Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

Options
11112141617

Replies

  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Options
    Just one more little logical musing...

    If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not :wink:

    Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place... :smile:

    Starvation mode is not when someone is literally starving. It's when someone eats just enough to live. Their metabolism slows to deal with the tiny amount of calories they're getting.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
    This link explains it.

    Hi, thanks but that does not answer my question...I'm not arguing with metabolism slowing down, I just can't see how it would completely stop you losing weight. You'd be losing weight more slowly perhaps, but you would still be losing it.

    As for the link, it's written about one single person and it's embellished throughout for dramatic effect - that is a piece of anecdotal evidence if I ever saw one, so I would be hard pressed to call it 'explanation'.

    I've just watched a video of Maru the cat that likes to walk around with a paper bag/plastic cup on its head (no, really! :laugh: ) - does this make it a proven fact that all cats behave this way? I didn't think so...

    Starvation mode, as it is called, is not the same as anorexia - there are distinct differences (that I don't have time to get into at the moment - but feel free to mail me later and I'd be happy to go over it.) As for starvation mode and why the metabolism slows down and that, no you don't necessarily stop losing weight, you lose a higher ratio of muscle to fat - here are some threads that explain the processes.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

    There are others, just do a search (and read through this entire thread for other links to reliable studies (not the ones that point to blogs, unless you want more "personal opinion"))
  • taiyola
    taiyola Posts: 964 Member
    Options
    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.


    For years I ate 1000 calories or less and don't have anything medically wrong with me from it, thankfully. :smile:
  • taiyola
    taiyola Posts: 964 Member
    Options
    I also read online th 'starvation mode' only occurs once a person is eating 50% of what they're needing to eat a day. This was when I was reading the study of where they put a bunch of men in to 'starvation mode' giving them 50% of their daily needed calorie goal... Most of them went mental from it.
  • granbarrant
    granbarrant Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    BUMP.....Very interesting..thanks
  • dzilobommo
    dzilobommo Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    Just one more little logical musing...

    If in 'true' starvation mode (i.e. VERY low net calories - I'm talking about something like 300-400 net kcal a day over a prolonged period), it was possible for the human body to stop losing weight or even put weight back on...how would anorexics ever reach the point that they (sadly) do? No doubt someone can explain...or not :wink:

    Anyway, I believe that once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place... :smile:

    Starvation mode is not when someone is literally starving. It's when someone eats just enough to live. Their metabolism slows to deal with the tiny amount of calories they're getting.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
    This link explains it.

    Hi, thanks but that does not answer my question...I'm not arguing with metabolism slowing down, I just can't see how it would completely stop you losing weight. You'd be losing weight more slowly perhaps, but you would still be losing it.

    As for the link, it's written about one single person and it's embellished throughout for dramatic effect - that is a piece of anecdotal evidence if I ever saw one, so I would be hard pressed to call it 'explanation'.

    I've just watched a video of Maru the cat that likes to walk around with a paper bag/plastic cup on its head (no, really! :laugh: ) - does this make it a proven fact that all cats behave this way? I didn't think so...

    Starvation mode, as it is called, is not the same as anorexia - there are distinct differences (that I don't have time to get into at the moment - but feel free to mail me later and I'd be happy to go over it.) As for starvation mode and why the metabolism slows down and that, no you don't necessarily stop losing weight, you lose a higher ratio of muscle to fat - here are some threads that explain the processes.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

    There are others, just do a search (and read through this entire thread for other links to reliable studies (not the ones that point to blogs, unless you want more "personal opinion"))

    Thanks - I wasn't equating starvation mode with anorexia, anorexia is a psychological condition whereas starvation mode is a physiological state that can be (but does not have to be) linked to anorexia. My point was that I don't believe a slower metabolism can ever outweigh the consequences of consuming less than maintenance calories in the long run - which is how it is physiologically possible to become a bag of bones. So the case for stating 'you stop losing weight if you're not eating enough' kind of falls down, because it cannot explain how it is possible to become underweight...

