Starvation Mode is a Myth.

Options
Copy and Pasted from: http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
Because I am so sick of hearing about Starvation Mode!!!

Not my words. But I agree 100%.

"So what is the Starvation Mode Myth? It goes like this:

"If you don't eat enough, you won't lose weight!"

Okay, so all I have to do to lose weight is ... eat more food! Wow, isn't that awesome? If I stall out at 800 calories, I'll just go up to 1000. And if I stall at 1000, I'll go to 1200. If that doesn't work, how about 1500? 1800? 2200? Oh wait, when I ate 2200 calories, I weighed 223 pounds. Okay, that's not going to work.

But what if I just don't go below the magic "1200" that "everyone" says "no one" should go below? That must be what they mean by "starvation mode," right? If I stay at 1200, I will lose weight but if I go below that, I won't.

The problem with this idea is that, if it were true, no one would die from starvation and obviously people do. Clearly, even if you eat what is obviously too few calories to be healthy, such as an anorexic does, you will continue to lose weight.

So where did this idea -- that not eating enough calories makes you not lose weight -- come from?

It started with the famous Minnesota starvation study. Some normal-weighted men agreed to live on a compound where their exercise and diet was strictly controlled. For portions of the study, they were on a "starvation diet" which is defined as 50% of the calories your body needs to function.

For me, these days, that's about 750-850 calories a day. So I was on a starvation diet up for the first four months after my surgery. Yet I lost weight just fine during that period -- better than fine, really. Most of the people on The Biggest Loser are also on starvation diets, from what I can tell. They may eat a lot more than I do but they also exercise strenuously 6-8 hours a day. So they are often below 50% of their calorie expenditure for the day. They seem to lose just fine too.

How can this be?!

The answer lies in what actually happened to the Minnesota guys when they were on their starvation diets.

Like most of us on a diet, their metabolisms did slow down. In fact, after they'd been on this diet for a while -- we're talking months, not days here -- their body fat percentage got to a point below what is considered minimal to live on (about 5% for a guy, 6% for a gal). At this point, their metabolism had slowed down as much as 40%. But -- and this is the important point for those of us on a diet -- they continued to lose weight. Even with that big of a slow down in their BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), they were still operating at a great enough calorie deficit to lose.

If this is true with a 40% slow down, it's even more true when the slow down is somewhere in the 14 - 22% range, which is more where if falls with normal dieting.

WARNING MATH CONTENT AHEAD:

Take an individual who needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain their current weight. Assuming calorie expenditure remains the same, they will lose (approximately) as follows:






Calories Expected
Loss
Per Week Actual Loss
2,000 0 pound 0 pound
1,500 1 pound 1 pound
1,000 2 pounds 2 pound
500 3 pounds 2¼ to 2½ pounds


As you can see from the table, once you go below a certain calorie level, you aren't getting the weight loss you'd expect. This is because your BMR will go down more if you eat only 500 calories compared to eating 1500. But, as you can see, you are still losing more than if you were eating 1000 calories.

This is a lot different than the "no" weight loss that the "starvation mode" myth touts.

The other important point to note about this study is that it was performed on normal-weighted men. When starvation studies have been done on the obese, they find that the impact of the starvation diet is much less. Our bodies have fat stores designed to get us through a famine (i.e., a diet) and when we have a famine (i.e., a diet), those fat stores get used. The drastic slowdown of the metabolism doesn't happen until those fat stores are largely gone -- which takes a lot longer for the obese than for those who only have to lose 10-25 pounds.

So why are we told not to go under 1200 calories a day, unless under a doctor's supervision?

Mostly because, the more you reduce your intake, the harder it is to get the nutritients you need from food. If you are on a very low calorie diet (as I am), you need to see your doctor(s) regularly, get labs done regularly, etc. Not to mention, vitamin supplementation is a must. Doing what I'm doing on your own can be dangerous, as you may not know or noticed the signs of a vitamin or mineral deficiency. Don't forget: some vitamin deficiencies can kill you!

Another reason not to go below a certain calorie expenditure is that human beings are not machines and, unlike the guys in the Minnesota study, we aren't living on a compound with our activity and food strictly controlled. As a result, when we reduce our calories substantially, there is a tendency to subconsciously (or even consciously) reduce our calorie expenditure. Combine this with our tendency to under-report what we eat and over-report our exercise, and you can see where we can get into trouble.

As an example, one Saturday I did a killer two hour workout. After which, I came home and took a three hour nap! Obviously my calorie expenditure that day was lower than if I hadn't taken the nap.

Now, I still lost weight that week. But if I was only eating 500 calories for months at time, I doubt I'd be able to have done that workout to begin with -- I'd still be doing the 30 min. low intensity workouts that I started with. Plus, I might also be taking naps a lot more than once in a while. Both of which would have impacted my weight loss because they would have decreased my calorie expenditure.

