Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

To all those that believe there is no real effect to depriving your body of a certain number of calories (no, not EXACTLY 1200) over a sustained period of time, please read this thread:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/174065-starvation-mode-is-real-and-ugly

It is about a long-time MFPer who USED to believe as you do, but has had to learn the hard way.

Bump

I don't think we will ever know the answer to this question as so many people have different opinions, professionals included! As far as I can tell you need to eat what your body needs and if you find yourself not losing then upping your calorie intake to see if that works for you.

Personally I eat half of my exercise calories each day as I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

1200 calories is the absolute minimum amount necessary for the body to function. Of course, it will vary depending on the person, but if one eats below 1200, they can get seriously ill in a short period of time.

Starvation mode refers to a prolonged period of time that a body is denied the nutrients necessary for its survival. Just because you fast for a day, doesn't mean your body will enter starvation mode. I try to fast every month, having a 1-day water-only fast. This does not mean that my body enters starvation mode, and I don't think MFP or any personal trainer or nutritionist will disagree.

hmmmm...I stay under 1200 calories every day, exercise every day, and my health has done nothing but improve

I was just going to say about the same thing. there is no magic number. 1200 calories is a GENERAL GUIDELINE. How could the "bare minimum" be the same for everyone?
I use 1200 as my goal, and try not to eat my exercise calories. I generally go over (what MFP suggests) on protein and fiber, but not carbs and fat. Still I have lost 11 lbs in the last 30 days.
Bottom line is that you use all the information provided to you and do what works for you!

1200 calories is the absolute minimum amount necessary for the body to function. Of course, it will vary depending on the person, but if one eats below 1200, they can get seriously ill in a short period of time.

Can you give me some sort of study which backs this up?

Starvation mode refers to a prolonged period of time that a body is denied the nutrients necessary for its survival. Just because you fast for a day, doesn't mean your body will enter starvation mode. I try to fast every month, having a 1-day water-only fast. This does not mean that my body enters starvation mode, and I don't think MFP or any personal trainer or nutritionist will disagree.

Of course, I agree with you. The problem lies in the misunderstanding of MFP's prompt, which tells us that we are in danger of going into "starvation mode" if we don't eat 1200 kCal per day. The prompt is poorly worded, and often misunderstood.

Isn't the title of this post also poorly worded and perpetuates a myth in and of itself? Starvation mode is neither a myth, nor does the research you posted confirm or deny it as a myth. People's perception of starvation mode may be wrong, but saying it's a myth in your title is as misleading as you yourself admit it's not in the body.

Besides the fact that the studies that you posted actually confirm starvation mode, not prove it as a myth. 8% may not seem like much for you, but that's plenty. And that's only after 3 days of fasting, it can be worse, and usually is after longer underfeeding periods.

and there have been other, longer term studies which point out that RMR or BMR (depending on which method they tested) went down far further in both underfeeding and total deprivation environments, as much as 25% in some cases after weeks.
case in point:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf+html?sid=e89fb416-23c9-4726-9f6b-2755536995a5

Furthermore, the percentages of nutrient types being used for energy metabolism as well as specific hormones designed to increase fat storage and decrease muscle growth change after the short term period (usually deemed between 24 and 60 hours) to promote a higher volume of fat stored and protein used as energy.
see:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/60/1/29.full.pdf+html?sid=5deb5c19-82fc-46dc-bf19-5dc7842a779a


All I'm pointing out here is, be careful you don't prove your own myth by badly worded topics. And think about who your audience is before you post. We (MFP's users) aren't the ones who can change the 1200 calorie statement you are speaking of, the site admins are, if you bring it up to them, and make a decent case, I'm sure they'll read and consider it. I've talked with Mike on several occasions, and he's a reasonable and respectful guy. I'm sure they'd talk to you about it.
If you have an issue with a statement on the site (in site content), bring it up to the admins on the site, don't post it to the food and nutrition section. there's a specific section in the forums just for this type of issue. You could post in technical support or in Website suggestions, either one would be valid for requesting a site correction.


P.S.

For the record it was the World Health Organization that posted the 1200 calorie minimum for women (you can look up the study, it's really long and boring, but it's on their site if you're truly interested), it was a study done in the 80s, and it was concluded that for women, the average minimum daily calories needed to keep a woman out of starvation (note, not starvation mode, but starvation, which is a different condition) was 1200 calories. Please note this does not mean this is right for every woman, and in fact, it probably is less valid for US women who tend to be larger than the world average (height wise), but it's there in black and white, and a valid statement for what it's worth. People twist that number, and use it for wrong purposes, but that does not invalidate the number or claim itself.

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

You're right, everyone's body does react differently. I can't answer your anecdotal evidence; all I can do is cite scientific studies.

But here's the thiing, we have compiled, through time, on this site, a LOT of anecdotal evidence that suggests that when a person has been staying consistently LOW on their calories for weeks, and hits a loss plateau, often, increasing the calories will prompt a new start to the losses, and will break up the plateau.

I agree with your assessment that we toss around the words too casually ("starvation mode" sounds so chicken little)
and we do see a slavish adherance to the magical 1200 number.

BUT that doesn't cancel out the observations of so many members that show that prolonged undereating is detrimental to steady weight loss, and often a higher intake will "fix" this problem.

OMG - THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have NO idea ...

I'm friending you. lol...

Truly, I've gotten alot of flak because I will NOT LOSE at 1200 a day. My metabolism is so slow that that is maintenance for me. And there's reasons my metabolism is that slow (fat:muscle ratio) and it can/will change - but that's what it is for now and no one has believed me. I know my body damnit - I'm the one that's lived in it for 37 years. and you are very dead on with the nutrient issue.. that's a real challenge at a lower calorie count and one I actually do worry about.

On top of the whole "starvation mode" argument. It is difficult for your body to get the required nutrients (vitamins and minerals, fat , carbs, protein, fiber) without supplementation on a diet that consists of less than 1200 cals. SO even if you don't believe in starvation mode, I'm sure you understand malnourishment, which can be another side effect of not eating enough, or eating the wrong things.

Hello, all. Since I've been on MFP, I've seen quite a bit of pseudoscience (unfortunately, propagated by the site itself) that declares that the body will go into "starvation mode" if you do not eat X amount of calories per day. I don't know the origin of this myth, but here is an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which puts the lie to the myth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

For those of us who don't wish to wade through the scientific and technical jargon, here's a summary. If a person goes without eating AT ALL for SIXTY HOURS, their metabolism will slow by roughly 8%. Until you hit the sixty-hour threshold, without having eaten at all, your metabolism remains unchanged. Should you reach that point of sixty hours without food, your metabolism will come back to normal soon after you begin eating again.

Two other studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292) show that the metabolism actually INCREASES during periods of intermittent fasting, but at an equally negligible rate: 3.8 to 10%.

As well, it appears that the arbitrary number which has been chosen for "starvation mode" (1200 kCal) is the same for everyone, which makes absolutely no sense. Why would this threshold be the same for me, at 185 lbs., as it would be for someone who weighs 260 lbs., or even 110 lbs.?

So here's the science: "starvation mode" is a myth. There is danger in restricted-calorie diets, but it comes from the possibility of not getting the vitamins and minerals your body needs, not from a magical, instantaneous slowdown of your metabolism.

Edit: grammar error

I'm not taking a position either way but you are kind of comparing apples and oranges. These studies are about extreme short trerm reductions in calories. When people talk about "starvation mode", the are generally talking about long term significant reductions in caloric intake.

Also, I believe Mike (the administrator) puts the warning there for liability reasons.

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

It may well be that the change is due to your increased level of activity on 1300 Calories/day. In fact, that's what you seem to be pointing at yourself in your posting.

No --- it is not. I will state again:

After the Lap-band I dropped 30 pounds initially -- I was exercising, and netting about 200 cals a day. I was exhausted most of the time and had a hard time getting through my routine -- and this was about 8 months (2 mos before surgery and 6 mos after surgery). I plateaued --- I tried increasing my cals a bit, I tried exercising more. Still, no change -- I got discouraged and gave up. I had a period of no exercise --- w/about 500-700 cals daily, and my weight stayed the same. I tried exercising again -- netting cals between 200-700......after another 5 months, no weight loss. Each time, my routine consisted of about 1 1/2 hours of exercise 5-6 days a week.

Between from Sept - Dec 2010 I actually gained 10-14 pounds --- my daily cal intake was still at about 500-700 cals w/ no exercise.

I started here in January, using the calculations given, with a few small adjustments, I am not working out as long or as hard as I had before, and the weight is coming off at a rate of 1-2 pounds a week, so far.

So, no --- it is not an increased activity level, but IS an increase in my calorie intake.