    Like I said before, once you start qualifying a categorical statement with contextual information and include confounding factors, it usually turns out that it was never actually that simple or black and white in the first place. There is a world of difference between saying 'starvation mode stops you losing weight' (an oversimplified, categorical statement that many people seem to accept unquestioningly) and saying 'the ratio of fat to muscle burned changes for the worse if you starve yourself' (which is a lot more specific and plausible). But even the second statement could be made more specific - are we talking about people with high/normal/low BMI? Are we talking about people who exercise, and if so, how much? What time frame are we talking about? What other factors may influence the outcomes? (lifestyle, medical conditions, good/bad nutrition etc.)

    I am all for trying to understand how things work, but if we want to do that, we cannot ignore differences in context and just make a statement that is supposedly true in every case...so we have to overrule our very human urge to generalise from our limited experience :smile:
  • deandp371
    Options
    Seems to me that this site should have a lot of interesting data on this topic! Just a thought...
  • Rhian_81
    Rhian_81 Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    Bump.

    I am consuming between 1000 and 1200 calories a day and this is a very interesting read.
  • lilmommy
    Options
    Thanks for posting this
  • hellen72
    hellen72 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    Are people here who are eating around 1200 losing weight?

    4 years ago I was under 9 stone ( am 5'7). I ate quite healthy, about 1700 cal a day and maintained my weight. I exercised about 1 hour a day. I then started training for a marathon, people said I should eat more, I did, treats became the norm, I over compensated for the extra calories. In those 4 years, despite running 52 marathons/ ultra marathons I have put on 1.5 stone v gradually. I stopped counting calories. In nov I though enough was enough, clothes too tigh, felt fat so joined mfp and started logging cal. Before that I guess I was eating about 2300 cal a day and was putting weight on. A typical week would be running 60 miles and 2 body pump classes. If I ate my exercise calories I would be eating more than 2300 and just keep putting on.

    I have adjusted the exercise cal now and use 80 per mile as over 100 I think is too much. I also think thatbmy maintenance cal are prob about 1600 rather than the 1900 mfp says so I have adjusted all that and aiming for a 500 deficit a day ie 1100 + exercise but using my own figures for exercise

    Have come to a biit of a standstill at the mo as I am injured and think I am misjudging cal, my point is though that for me I need to be on a net of 1200 or less otherwise I won't lose, maybe I am just too efficient at running!
  • muth3rluvx2
    muth3rluvx2 Posts: 1,156 Member
    Options
    Are people here who are eating around 1200 losing weight?

    4 years ago I was under 9 stone ( am 5'7). I ate quite healthy, about 1700 cal a day and maintained my weight. I exercised about 1 hour a day. I then started training for a marathon, people said I should eat more, I did, treats became the norm, I over compensated for the extra calories. In those 4 years, despite running 52 marathons/ ultra marathons I have put on 1.5 stone v gradually. I stopped counting calories. In nov I though enough was enough, clothes too tigh, felt fat so joined mfp and started logging cal. Before that I guess I was eating about 2300 cal a day and was putting weight on. A typical week would be running 60 miles and 2 body pump classes. If I ate my exercise calories I would be eating more than 2300 and just keep putting on.

    I have adjusted the exercise cal now and use 80 per mile as over 100 I think is too much. I also think thatbmy maintenance cal are prob about 1600 rather than the 1900 mfp says so I have adjusted all that and aiming for a 500 deficit a day ie 1100 + exercise but using my own figures for exercise

    Have come to a biit of a standstill at the mo as I am injured and think I am misjudging cal, my point is though that for me I need to be on a net of 1200 or less otherwise I won't lose, maybe I am just too efficient at running!

    Hellen:

    I've been doing this for a year and I've thoroughly experimented with my calorie consumption, primarily based on the 1200 goal. I'd always suspected I was a slow burn but had no evidence and after starting here, the whole "starvation mode" concept really worried me because I *have* starved myself (but not to the point of starvING in the clincal sense... but I did lose muscle density, I'm sure). I REALLY wanted to learn how to do this right and continued to be frustrated in that nothing I did that seemed "right" according to many that I talked to that clearly have a much greater understanding of these things than I do from a scientific/chemical perspective.

