Starvation Mode
SavannahStClair
Posts: 35 Member
Hello everyone! I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight and periodically I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing? What does everyone think about this idea? Is it scientifically proven? I'm losing weight to my satisfy thus far, and am simply curious about this. Thank you in advance for any responses.
0
Replies
-
Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/0 -
"Starvation mode" as you described is a myth and disproved by science.0
-
People who starve to death do not quit losing weight.0
-
If you are in a calorie deficit (eating less than your body needs to run) you will lose weight.
Short of amputation or dehydration, it's the only way to lose weight.
Your body MUST have energy (calories) to run. If it runs out, you die.
It prefers glucose (blood sugar),
then it prefers glycogen (stored carbs, mostly in muscle & liver),
then it prefers fat,
and as a distant 4th choice it burns muscle.
We're all burning all of them to some degree all the time, but that's mostly the order of preference.
When you have enough protein in your diet, but are at a calorie deficit, you burn fat.
Without enough protein, or in a severe deficit, you burn muscle.
The reason that's a last-ditch hail Mary is because you're risking death (burning your heart or diaphragm
to the point where they can't work, and you die) in the hope of finding food.
If the body magically held onto calories when you don't eat enough, there would be no famine victims,
no anorexics.
The grain of truth in 'starvation mode' myth is that as you eat less, your body lowers your metabolism to
burn less. And if you're doing long-term starvation (e.g. VLCD) it goes lower, for longer, and is hard to
recover to normal.0 -
While losing weight it is still important to eat - you want to make sure you are losing fat and not muscle. The first time I lost weight I was eating 1200 calories a day. Losing weight this time around I'm eating almost 1600 and I've been consistently losing weight. Your body needs energy and this comes from the foods that you eat. While I don't know much about starvation mode, I can't comment on that specifically but it is better for your body to make sure that you are eating enough.0
-
My understanding is that your body slows down its metabolism if it thinks there is not enough food to nourish it.-3
-
-
My understanding is that your body slows down its metabolism if it thinks there is not enough food to nourish it.
You may want to read the thread that was linked in this post:Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
0 -
The problem is usually twofold:SavannahStClair wrote:I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of
calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight.
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
Read these:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819925/the-basics-dont-complicate-it/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/872212/youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1
0 -
Thanks MKEgal. I always wondered about the "muscle weighing more than fat" and "starvation mode" types of thinking. Great blog post.0
-
No.My understanding is that your body slows down its metabolism if it thinks there is not enough food to nourish it.
First, the body does not think. Second, the only way metabolism slows or speeds is through long term changes ... i.e. loss or gain of muscle mass. The resulting metabolic adaptation is not that the body tries to hold onto fat but that the difference in muscle mass results in a change in the amount of calories the body burns both at rest and through activity.
0 -
-
I think the science will very about as much as all of us very. For me I always do better when I eat at close to my deficit and not so good when I go way under. What works for me is to eat a good breakfast followed by a snack mid morning. Lunch and dinner are some lean meat and veggies. I never miss a meal and have some wine and beer daily. My take is that I keep my body fueled and in the habit of knowing more is on the way. I also need to run most mornings to burn some calories too.0
-
Nope... and I'll even argue that the "as long as you get enough protein" argument is fairly controversial... or at least the definition of what's "enough" certainly is. The US has the highest recommended daily allowance of protein of all developed countries and people in lots of other developed countries aren't lacking for muscle. We don't need nearly as much protein in our diets as some people would have us believe. *ducks*
Bottom line: Weigh and measure and eat at a deficit. You'll lose fat. Simple as that.0 -
-
DemoraFairy wrote: »
Not to mention that it is against MFP's TOS.0 -
Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, it was both interesting and entertaining.The problem is usually twofold:
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
I agree about not eating back exercise calories. It can be difficult, however, especially after working up a sweat, you feel like you deserve a little something extra! (Right!?) However, I may have to go "premium" so I can avoid having the exercise calories added to my total, OR only log my exercise at the end of the day, so as to not fool myself into thinking I have more calories left than I actually do.0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »DemoraFairy wrote: »
Not to mention that it is against MFP's TOS.
It says you can't attack, mock or insult someone for their written English, always thought that was more things like saying, "lol what do you know, you can't even spell lose," or "you're a complete idiot for thinking that eating too much sugar will make you gain weight, and the fact that you can't use apostrophes only proves that you're a massive idiot," rather than saying, "btw, plurals don't need apostrophes," or something like that.0 -
The problem is usually twofold:SavannahStClair wrote:I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of
calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight.
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
Read these:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819925/the-basics-dont-complicate-it/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/872212/youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1
Thanks.0 -
SavannahStClair wrote: »I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing?
The way most people describe it - no.
However, there are a number of problems with setting calories too low which markedly slows fat loss, sometimes to a crawl, so that it is masked on the scale due to a number of factors to include water retention, food which has not passed through the GI tract giving the impression that weight loss has stopped as a result of "starving."
When you plug your stats and activity into a calculator it determines your maintenance calories (TDEE / calories out) as of the moment in time you are inputting the data. You are then advised to eat a figure (calories in / diet) lower than TDEE to create a calorie deficit which causes weight loss. However this assumes your TDEE / calories out remains at least constant in the period you are dieting.
However low calories often have a detrimental affect on calories out - and this can manifest in a large fall in general or planned activity either consciously or unconsciously as well as some other factors (to include secret / unacknowledged eating in the face of mental deprivation). This means a lower TDEE in reality than was first inputted meaning a much smaller calorie deficit meaning weight loss slows to a crawl and shouts of "starvation mode yo!"
Weight loss isn't about the lowest amount of calories possible. It is about a personal weight loss "sweet spot" which could in fact be better achieved by eating more.
0 -
Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, I really enjoyed reading it.
I have to say that when people have in conversation used the terms "starvation mode" and "muscle weighs more than fat" it's never really made sense to me, but I'm not sciencey enough to be able to explain why I've always suspected they were myths. This has answered that for me...thanks!
0 -
SavannahStClair wrote: »Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, it was both interesting and entertaining.The problem is usually twofold:
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
I agree about not eating back exercise calories. It can be difficult, however, especially after working up a sweat, you feel like you deserve a little something extra! (Right!?) However, I may have to go "premium" so I can avoid having the exercise calories added to my total, OR only log my exercise at the end of the day, so as to not fool myself into thinking I have more calories left than I actually do.
If you log accurately and follow MFP's method of setting your calorie goal, you should be eating back at least part of your exercise calories, though. Not because too big of a deficit will put you in 'starvation mode' but due to the issues associated with too big of a deficit such as those that were already pointed out in this thread.-1 -
SavannahStClair wrote: »Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, it was both interesting and entertaining.The problem is usually twofold:
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
I agree about not eating back exercise calories. It can be difficult, however, especially after working up a sweat, you feel like you deserve a little something extra! (Right!?) However, I may have to go "premium" so I can avoid having the exercise calories added to my total, OR only log my exercise at the end of the day, so as to not fool myself into thinking I have more calories left than I actually do.
If you don't eat back your exercise calories you then set yourself up for too large of a deficit ... especially if you have an aggressive loss goal. That does not result in "starvation mode" but makes meeting minimum nutritional levels difficult. Rather than lose fat, you risk losing lean body mass ... depending which nutrients you fail to meet it can be difficult for your body to process and absorb some vitamins and minerals leading to hair loss.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »SavannahStClair wrote: »Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, it was both interesting and entertaining.The problem is usually twofold:
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
I agree about not eating back exercise calories. It can be difficult, however, especially after working up a sweat, you feel like you deserve a little something extra! (Right!?) However, I may have to go "premium" so I can avoid having the exercise calories added to my total, OR only log my exercise at the end of the day, so as to not fool myself into thinking I have more calories left than I actually do.
If you don't eat back your exercise calories you then set yourself up for too large of a deficit ... especially if you have an aggressive loss goal. That does not result in "starvation mode" but makes meeting minimum nutritional levels difficult. Rather than lose fat, you risk losing lean body mass ... depending which nutrients you fail to meet it can be difficult for your body to process and absorb some vitamins and minerals leading to hair loss.
I believe this is entirely subjective depending on the person, what kind of deficit they're eating, and how much they're burning. There are some days when I can work out a good sweat and stick to my deficit without any issue - and then there are days when I know I need the 100-200 calories I burned back or I'm going to feel an energy crash.
(Usually I eat more if I've been really, really good at maintaining a workout schedule that week.)0 -
Hormones play a big part in weight loss too, sometimes hormone inbalances can cause problems, ie thyroid hormones could be slightly off and slow weight loss down. Many people refuse to accept the scientific theories around leptin and ghrelin and lack of sleep, here is a link to one of these studies
isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic197607.files/Due_Wk_11_Nov_28/SPIEGEL_2004.pdf
As you can see, this is over 10 years old, so yes while we generally have to eat less than we burn, sometimes our body works against us.
0 -
kitticus15 wrote: »Hormones play a big part in weight loss too, sometimes hormone inbalances can cause problems, ie thyroid hormones could be slightly off and slow weight loss down. Many people refuse to accept the scientific theories around leptin and ghrelin and lack of sleep, here is a link to one of these studies
isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic197607.files/Due_Wk_11_Nov_28/SPIEGEL_2004.pdf
As you can see, this is over 10 years old, so yes while we generally have to eat less than we burn, sometimes our body works against us.
Medical issues may alter caloric absorption (CI) or how the body burns calories (CO) ... but it is still CICO.0 -
It's called Ketosis and has to do with what type of sugars your body consumes first. Basically, if you're not eating enough, your body will look out for your brain first, making sure it has enough glucose to function properly.0
-
It's called Ketosis and has to do with what type of sugars your body consumes first. Basically, if you're not eating enough, your body will look out for your brain first, making sure it has enough glucose to function properly.
Does this mean that I get to eat more calories to avoid Ketosis and Starvation Mode?0 -
If you are in a calorie deficit (eating less than your body needs to run) you will lose weight.
Short of amputation or dehydration, it's the only way to lose weight.
Your body MUST have energy (calories) to run. If it runs out, you die.
It prefers glucose (blood sugar),
then it prefers glycogen (stored carbs, mostly in muscle & liver),
then it prefers fat,
and as a distant 4th choice it burns muscle.
We're all burning all of them to some degree all the time, but that's mostly the order of preference.
When you have enough protein in your diet, but are at a calorie deficit, you burn fat.
Without enough protein, or in a severe deficit, you burn muscle.
The reason that's a last-ditch hail Mary is because you're risking death (burning your heart or diaphragm
to the point where they can't work, and you die) in the hope of finding food.
If the body magically held onto calories when you don't eat enough, there would be no famine victims,
no anorexics.
The grain of truth in 'starvation mode' myth is that as you eat less, your body lowers your metabolism to
burn less. And if you're doing long-term starvation (e.g. VLCD) it goes lower, for longer, and is hard to
recover to normal.
Very informative.
0 -
Hello, all! There is a LOT of information in this thread, and I have been trying to read through it all - but I'm at work, and I would LOVE to have a quick and dirty answer to this: if my MFP calorie goal is 1,200, and I exercise and burn, say, 300 calories, should I also eat those 300 calories on top of my 1,200? My first instinct was yes, and I'm not losing weight, so I think maybe I was wrong. Should I still stay with 1,200, and is that enough fuel for me to exercise regularly? (I'm not exactly a tri-athlete, LOL, and still a gym-newbie!) Thanks so much to anyone who has a quick answer to this!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions