"starvation mode" - myth or basis in fact?
hamptontom
Posts: 536 Member
I just clicked on another thread that I thought might be a discussion of this phenomena, but it turned down another road entirely, so I figured I'd better ask a pointed question:
how many of you have participated in discussions regarding "starvation mode", where there's allegedly instructions written into your DNA that will reprogram your body's consumption of calories if it detects a sudden, significant drop in caloric intake? usually posed in this fashion:
"dude, you gotta eat...if you don't eat enough, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't be able to lose weight because your body will cling to every calorie you eat, and you won't be able to drop pounds because your body stops burning calories the way it's used to."
is that really a thing, or does CICO apply across the board, regardless of ratio or amount of intake?
how many of you have participated in discussions regarding "starvation mode", where there's allegedly instructions written into your DNA that will reprogram your body's consumption of calories if it detects a sudden, significant drop in caloric intake? usually posed in this fashion:
"dude, you gotta eat...if you don't eat enough, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't be able to lose weight because your body will cling to every calorie you eat, and you won't be able to drop pounds because your body stops burning calories the way it's used to."
is that really a thing, or does CICO apply across the board, regardless of ratio or amount of intake?
0
Replies
-
Adaptive thermogenisis= real
"starvation mode"= myth
CICO always applies.0 -
It's not really a thing.0
-
There are metabolic adaptations that happen when we reduce calories below what our body needs. They happen at a lesser degree with a small deficit and a greater degree at a large deficit. Beyond that, the larger the deficit the more our body will resort to using lean mass for fuel and amino acids. It is a good idea to attempt to retain lean mass as we lose weight because it improves our body composition in the end and keeps our BMR from dropping.0
-
Watch Naked and Afraid. There is no way those people are getting the recommended number of calories and at the end they have lost a lot of weight.0
-
If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.0 -
"I starved myself and got so fat"
Come on. Just think about it.0 -
For me, anecdotal evidence only, it seems true. When I was 150 and trying to lose weight and weighing/measuring food 1200 and I didn't lose weight for a week 1400 and I lost what I expected to lose. Could it have been water weight? Sure. Could it have been weight that was ABOUT to drop off and then coincidentally did when I upped my calories? Sure. I haven't had calories that low again to test it out.0
-
Sure you lose weight if you starve yourself but you will never be able to keep it up and will gain eventually.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.0 -
i just thought it was an interesting concept...i actually googled "Adaptive Thermogenesis" and the first result was pretty enlightening, in terms of how the process actually works.
As for me personally, I just went into MFP today to manually lower my former (assigned by MFP) daily calorie intake from 1800 down to around 1600 because I've only been hitting between 1200 and 1400 a day, and if I go below that, MFP nags me when I complete my diary entries.
I went from 279 down to around 242 pretty quickly, then stalled...which was when the "starvation mode" theory was presented to me, and it made me wonder if there was any basis to it.
I'm back on the downward trend now, though (238 a few days ago), and a little less worried that I'm unsuspectingly sabotaging myself by eating too few calories.0 -
It's not real. If it were real, people would not starve to death.0
-
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
0 -
as others have mentioned it's also important to consume enough protein and engage in some sort of resistance training to try and retain as much muscle mass as possible. Although losing some muscle will be almost inevitable.
Once you reach your goal weight it would be ideal to have more muscle mass because you will require more calories to maintain your weight. And this will probably help with adherence.0 -
"Starvation mode" as used by people on this website is a myth.
Starvation mode in a scientific study (google Minnesota Starvation Experiment), I believe is real. Again, no one here is starving like those in the experiment.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).0 -
hamptontom wrote: »i just thought it was an interesting concept...i actually googled "Adaptive Thermogenesis" and the first result was pretty enlightening, in terms of how the process actually works.
As for me personally, I just went into MFP today to manually lower my former (assigned by MFP) daily calorie intake from 1800 down to around 1600 because I've only been hitting between 1200 and 1400 a day, and if I go below that, MFP nags me when I complete my diary entries.
I went from 279 down to around 242 pretty quickly, then stalled...which was when the "starvation mode" theory was presented to me, and it made me wonder if there was any basis to it.
I'm back on the downward trend now, though (238 a few days ago), and a little less worried that I'm unsuspectingly sabotaging myself by eating too few calories.
Accuracy is often the first issue. If you don't weigh and measure everything there's a chance you are actually eating more than you think. You should be eating more than 1200 calories.0 -
I was one of those people who used to advocate eating more because ... something something slow down ... etc. I didn't understand what I was talking about, but I'd been through a two-month stall that seemed to be fixed by eating more.
Here's what was really happening in my case. I was eating 1200-1400 calories a day, no exercise calories, and trying to work out 1 or 2 times a day, 6 days a week. I was burning out. I wasn't using a food scale, and I wish that had been standard advice when I started with MFP because it would have helped me out. I was exhausted by my low calories and phoning in my workouts. I was putting a lot less energy into them and had to cut them short way too often. I was also expending less energy in my day-to-day life (that oh so important NEAT). And I was having more cheat days that were counteracting my deficit throughout the week.
From my perspective at the time, it looked like a two-month stall that was solved by eating more. But eating more let me burn more through activity and it let me cut back on the cheat days. And with my renewed energy I got better about logging, not skipping workouts, etc. My metabolism hadn't slowed down at all. I just wasn't burning as much as I thought and was eating more than I realized.
Eating too little can be a problem. It makes it hard to get in enough nutrients and it can seriously affect your mood and energy levels. But none of that is starvation mode as it's commonly presented around here.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
From what i've read it seems to correlate to both the initial amount of body fat and the intensity of the calorie deficit.
"Underfeeding: In humans, there is an inverse curvilinear relationship between initial body fat content and the proportion of weight loss consisting of lean tissue. The same trend holds for animals and birds, including loss during hibernation. Another factor is the magnitude of the energy deficit: as energy intake is reduced, lean tissue makes up an increasing fraction of the total weight loss. "0 -
Starvation mode as used by people actually eating is a myth. If you want to know what real starvation mode looks like, I'm happy to tell you. Under a doctor's care, I am actively starving myself and my body is showing real negative effects. They're not as bad as staying fat, but they're bad.0
-
hamptontom wrote: »I just clicked on another thread that I thought might be a discussion of this phenomena, but it turned down another road entirely, so I figured I'd better ask a pointed question:
how many of you have participated in discussions regarding "starvation mode", where there's allegedly instructions written into your DNA that will reprogram your body's consumption of calories if it detects a sudden, significant drop in caloric intake? usually posed in this fashion:
"dude, you gotta eat...if you don't eat enough, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't be able to lose weight because your body will cling to every calorie you eat, and you won't be able to drop pounds because your body stops burning calories the way it's used to."
is that really a thing, or does CICO apply across the board, regardless of ratio or amount of intake?
From what I understand a human can only live about 62 - 63 days without food before they starve to death. There was one university study on the Starvation Mode and proved it a myth.
The Minnesota Semistarvation Experiment
Minnesota Semi-Starvation Experiment, the Minnesota Starvation-Recovery Experiment and the Starvation Study
http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/video/the-minnesota-semistarvation-experiment/
0 -
hamptontom wrote: »I just clicked on another thread that I thought might be a discussion of this phenomena, but it turned down another road entirely, so I figured I'd better ask a pointed question:
how many of you have participated in discussions regarding "starvation mode", where there's allegedly instructions written into your DNA that will reprogram your body's consumption of calories if it detects a sudden, significant drop in caloric intake? usually posed in this fashion:
"dude, you gotta eat...if you don't eat enough, your body will go into starvation mode and you won't be able to lose weight because your body will cling to every calorie you eat, and you won't be able to drop pounds because your body stops burning calories the way it's used to."
is that really a thing, or does CICO apply across the board, regardless of ratio or amount of intake?
The scenario as presented in your example is completely impossible. You'd be dead if your body wouldn't burn calories, simple as that. Literally, literally dead. Adaptive thermogenesis can happen as was said but that won't make you stop burning calories, because, you'd die.0 -
Seems to me that if starvation mode was real, anorexic wouldn't really be a thing.0
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I was one of those people who used to advocate eating more because ... something something slow down ... etc. I didn't understand what I was talking about, but I'd been through a two-month stall that seemed to be fixed by eating more.
Here's what was really happening in my case. I was eating 1200-1400 calories a day, no exercise calories, and trying to work out 1 or 2 times a day, 6 days a week. I was burning out. I wasn't using a food scale, and I wish that had been standard advice when I started with MFP because it would have helped me out. I was exhausted by my low calories and phoning in my workouts. I was putting a lot less energy into them and had to cut them short way too often. I was also expending less energy in my day-to-day life (that oh so important NEAT). And I was having more cheat days that were counteracting my deficit throughout the week.
From my perspective at the time, it looked like a two-month stall that was solved by eating more. But eating more let me burn more through activity and it let me cut back on the cheat days. And with my renewed energy I got better about logging, not skipping workouts, etc. My metabolism hadn't slowed down at all. I just wasn't burning as much as I thought and was eating more than I realized.
Eating too little can be a problem. It makes it hard to get in enough nutrients and it can seriously affect your mood and energy levels. But none of that is starvation mode as it's commonly presented around here.
Thanks Diane! I think this happens a lot.