Eating more over time has allowed me to exercise more so that, as a result, my rate of weight loss hasn't gone down as much as it could have as my calories have gone up. Plus I'm happy because I'm fitter and healthier.

In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things."
«13

Replies

  • Leannek74
    Leannek74 Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    I agree with some points but not eating enough does cause your body to work less efficiently and promotes a lot of health issues, including type 2 diabetes, organ damage etc. It is simply not worth it.

    For me losing my weight is about living happy and healthy, not skinny and sick.
  • leix
    leix Posts: 176
    Options
    If this was worded with alot less ' in your face attitude' i probably would have read it all...
  • MelissaGrimes
    Options
    love love love this post! THANKS for setting it straight...like you said, People seem to forget that humans(sadly)all around the world die everyday of starvation, not by making sure they eat their 1200+ calories a day...
  • SiltyPigeon
    SiltyPigeon Posts: 920 Member
    Options
    I am not suggesting anyone SHOULD dip below their 1200 calories a day. Hey, you have to have some energy and enjoyment in life, right? I just don't like the spreading of misinformation. I also don't like when people use misinformation to tell other people what they should or should not be doing.

    Your body stores up fat like a squirrel stores up nuts. That squirrel is not going to eat the tree bark until the nuts are all gone. Similarly, your body is not going to shut down your organs or eat your muscle tissue until your fat stores are used up.
  • roylawrence87
    roylawrence87 Posts: 970 Member
    Options
    Another one???? I can see it now.... *turns and runs*
  • ppiinnkkmmoonn
    Options
    i agree for the most part. everyone also say low cals diets dont work again i disagree be a year and have maintain my weight and i eat 1400 to 1700 cals a day now. so..........in the end who knows who makes this stuff up one day eggs are bad now they are good list goes on go fig. in the end everyone is built different
  • NoAdditives
    NoAdditives Posts: 4,251 Member
    Options
    It's not a myth. It happens. It happened to me. While 1200 is just a general number there is a threshold for each person. If you get below what you need your body will store all the nutrition it can and it will stop functioning properly. I was getting 400-700 calories per day (without realizing it) once I started exercising after my son was born. I lost weight for a little while but the weight loss stopped after just 10 pounds. For three months I exercised regularly, watched what I ate and I lost nothing. Once I started eating eating enough (about 1400 calories plus exercise calories) I started losing immediately.
  • wriglucy
    wriglucy Posts: 1,064 Member
    Options
    No offense, but I didn't even read the whole article, because that source is not a legit source...a blog source. And I think its pretty ignorant to not believe starvation mode exists. yes, it's not going to happen after a day or 2, but after prolonged periods of not eating enough to maintain your bodily function, your body will try to save itself and reduce body function. Yes people do die from it, after their body has tried to maintain itself with no help and fails.

    The 1200 calorie thing, I think is just a ball park figure. I have to research that more.

    But otherwise, this article is not true. Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm sick of people believing things from sources that have no merit.
  • 123456654321
    123456654321 Posts: 1,311 Member
    Options
    3....2....1......
  • Tandksmommy11
    Tandksmommy11 Posts: 399 Member
    Options
    You can absolutely lose weight by not eating 1200 calories, and going into "starvation mode". BUT, you will NEVER maintain it, if you change your diet in the slightest. So basically you'd end up eating next to nothing for the rest of your life.
  • amyrc12
    amyrc12 Posts: 183 Member
    Options
    admittedly I didn't read the whole thing as this is kind wordy... but I did get as far as reading the link it's copied from.
    i'm hesitant to believe things from a 'blogspot' address.
    Too often people look at calories as the enemy... but we all need them to survive.
    Moderation is key - but I'll stick to asking my Dr for advice on that front.
  • wriglucy
    wriglucy Posts: 1,064 Member
    Options
    It's not a myth. It happens. It happened to me. While 1200 is just a general number there is a threshold for each person. If you get below what you need your body will store all the nutrition it can and it will stop functioning properly. I was getting 400-700 calories per day (without realizing it) once I started exercising after my son was born. I lost weight for a little while but the weight loss stopped after just 10 pounds. For three months I exercised regularly, watched what I ate and I lost nothing. Once I started eating eating enough (about 1400 calories plus exercise calories) I started losing immediately.

    Exactly. I was anorexic in high school, still struggling everyday. BUT, why do you think girls lose their periods? Because their body is trying to conserve its resources for heart and brain function. THAT is part of "starvation mode." Your body tries tomaintain on the little bit it has. And sadly, some bodies cannot maintain that long, and people do die.
  • wriglucy
    wriglucy Posts: 1,064 Member
    Options
    admittedly I didn't read the whole thing as this is kind wordy... but I did get as far as reading the link it's copied from.
    i'm hesitant to believe things from a 'blogspot' address.
    Too often people look at calories as the enemy... but we all need them to survive.
    Moderation is key - but I'll stick to asking my Dr for advice on that front.

