starvation and weight loss

barbecuesauce wrote: »

[

forgtmenot wrote: »

whmscll wrote: »

I am genuinely curious about this. I keep seeing here that starvation mode is a myth, yet I too have heard over and over (from many sources, including Weight Watchers) that if you don't eat enough your body will think it is starving and slow your metabolism and hold into fat. Are there scientific articles anyone can post about the starvation mode myth? Am interested in reading more about this.

Your metabolism may slow down a small amount to adjust to a very low calorie diet, but it will not slow enough to prevent weight loss entirely. The main reason you don't want to lower your intake too much is it can cause a faster rate of muscle loss while losing weight, it can cause you to not get enough nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc), and it can be harder to stick to a diet of you are starving all the time.

*This only applies to people who under eat, this would not apply to someone who just ate one big meal everyday but was still meeting their calorie goals.

Okay, this is what I have heard before, and people have called it "starvation mode." Semantics, I guess. Below is what I have heard before and I guess this is true.

From Weight Watchers:
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds.

whmscll wrote: »

barbecuesauce wrote: »

[

forgtmenot wrote: »

whmscll wrote: »

I am genuinely curious about this. I keep seeing here that starvation mode is a myth, yet I too have heard over and over (from many sources, including Weight Watchers) that if you don't eat enough your body will think it is starving and slow your metabolism and hold into fat. Are there scientific articles anyone can post about the starvation mode myth? Am interested in reading more about this.

Your metabolism may slow down a small amount to adjust to a very low calorie diet, but it will not slow enough to prevent weight loss entirely. The main reason you don't want to lower your intake too much is it can cause a faster rate of muscle loss while losing weight, it can cause you to not get enough nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc), and it can be harder to stick to a diet of you are starving all the time.

*This only applies to people who under eat, this would not apply to someone who just ate one big meal everyday but was still meeting their calorie goals.

Okay, this is what I have heard before, and people have called it "starvation mode." Semantics, I guess. Below is what I have heard before and I guess this is true.

From Weight Watchers:
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds.

Yes, the above is true. That 500 calorie per day would have to be sustained over a certain period (and I confess not knowing exactly how long it would take but it's certainly more than 24 hours) in order to cause a metabolic slowdown. Even then, you can see, there wouldn't be a complete end to fat loss, just a slowdown. People tend to post that they are not losing at all and then wonder if they are in starvation mode, when the most likely culprit is that they are eating more than they should be for fat loss.

sperkins68 wrote: »

The reason people who go long periods durin the day without eating tend not to lose weight or even gain weigh is because by the time you go to eat you are so hungry you over eat, and you are less likely to burn caleries later in the day then you are to eat the calories earlier.

whmscll wrote: »

I am genuinely curious about this. I keep seeing here that starvation mode is a myth, yet I too have heard over and over (from many sources, including Weight Watchers) that if you don't eat enough your body will think it is starving and slow your metabolism and hold into fat. Are there scientific articles anyone can post about the starvation mode myth? Am interested in reading more about this.