    I took their word and upped my food and exercised - and cried or got angry. Alot. I gained (mostly due to other unrelated factors) - I didn't lose. Finally, I went with my gut and dropped my ending caloric results. If I ate 1300, I burned 350-400, ending my day on 900-950. And in the last 6 weeks or so, I've lost 10 lbs. I gained 3 back (TOM) and am 1 away from getting back to that 10 lb mark. It's still slow for me - I'm TERRIBLE with water and I know that's a huge part of my slow down. I'd probably lose 1.5-2 a week instead of .5-.75 if I were better with that. Everything's a process though. I didn't grow up with water being pushed as a healthy choice so now there's some relationship issues with it, but I'm working on that.

    So, do people lose with lower calories? You betcha'. But I'm also not stupid about it. I track my protein, iron & calcium - being a woman far too close to 40, those are absolutely critical nutrients and some days I"m on, some I'm not. I'm trying to pay attention to the foods that are high in these things and still low in cals & fat and get more of them in my diet. I need to be more consistent about my workouts - I'm a week on and two off... I'm slow to develop or change habits. The last week, for example, I've been consuming between 1250-1350 (or thereabouts - sometimes more) and guess what? Not losing. I'm not gaining either. This is maintenance for me in where I am physically at this point in time.

    That's another thing... caloric needs change. They aren't stable or consistent over time. So, the point in which our bodies begin to do itself damage because we aren't fulfilling its nutritional needs will also vary. I would guess that someone who has a 5-10% body fat probably is going to have alot less time that they can be extremely restrictive than someone who is 20-25% body fat. There's less to go through before the system needs to turn to muscle tissue for nutrients.

    dzilo is so right.. there's far too many confounding factors and variations for any one answer to fit all situations. I really really think what is being argued is semantics at this point. I don't think any of us disagree that the system will suffer if it doesn't get what it needs for too long a time span. The measurements of what each person requires before that happens and the amount of time it takes to get there though is going to be different. So, maybe a more appropriate set of terms is what is really called for because I dont' see anyone quibbling over the ultimate consequences.

    "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -- Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet
  • hellen72
    hellen72 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    Thanks for that post, it confirms what I think is true ie just over 1000 is ok and u lose. Will be interesting if u keep losing or if, after a period of time you go into this starvation mode

    I had a look at your diary, v healthy! U have some interesting sounding things in the us! We have cinnamon Graham cereals but what are these crackers? They sound interesting!
  • muth3rluvx2
    muth3rluvx2 Posts: 1,156 Member
    Options
    Thanks for that post, it confirms what I think is true ie just over 1000 is ok and u lose. Will be interesting if u keep losing or if, after a period of time you go into this starvation mode

    I had a look at your diary, v healthy! U have some interesting sounding things in the us! We have cinnamon Graham cereals but what are these crackers? They sound interesting!

    Hellen:

    Graham crackers? I'll friend you and I'll TRY to describe them. LOL! Alot of what I've been eating lately has been very produce heavy and geared in the Indian direction. I'm wanting to go without beef and pork for a while. I love beef, but I'm ready for a lighter, healthier diet for a bit. If I feel the need for "meat", I'll go with chicken or fish - but even those I'm going to try to keep at only once a week. I'm *TRYING* to lower my carb intake too.. having a little harder time with that. :-(

    Oh, and I doubt I'll go in starvation mode, but I probably will plateau. I think, for me, that will happen after I can manage to work out consistently enough to start building more muscle and my needs - both dietary and exercise - will change. Then, it'll be that struggle all over again to figure out what it is I'll need to do and by how much. I'll go ahead and assume I'll need to up both food & exercise intensity/time when that happens.
  • paulmmichaud
    paulmmichaud Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    bump...it's prob gonna take me hours and hours to read/research all this. LOL
  • rdy2begin
    Options
    OK Finally something that makes sense I have heard this over and over and have been back and forth trying to decide what I need to do so Thank You !
  • hellen72
    hellen72 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    Mouth, yes, I meant plataeu rather than starvation

    About 15 years ago I put on loads of weight during a gap year in Kenya

    After a couple of years I decided I needed to lose it so started to exercise and eat really healthy, lots of fruit and veg. I was working in a boarding school so had school meals at lunch and often eve but picked as healthy as I could although suspect the cooked things didn't have many nutrients left!

    I used to chop a mars bar into several bits and have one or two a day as a treat. Other than that my diet contained little rubbish, perhaps a bagel or some choc spread on toast a few times a week

    I counted calories, can't remember what I had but think it was about 1200-1500 a day, I exercised for on av 45 min a day

    I steadily lost weight. I started at 10.5 ish and wanted to get to 9 stone which is where I had always been. Can't remember how long it took, many months though as by he time I got there I was so set in my healthy eating habits, it seem normal and I didn't feel deprived so I kept eating the same way. I got down to 8.25 stone. I wasn't really targeting anything it just kind of happened.

    A few people said I was too thin ( but people always do that when someone loses weight so not sure if I was). Can't remember what happened to cause me to put on weight again, I think I went on a skiing hol and couldn't count cal as the food was diff so I didn't know what it was, also, treats were on offer a lot and I indulged. Then I got back and didn't continue counting so I think the calories crept up. I then stabilised at around 8.75 which is a bmi of 19 so still underweight.

    This was in my early 20s so not sure how it would be now but then I def didn't get into starvation mode despite having net cal below 1200. I didn't even plataue, it was my change of habits which meant I put the weight on
  • Dobsaya
    Dobsaya Posts: 235
    Options
    You calories weren't that low. Exercising for45 minutes a day may have burned between 200-400 calories making your net pretty close to 1200. Your net definitely wasn't like many with a 600 calorie deficit or less.
  • laurenk182004
    laurenk182004 Posts: 1,882 Member
    Options
    This thread is still going? I've enjoyed reading the arguments...lol
  • dzilobommo
    dzilobommo Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    Thanks for that post, it confirms what I think is true ie just over 1000 is ok and u lose. Will be interesting if u keep losing or if, after a period of time you go into this starvation mode

    I had a look at your diary, v healthy! U have some interesting sounding things in the us! We have cinnamon Graham cereals but what are these crackers? They sound interesting!

    Hellen:

    Graham crackers? I'll friend you and I'll TRY to describe them. LOL! Alot of what I've been eating lately has been very produce heavy and geared in the Indian direction. I'm wanting to go without beef and pork for a while. I love beef, but I'm ready for a lighter, healthier diet for a bit. If I feel the need for "meat", I'll go with chicken or fish - but even those I'm going to try to keep at only once a week. I'm *TRYING* to lower my carb intake too.. having a little harder time with that. :-(

    Oh, and I doubt I'll go in starvation mode, but I probably will plateau. I think, for me, that will happen after I can manage to work out consistently enough to start building more muscle and my needs - both dietary and exercise - will change. Then, it'll be that struggle all over again to figure out what it is I'll need to do and by how much. I'll go ahead and assume I'll need to up both food & exercise intensity/time when that happens.

    Something just occurred to me about plateau-ing...what I haven't seen mentioned so far is two issues about weigh-ins that can influence our perceptions of plateaus (on top of all those other confounding factors :smile: )

    Firstly, accuracy: if your scales only show full pounds, then say a 1/4 pound loss won't show up. I weigh myself in kgs and my scales show every 100g lost, which shows up relatively minuscule fluctuations in my weight. My old scales were far less accurate so it was hard to see if anything was happening to my weight in the short run, making it look more like a plateau every now and then.

    Secondly, frequency: I weigh myself every day (I'm too impatient to wait, plus it really helps with my motivation - I'm not suggesting this is the best way for everyone, it just happens to work for me :smile: ) and therefore I see all sorts of fluctuations up and down (although a definite downward trend overall). This may be another reason why I rarely ever see the same number on the scales for more than 2 consecutive weigh-ins - if I was weighing myself less often, it may look like a plateau, because it would conceal the 'activity' going on in between weigh-ins.

    Bottom line: let's not get too hung up on plateaus, we're in this for the long run!
  • Dobsaya
    Dobsaya Posts: 235
    Options
    Good points. Slow and steady wins the race.
  • hellen72
    hellen72 Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    I weigh every day but have Tuesday as official weigh day making sure I always keep Monday night food/ exercise the same so comparing like with like

    I find I weigh more if I have eaten later in the eve and if I have something heavier weight wise. If I had 100g bar of choc for my tea I would be lighter than if i had a massive bowl of homemade low cal soup cos it takes til longer than the next morning to go through me unless I eat early

    On a Monday I eat about 5.30 pm then run to gym for body pump run home and try not to eat much , just banana and hot choc

    I am lightest on tues am cos other days I tend to exercise then eat later. Mondays class is too late to have meal after