    YES!!! THIS IS NOT A LEGIT SOURCE! PLEASE DO BETTER RESEARCH BEFORE SAYING STUFF!
  • Mindful_Trent
    Mindful_Trent Posts: 3,954 Member
    Options
    love love love this post! THANKS for setting it straight...like you said, People seem to forget that humans(sadly)all around the world die everyday of starvation, not by making sure they eat their 1200+ calories a day...

    You are talking about somethign completely different. I wish people would quit calling it starvation mode - really, it's "reduced metabolism mode" or something like that. I know there's actually a scentific name for it but I can't remember what post I saw it in. Someone starving to death and someone doing damage to their bodies (and causing weight loss to slow) because they eat too little (but not enough to truly starve) are two different scenarios.
    Similarly, your body is not going to shut down your organs or eat your muscle tissue until your fat stores are used up.

    That's not true. Obese individuals can burn more fat in higher deficits, but for people who have just a little weight to lose (or are just regular "overweight" instead of obese) cannot handle a high deficit the same way that an obese individual can. Someone of a little-more-than healthy weight who goes on a crash diet and eats 800 calories a day while still exercising (or whatever the specific scenario might be) will lose lean muscle mass because the body is not getting all the fuel it needs. The body will take some from fat, but it will take some from muscle, too.
  • SiltyPigeon
    SiltyPigeon Posts: 920 Member
    Options
    These were not my words. I copy and pasted the article to try to start a discussion.
  • HawkeyeGuy
    HawkeyeGuy Posts: 183
    Options
    Miss Misinformation:

    Do YOUR homework first. (Note the condescending tone similar to your post.) So you know, any point discussed on this site (or any other) can find a counterpoint and copy and paste it. You are completely missing what the starvation mode is, and how it can affect someone. It's based on long-term weight loss, and your body's ability to continue to burn calories at an effective level, and upon storing calories, store them in a way that powers short term activity instead of long-term fat storage.

    If you'd like to discuss this in detail, I will happily PM my phone number, and you can call me from a blocked number and I'll help you understand this.

    Also, if you'd simply gone and worked out rather than copying and pasting random articles, you'd be in a better place. If you find this place so annoying, get your information from what you consider the other "diet sites"...

    SSG
  • mjsharpe
    mjsharpe Posts: 1
    Options
    The other reason not to under eat is to reduce the amount of active cells (i.e. muscle tissue) you lose during weight loss. Losing active cells will permanently reduce your metabolism (more muscle = higher BMR) meaning when you start eating "normally" again you are more likely to gain weight.

    While some loss of muscle tissue is generally unavoidable during weight loss, ensuring you eat enough quantity and variety of proteins, enough carbohydrate to activate those proteins etc. along with weight training to stimulate muscle growth, will help reduce that loss. Its something many women either don't realise, or ignore when losing weight, concentrating on what the scales are telling them instead.
  • crackerjack345
    crackerjack345 Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    Check out this that was posted by one of the founders of MFP.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

    Hmmmmm....slower metabolism? Not what I need! And your body is likely burning muscle instead of fat when such a large deficit is created. If losing weight is your only goal, then sure, you'll lose muscle mass and thus weight. Until there's not enough muscle mass left, and then your body will, very reluctantly, give up it's fat stores.
  • SiltyPigeon
    SiltyPigeon Posts: 920 Member
    Options
    admittedly I didn't read the whole thing as this is kind wordy... but I did get as far as reading the link it's copied from.
    i'm hesitant to believe things from a 'blogspot' address.
    Too often people look at calories as the enemy... but we all need them to survive.
    Moderation is key - but I'll stick to asking my Dr for advice on that front.

    YES!!! THIS IS NOT A LEGIT SOURCE! PLEASE DO BETTER RESEARCH BEFORE SAYING STUFF!

    Here is a report from the National Health Association:

    http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267

    Surely that is a "legit source"?
  • ✿KẙMb529✿
    Options
    It's not a myth. It happens. It happened to me. While 1200 is just a general number there is a threshold for each person. If you get below what you need your body will store all the nutrition it can and it will stop functioning properly. I was getting 400-700 calories per day (without realizing it) once I started exercising after my son was born. I lost weight for a little while but the weight loss stopped after just 10 pounds. For three months I exercised regularly, watched what I ate and I lost nothing. Once I started eating eating enough (about 1400 calories plus exercise calories) I started losing immediately.

    Exactly. I was anorexic in high school, still struggling everyday. BUT, why do you think girls lose their periods? Because their body is trying to conserve its resources for heart and brain function. THAT is part of "starvation mode." Your body tries tomaintain on the little bit it has. And sadly, some bodies cannot maintain that long, and people do die.

    AGREED!