0 -
My sister-in-law and I once did a challenge. I struggled to keep under our calorie limit we had set for ourselves. She was very strict with hers and I had an undeniable craving about every other day or two. I gave in to my cravings and she didn't. I ate more calories than her, yet lost more weight. She also was exercising more than me. I told her about how I had cheated at times and told her to try it. My mom, a nurse, told me that she also believes this theory of your body entering a starvation mode and also suggested to me that low calories more than 72 hours could lead to your metabolism slowing down and conserving "energy" which does make sense. I really do think that sticking to a really low-calorie diet daily is not a great way to lose weight. To really drop the pounds, based on my personal experiences (not scientifically sound) I'd say that at the minimum, every third day you should up your calorie intake. All the while, remember the more clean and natural and balanced your diet is, the better results you'll get. And don't forget about sleep, water intake, healthy habits, etc. Our bodies work best when we treat our bodies well.0
-
Accuracy is often the first issue. If you don't weigh and measure everything there's a chance you are actually eating more than you think. You should be eating more than 1200 calories.
USMCMP - most days, i tend to average closer to 1500, honestly. there are days when, depending on my schedule, i'm faced with the choice of eating something crappy or not eating at all, and I'll usually choose the latter. I've been better about arranging stopgaps for that scenario, though (keeping protein bars in my desk drawer at work, and carbmaster yogurt in the fridge at home). but there have been times when i've veered into 1000-1200 territory...just not on a regular basis. i'm trying to be more dilligent about it, as i've been doing cardio exclusively for the past two months, and i want to make sure i'm adapting properly from a diet perspective and not expecting too much from my current macros as i start moving towards weight training at the gym.0 -
My example used fractions of the metabolizable fat. If your fat can cover the deficit, the larger deficit doesn't make much, if any, difference.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
The amount is an important determining factor. If you assumed I mean an absolute amount, such as 1,000 calories, that's your assumption. Of course the amount is relative to the body fat of the individual. Someone with 100 pounds to lose can have a larger numerical deficit than someone with 10 pounds to lose without impacting their lean mass, but they may both have the same percentage deficit and that's what determines how likely you are to use lean mass (and I know you've seen my threads, so you know I advocate a percentage deficit over flat rate).
0 -
It's true. I only ate 800 calories yesterday and gained 10 lbs. Good thing i don't do that everyday0
-
hamptontom wrote: »
Accuracy is often the first issue. If you don't weigh and measure everything there's a chance you are actually eating more than you think. You should be eating more than 1200 calories.
USMCMP - most days, i tend to average closer to 1500, honestly. there are days when, depending on my schedule, i'm faced with the choice of eating something crappy or not eating at all, and I'll usually choose the latter. I've been better about arranging stopgaps for that scenario, though (keeping protein bars in my desk drawer at work, and carbmaster yogurt in the fridge at home). but there have been times when i've veered into 1000-1200 territory...just not on a regular basis. i'm trying to be more dilligent about it, as i've been doing cardio exclusively for the past two months, and i want to make sure i'm adapting properly from a diet perspective and not expecting too much from my current macros.
Define "crappy". If you mean asparagus and tomatoes I'm on board with that. If you mean fast food or sweets, those can fit in your calorie goal and won't prevent you from losing weight. They may not provide as many vitamins or minerals as other options, but they are still a source of macros and energy.0 -
Typically, the more important factors are listed first.rainbowbow wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
The amount of the deficit isn't the determining factor you state it to be, that's all.DeguelloTex wrote: »If your body has enough fat to cover an X calorie a day deficit, why would your body resort to using more lean mass for fuel if the deficit is .8X versus .1X?
It's not a question of how large the deficit is, in an absolute sense. It's a question of how large the deficit is relative to how much fat your body can metabolize. Person A might not have the fat to support a 500 deficit and Person B might have the fat to support a 1000 deficit.
It's also a question of how much protein are you getting and if your body feels the muscle is necessary (are you using it or not). It's easier for the body to break down lean tissue than it is for it to break down fat. There are a variety of factors, the amount of the deficit compared to the body's needs is more relative to his question than the others, which is why I didn't mention them.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
From what i've read it seems to correlate to both the initial amount of body fat and the intensity of the calorie deficit.
"Underfeeding: In humans, there is an inverse curvilinear relationship between initial body fat content and the proportion of weight loss consisting of lean tissue. The same trend holds for animals and birds, including loss during hibernation. Another factor is the magnitude of the energy deficit: as energy intake is reduced, lean tissue makes up an increasing fraction of the total weight loss. "
I can't read the whole thing without paying, though.
0 -
Define "crappy". If you mean asparagus and tomatoes I'm on board with that. If you mean fast food or sweets, those can fit in your calorie goal and won't prevent you from losing weight. They may not provide as many vitamins or minerals as other options, but they are still a source of macros and energy.
well, i guess i'm stereotyping...but "crappy" would equal things like processed meats (turkey bologna, beef jerky, perdue ground chicken patties, sausage), pork rinds, stuff like that. if anything, i'm amassing a pretty amazing sodium collection. but that's where my definition of "crappy" came from. 0
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
- 424 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