"Starvation Mode"

Options
Gamer_2k4
Gamer_2k4 Posts: 36 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I've spent a little time on the forums here (not much, which is why this topic is probably a repeat of many others), and there's something that continually confuses me. I know lots of advice can go one way or the other, but there are two "facts" that seem pretty consistent among the regulars:

1) Calories are calories, and a deficit, no matter how it's done, is guaranteed to result in weight loss.
2) Keep your caloric intake above 1200 per day no matter what, because any less and your body enters "starvation mode" and you won't lose weight.

I understand the basis behind both of these claims, easily. What I don't understand is how both can be unequivocally true. If I lose weight at 1500 calories, I should lose a lot of weight at 500 calories, right? But if the body can alter how it uses food so that no weight is lost under a diet of 1200 calories, what's stopping it from preventing weight loss at 1500 calories, or 2000 calories?

Both of these rules work as guidelines, sure. But how can they both be completely true?
«1

Replies

  • Showcase_Brodown
    Showcase_Brodown Posts: 919 Member
    Options
    #1 is completely true. That means #2 is only partially true.

    1200 isn't a hard and fast rule for absolutely everyone, but you are probably better off with a moderate deficit instead of an extreme one (slow and steady wins the race). There are lots of reasons for this, but personally I don't consider "starvation mode" to be one of them.

    Even if you were to go low enough in calories to eventually hit a real starvation mode, you would still be losing weight, I guarantee that. It would slow your metabolism some, but not even close to enough to negate your deficit.
  • Laurend224
    Laurend224 Posts: 1,748 Member
    Options
    There is no starvation mode, there is just starving.
  • jkwolly
    jkwolly Posts: 3,049 Member
    Options
    Because starvation mode doesn't exist.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    They're not both true. There is no starvation mode - not the way it is framed in 2).

    Be in a deficit and you will lose weight. Reduce calories further, and you will lose weight. You may not lose at the rate you expect when you're in a severe deficit - the body does adapt somewhat. You will move less, you may produce less body heat (adaptive thermogenesis), you may retain water which masks fat and/or muscle loss, but none of that is going to stop you from losing weight.

    ETA: The real reasons to not do such a severe deficit are the very real potential for malnutrition, the additional stress you put on your body, and, you know, avoiding being miserable.
  • haildodger
    haildodger Posts: 181 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    All deficits are not created equally with regards to weight loss results. And not going below 1200 is more about not becoming malnourished than anything else.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Gamer_2k4 wrote: »
    If I lose weight at 1500 calories, I should lose a lot of weight at 500 calories, right?

    Yep.
    But if the body can alter how it uses food so that no weight is lost under a diet of 1200 calories, what's stopping it from preventing weight loss at 1500 calories, or 2000 calories?

    It doesn't. There is no such "alteration". Because this statement...

    2) Keep your caloric intake above 1200 per day no matter what, because any less and your body enters "starvation mode" and you won't lose weight.

    ...is wrong.

  • Phoebeg1723
    Phoebeg1723 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    The idea of a starvation mode is that your body needs a certain amount of calories to function eg breath, heartbeat, all the essential stuff. If we don't eat enough calories to suffice this quantity, our metabolism slow down in order for the body to store fat to use as extra resources. The basis of no less than 1200 is a guideline which basically means that if you stay on or above that calorie wise, your metabolism won't slow and your body enter "starvation mode" thus allowing you to diet effectively.
    Hope that all makes sense, x
  • obscuremusicreference
    obscuremusicreference Posts: 1,320 Member
    Options
    Phoebeg1723 wrote: »
    The idea of a starvation mode is that your body needs a certain amount of calories to function eg breath, heartbeat, all the essential stuff. If we don't eat enough calories to suffice this quantity, our metabolism slow down in order for the body to store fat to use as extra resources. The basis of no less than 1200 is a guideline which basically means that if you stay on or above that calorie wise, your metabolism won't slow and your body enter "starvation mode" thus allowing you to diet effectively.
    Hope that all makes sense, x

    This is not true. The body does not store fat in a caloric deficit and your metabolism will not slow down.

    Eating under your calories can lead to malnutrition and other problems, however. It has been linked to gallbladder illness, for one thing. Do not eat 500 calories unless you want to lose hair and break nails.
  • Phoebeg1723
    Phoebeg1723 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    Actually... "researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA, have shown that when people significantly reduce their calorie intake, they undergo a metabolic adaptation that results in a slower metabolic rate. "
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Oh lordy. So which is true. I've never been a believer in starvation mode.
    So, if you don't eat enough, your metabolism slows down, right or wrong?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Phoebeg1723 wrote: »
    http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    Actually... "researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA, have shown that when people significantly reduce their calorie intake, they undergo a metabolic adaptation that results in a slower metabolic rate. "

    That's not the same thing as saying you can't lose weight if calories drop below X.

    Not the same thing at all....
  • Th3Ph03n1x
    Th3Ph03n1x Posts: 275 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Phoebeg1723 wrote: »
    http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    Actually... "researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA, have shown that when people significantly reduce their calorie intake, they undergo a metabolic adaptation that results in a slower metabolic rate. "

    That's not the same thing as saying you can't lose weight if calories drop below X.

    Not the same thing at all....

    She never actually said you can't use weight in her explanation though. She just said the metabolism slows down which was what was being rebutted.
  • mikebowins
    mikebowins Posts: 1
    edited January 2015
    Options
    I Have lost 40 pounds and have done every thing from isagenix aka extreme caloric deficit to calorie deficit true paleo dieting. you will loose weight but its not worth feeling like crap, your body will reduce energy output and you won't fair well at work or school. I find if you meet close to 1 g of protein per pound of body fat a day, eat lots of good healthy fats and cut the carbs. you will feel strong, loose weight and build lean muscle at the same time. If you diet you will want to "cheat", if you eat properly you will feel satisfied and be even more satisfied when your results in the gym are improving daily.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Ok, as long as we're clear on that. :drinker:
  • Phoebeg1723
    Phoebeg1723 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    Look, daily suggested intake for a woman = 2000 for a man =2500

    As long as you are eating below these and exercising a bit (recommended 3 times a week) you will lose weight.

    Any medical profession will tell you to stay above 1200 cal. After that what does it really matter :)
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    Options
    Does that study say that for participants at a 25% caloric restriction they observed a decreased TDEE of -316+/-118 calories/day and for participants on the LCD (890 cal/day) they observed a decreased TDEE of -389+/-124 calories at month 6 of the study? Am I reading the abstract correctly?
  • Phoebeg1723
    Phoebeg1723 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    I have no idea. It's nearly 1am here and I just skimmed it. Plus I have no idea what you just said!
  • obscuremusicreference
    obscuremusicreference Posts: 1,320 Member
    Options
    Phoebeg1723 wrote: »
    http://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    Actually... "researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA, have shown that when people significantly reduce their calorie intake, they undergo a metabolic adaptation that results in a slower metabolic rate. "

    Redman et al was very good at explaining the mechanism behind burning fewer calories to do the same daily activities as you lose body mass. This study did not do as well in illuminating why that would be a negative thing ("starvation mode") or whether the body stores fat in a caloric deficit.

    But I do appreciate you linking to it, because I feel that

    "Interestingly, despite similar body mass and composition changes, CR in conjunction with exercise (CR+EX) did not result in a metabolic adaptation. If weight relapse does occur in part as a result of a reduced metabolic rate in the weight reduced state, then perhaps the combination of CR and exercise may be the best choice of intervention to prevent weight regain in overweight and obese individuals."

    is a thread that more researchers should pick up and I will be checking out some of the 51 studies that cited this one.
  • obscuremusicreference
    obscuremusicreference Posts: 1,320 Member
    Options
    Phoebeg1723 wrote: »
    I have no idea. It's nearly 1am here and I just skimmed it. Plus I have no idea what you just said!

    Abstracts can sometimes cover the fact that a study does not prove your point.
  • Phoebeg1723
    Phoebeg1723 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    Tbh it was the first thing I found that was a study which proved mbr slows lol
    Very tired but can't drag myself away! Naughty forums!

Categories