Starvation Mode

Not in the context it is often used, ie in reference to dieting.

Not in a way that is relevant to you unless you are in an actual starvation scenario, in which case concerns about rate of weight loss are the least of your problems.

Think about it: anorexics, famine victims, people with illnesses that keep them from eating- are any of them famously chubby? No? Why not, when "starvation mode" is supposed to be making them "hold on to every calorie"?

The short version is, yes, severely restricting calories over the long term will slow your metabolism, but not enough to prevent you from losing weight (your body does need energy to function) and the effects are reversed when you refeed.

There are a million reasons why severe calorie restriction is not a good idea- other forms of macros and micronutrient malnutrition, lean mass loss along with fat that *can* affect your metabolism later, feeling generally awful, not being able to sustain it and regaining any losses when you inevitably stop restricting- but "starvation mode" is not one of them

I wrote this a while ago: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1279532/starvation-mode-is-a-myth

I'll copy the original post here:
I have seen countless threads in my short time here on the forums and I see a very common theme. Many people are talking about starvation mode. This is a mythical mode that body switches into when you eat to little. Supposedly you stop losing fat because, well, no one seems to know, you just do. In reality this does not occur! The body does not cease to lose fat when large caloric deficits are present. This is supported by both research and anecdotal observation. Before I go on let me clairify that I am not an advocate of VLCD (very low calorie dieting) and I will explain why in this post. I simply wish to dispel the myth that is "starvation mode".

The Minnesota starvation experiment is one of the best research studies done to prove this point. Subjects went on "starvation" level calories for a prolonged period of time. Did their bodies shift into starvation mode and stop losing fat? No! On average subjects lost 25% of their total body weight, and they were of healthy weight for height prior to beginning the experiment. They did see a slowdown of their metabolic rates (calories needed to maintain bodily functions). But this was just a slowdown. It in no way stopped weight loss.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, we can look to some of mankind's darkest moments to see a glimpse of starvation mode NOT occurring. How many fat Holocaust survivor pictures do you see? How many obese people does one notice in countries where prolonged famine has led to people not eating for days? When people go on prolonged hunger strikes or fast for religious purposes do they typically weigh the same or a great deal less then when they started?

So what does happen to the body during periods of VLCD? In the short term, not much. You can VLCD for 2 weeks with very little metabolic changes. What about longer? Well this is when some negative side effects will start to occur. Decreases in energy level, training performance, sex drive, mood, and resting metabolic rate can occur. Again, the decrease in RMR WILL NOT be enough to halt fat loss.

So if starvation mode really doesn't exist why do so many people stop losing weight after periods of eating low levels of calories? There are many answers. My belief is a lot of people suck at counting calories. Many people measure solid foods in things like cups and tablespoons. Those things are meant to measure liquids. If you start weighing your food you will see how much you have really been overeating. I starting weighing peanut butter and found that my typical 1 tbsp was actually 2 when weighed out. That's a 100 calorie difference. I used to eat peanut butter daily. That's 700 calories at the end of the week which equates to an entire lb of potential fat loss ruined at the end of a month. And that is just 1 food! Are you guessing what 4oz of steak is? I bet your estimation is off. Recent studies show people can underestimate the calories in a meal by upwards of 40%. Weighing solid foods is a big step towards accurate calorie counting. Remember, MFP is only as good as the information you enter!

Another reason weight loss can stall on VLCD is water retention. Dieting in general is a stress to the body. Cortisol levels can increase and cause water retention to occur. How many of you have been stalled for 2-3 weeks then had a cheat day then magically lost 3 or 4 lbs within the next couple of days? Lots of us! This is due to water retention. Once the body enters a period of overfeeding it can release a lot of the water it has been holding. Alcohol can have this same effect.

I said I would talk about why I do not advocate VLCD. It sucks! Both mentally and physically it just flat out sucks! It is very hard to stick to long term. The decrease in sex drive alone is enough to send me running for the hills. Your training will suffer, your energy levels will suffer, your mood will suffer, your significant other will most certainly suffer (see sex drive)! The one thing that will not occur however, is "starvation mode".

So what is the answer to breaking a plateau or stall? First and foremost make sure your calorie counting is on point. I would venture a bet that over 75% of the people on here that think they are eating 1200 calories a day are actually eating WAY more then that. Either through poor tracking, not weighing food, eating out where estimation is common, having cheat days, or simply lying to themselves, their calorie count is simply not low enough to create a deficit. Make sure your counts are SPOT ON!

Are you eating back exercise calories? Well I'm again going to bet that you aren't burning as many calories as you think you are from exercising. I do not eat back exercise calories. When setting my caloric goal I keep my level of exercise in mind. I'd much rather eat 2500 calories a day and not worry about exercise calories then eat 2000 calories a day and try to count back very much estimated exercise calorie burn. If my weight loss stalls at 2500 I simply will reduce the number. I find that eating the same calories every day makes adjustment much easier. The only time I would actually eat back calories is if I do some sort of endurance event. If you typically don't exercise much but then kayak for 6 hours while on vacation, sure eat some of those back. Bu fort your day to day normal exercise I simply find it is easier to just account for that in your calorie goal.

Finally, sometimes you just need to wait. A stall is not a stall unless 3 weeks has gone by. By that time any weight loss being masked by by water retention should be starting to give way. If you are freaking out because 5 days went by with no weight loss, relax and give it some time. If you are in a deficit, the weight will eventually subside. Thanks to anyone who made it this far, long post, I know!



TL/DR: Starvation mode doesn't exist but their are plenty of other reasons why very low calorie dieting is bad (if your calorie count is accurate).

emmycantbemeeko wrote: »

Not in a way that is relevant to you unless you are in an actual starvation scenario, in which case concerns about rate of weight loss are the least of your problems.

Think about it: anorexics, famine victims, people with illnesses that keep them from eating- are any of them famously chubby? No? Why not, when "starvation mode" is supposed to be making them "hold on to every calorie"?

The short version is, yes, severely restricting calories over the long term will slow your metabolism, but not enough to prevent you from losing weight (your body does need energy to function) and the effects are reversed when you refeed.

There are a million reasons why severe calorie restriction is not a good idea- other forms of macros and micronutrient malnutrition, lean mass loss along with fat that *can* affect your metabolism later, feeling generally awful, not being able to sustain it and regaining any losses when you inevitably stop restricting- but "starvation mode" is not one of them

+1