When does starvation mode apply?

Are you still feeling hungry at the end of the day? If not then I think you are fine. I'm not an expert, but as long as you're not feeling the hunger pangs it should be ok.

I'm not sure exactly what triggers it, but I get that message too sometimes. I eat more during a work day than on the weekend, as I'm bored at work but too busy on the weekend to remember eating. Sometimes I'll have breakfast and dinner and thats it.

Usually a few weeks of consistant low levels. A few days wont hurt you.

And just to make it easier... here's the article in the link I posted above:

What a buzzword this has become. Not only is our nation (world even) getting fatter by the day...

Now marketers are using scare tactics such as the dreaded starvation mode to strike fear in people trying to diet. What's next... broccoli makes you fat? As if there wasn't enough confusion and conflicting data out there already. But oh yea, wait... that confusion is what drives sales!

In actuality, there is some truth to what 'experts' are calling the starvation mode. But there's a whole lot of fiction and ignorance thrown into the mix as I see it today.

Can anyone here actually tell me what the starvation mode is?

My bet is most of your responses would look something like this:

"It is when you don't eat enough and your body thinks it's starving. When you reach this point, your body starts storing everything it can get its hands on as fat and breaks down your muscles."

Amirite?

Here are some myth busters in relation to the above quote:

* The starvation mode is not an event. It's not a mode either. Rather, it's a continual adaptation/readjustment of the bodily systems associated with metabolism in response to dieting and weight loss

* Said adaptation takes place regardless of the size of a calorie shortage (deficit). Diet using a very small deficit and the same adjustments will take place had you dieted using a more aggressive deficit. It will simply take longer for this to happen. In addition, there is no set level of caloric intake that triggers the starvation mode universally.

* You're body will not store fat if it is in a caloric deficit. Granted, the adaptation might slow down your metabolic rate. This does not mean, however, that all things you eat are stored as fat and all muscles you have will be lost. A deficit is a deficit no matter how you slice it and unless your body is magic, you're not going to be able to create something out of nothing (store fat without an excess of calories).

So here's the low down in simplistic terms...

The starvation response is simply a fancy way of labeling the adaptations that take place in our bodies in response to a shortage of energy.

The adaptations involved primarily exist to slowdown our metabolisms. The slowdown has a lot to do with the drop in body mass (specifically fat) associated with dieting. It also has to do with with hormonal shifts in response to the energy shortage.

Namely, our bodies don't want to be lean. Being lean goes against every natural inclination it has to survive as a species. We are a species that has evolved over many, many years. Deep in our past, a continuous and abundant food supply was something dreams were made of. Food was scarce. Knowing this, when early man would find food, he would eat a lot. His goal was to store fat which would help ensure his survival during the winter months when food would be nonexistent. Fat was a savior to these people.

We all know fat is a storage depot of excess energy. Very few of us, however, will ever be stranded on an island with no food and be forced to survive off of said storage. Our ancestors though, used this as their life blood for thousands of years which in turn, has influenced our genetic hardwiring.

The adaptations associated with dieting and losing weight, which we collectively call the starvation response or starvation mode, is simply a product of this genetic hardwiring.

In relation to plateaus... a plateau can stem from the starvation response. However, not all plateaus are products of the starvation response, so they are not one in the same as many believe. It's a given that a reduction in body weight will lead to a reduction in caloric requirements. At times though, it seems that caloric requirements drop further than weight. Put differently, in some instances it seems that what should in fact be a caloric deficit given your stats is actually maintenance or worse, a surplus. In these instances, the starvation response might be playing a role in the plateau.

It's also important to note the response is not universal to all dieters. It depends heavily on things such as genetics, sex, body fat and other stats, etc. With that in mind, obese people don't have to worry so much about metabolic slowdowns relating to the starvation response. They have much more room to wiggle, so to speak. If they find that they're plateaued, it's more likely stemming from something besides metabolic 'disruption.'

A huge regulatory signal that keeps your body out of "The Horrid Starvation Mode" is body fat. If you're fat, your body knows it for the most part and the adaptations we speak of from above are not something to be concerned with at the time.

However, if you're 500 lbs and you drop to 350... sure, starvation mode isn't something you need to concern yourself with but you still have to adjust your caloric intake to account for the giant loss in body mass.

All this said, the starvation mode is with any of us who are losing weight. There's no way around it. This certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't diet. It does mean, though, that you should manage your expectations appropriately and use logic and reason to navigate your way through losing your excess weight. Understand that weight loss is not a linear phenomenon. You can't set calories at X and expect Y amount of progress each and every week.

There's no doubt that these survival mechanisms built into our genetics play more of a role when we're lean trying to get leaner. When you're closer to your goal weight, there are some 'things' you can do to aid the process such as refeeds and carbohydrate cycling. This is beyond the scope of this thread though.

Hopefully this puts all the mysticism to rest.

When you start eating below 1200 calories a day, your body goes into starvation mode. It's not just MFP rules, doctors suggest it as well. Your body needs a set amount of calories to properly function in a day (to regulate breathing, proper brain function, etc). 1200 calories is the bare minimum. By eating under that, you're not *guaranteed* to starving yourself, but your metabolism will start to slow down. By consistently eating under a safe RDI, you're putting yourself at risk for stalling your weight loss, as well as a slew of other health issues.

Sorry, Steve.

I come from a nutritional background (specializing in dietary needs, with the rest of my family working in the medical field, and my sister being a registered dietitian), and have yet to come across anyone in the profession who doesn't agree with the "under 1200 rule".

I read your last post. Where did you get your information from?

I'm not trying to be rude, or a know-it-all either, just trying to make sure we're all losing weight the healthy way

When you start eating below 1200 calories a day, your body goes into starvation mode. It's not just MFP rules, doctors suggest it as well. Your body needs a set amount of calories to properly function in a day (to regulate breathing, proper brain function, etc). 1200 calories is the bare minimum. By eating under that, you're not *guaranteed* to starving yourself, but your metabolism will start to slow down. By consistently eating under a safe RDI, you're putting yourself at risk for stalling your weight loss, as well as a slew of other health issues.
...
Sorry, Steve.

I come from a nutritional background (specializing in dietary needs, with the rest of my family working in the medical field, and my sister being a registered dietitian), and have yet to come across anyone in the profession who doesn't agree with the "under 1200 rule".

The report of a joint FAO / WHO / UNU Expert Consultation doesn't agree with the "under 1200 rule".
(FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation; WHO: World Health Organisation; UNU: United Nations University)
source: http://www.nutrinfo.com/archivos/ebooks/human_energy_req.pdf

They define Basal metabolic rate (BMR) as:

This comprises a series of functions that are essential for life, such as cell function and replacement; the synthesis, secretion and metabolism of enzymes and hormones to transport proteins and other substances and molecules; the maintenance of body temperature; uninterrupted work of cardiac and respiratory muscles; and brain function. The amount of energy used for basal metabolism in a period of time is called the basal metabolic rate (BMR), and is measured under standard conditions that include being awake in the supine position after ten to 12 hours of fasting and eight hours of physical rest, and being in a state of mental relaxation in an ambient environmental temperature that does not elicit heat-generating or heat-dissipating processes. Depending on age and lifestyle, BMR represents 45 to 70 percent of daily total energy expenditure, and it is determined mainly by the individual's age, gener, body size and body composition.

(p7)

To point out the contradiction I want to summarise your statement:
* Your body needs a set amount of calories to properly function in a day
* That amount is 1200 calories per day
* Consistently eating less than this is a risk to health

And I want to summarise the FAO/WHO/UNU report argument:
* Your body needs a set amount of calories to function properly [fn1]
* That amount is the BMR and is determined mainly by the individual's age, gener, body size and body composition
* Consistently eating less than this is a risk to health

The contradiction is that 1200 calories / day is stated as a minimum applicable to everyone, whereas the FAO/WHO/UNU report suggest the minimum energy intake depends on individual characteristics. Having said that, I can't see any mention of whether that energy needs to come from food consumed that day, and whether or not there is a problem with relying on fat stores to provide a portion of that minimum energy requirement.

[fn1] "There is no indication that exactly this amount of of energy must be consumed every day, nor that the requirement and recommended intake are constant, day after day. Neither is there any biological basis for defining the number of days over which the requirement or intake must be averaged.

Not a problem!

And for the record... while I don't condone eating below BMR for extended periods of time, when you do here and there it's still not going to invoke the "starvation mode" as many think of the term. The only reason I think it's important to bring this up is many folks fear the starvation mode on a day to day basis as if it's lurking around the corner - the next day they don't eat their BMR is going to lead to nutritional disaster.

There's a reason why "starvation mode" isn't a scientific term. It's made up by our media. In the literature it goes by adaptive thermogenesis which implies that it's a long-term, gradual and continuous process your body, on many many levels, undergoes, in response to under-feeding.

No reason to be embarrassed and welcome to the community. As I said previously... disagreements open the doors to learning as long as respect is maintained.

You're the second person to tell me about that article today. Good old Tom... he's always good for useful, evidence based articles. Thanks for sharing!

Well I'm glad I could help. Best to you as you embark on this journey. If you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask!