy, so we need them. Once the carbs are depleted, the body targets fat stores. That's the basic premise behind low carb diets. You get to the fat sooner, but your energy levels are very low. This is where problems usually show. If the your carbs and calories are too low, your body may bypass the fat and begin to use protein (muscle) for energy. I'm sure we will all agree tha that would be counter productive. Could that be why you're not losing fat even though you've dropped your calories? Probably. Starvation mode does not shut the body down, but it will alter the way it rids itself of fat weight.

    Actually it is incorrect to say that because someone eating low carb has low energy levels. Quite the contrary is true. The majority of us that are eating a low carb plan have way more energy and losing weight effortlessly.

    Carbs are not necessary. They are a quick energy source, but not necessary for our survival.
  • FearAnLoathing
    FearAnLoathing Posts: 4,852 Member
    Options
    Thank you!
  • FearAnLoathing
    FearAnLoathing Posts: 4,852 Member
    Options
    Here is my problem with the whole starvation mode idea that people have tried to press on me.I am not a big eater!I have never been .If you were to track my calories as a child , a teenager,the times in my 20s when I was sober and eating normal for me, you would see thatI never went over 1200 and thats before you take any exercise into account.I started trying to lose this extra weight I gained from my pregnacy last april.from april to sep i exercised 6 days a week 1 to 2 hours a day.I didnt restric my eating I ate how I normally do.I lost 40 pounds and when I took a break between oct an jan i never gained a pound back.I saw a dr who told me I WAS PERFECTLY FINE!That is just how my body works im not going to shove extra food in my mouth if im not hungry.I do not deny or restric myself.Now I get that the way I work is not the way other people work which is why I have never said do what I do.
    I find it compleatly ridiculos to be toldi might be lying or at 34 years old have no idea as to what im actually eating or how much.
    I am very healthy im not anemic my hair is not falling out.ive seen a dr several times which is not cheap for someone without health insurance.AND IM OK that is me that is the way my body works.
  • StarryEyedGirl
    Options
    Bump
  • muth3rluvx2
    muth3rluvx2 Posts: 1,156 Member
    Options
    So the point is you don't have to make 1200 cals per day??

    Is that an acccurate summary?


    NO.

    The point is that calories aren't the end all be all of a healthy & nutritious diet. Nutrition is. AND people are NOT going to starve at a little less than 1200. It depends MORE on what you eat and if you're meeting all your body's nutrient needs than if you hit that magical number. BUT unless you're living like the guy in the Today article, you aren't going to hit those nutritional goals at under 1200 just because most people don't heat in a way that is so healthy, natural and nutrient packed.

    What's being pointed out is that WHAT you eat is more important than how many calories it has. If you eat 1200 a day in crap, you're not going anywhere. If you eat 600 cals a day but you're hitting 100% + on all your nutritional needs, you're not going to die of starvation (but remember, to do that, you'd have to live like the guy in the article). Most people do something in between so for **most** people, 1200+ is probably best.
  • neelia
    neelia Posts: 750 Member
    Options
    I could really care less about the debate as I know what works for me, and that is consuming more than 1,200 calories per day. If I do not eat AT LEAST 1,200 calories, I feel deprived and lose energy. I'm sluggish, irritable and generally not a happy camper.

    My body is obviously different from any other, so I wouldn't expect someone else to obide by the same rules as I do.