Question about the starvation mode myth
Options
Replies
-
biocowgirl wrote: »Starvation mode is not a myth, if you are severely restricting your calories you can cause your body to store more fat and build less muscle, even when working out. Check out his nifty calculator to see how much you should be eating (complete with breakdown of your macros): https://legionathletics.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat/
And this great, although lengthy article about building muscle while losing fat : http://www.muscleforlife.com/build-muscle-lose-fat/
Prove it.1 -
The people who suffer from 'starvation mode' need to contact the Department of Energy as soon as possible. Their physics defying abilities to create mass from no energy could help make some serious strides in the field of sustainable energy.GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »No one gets to 250lbs due to starvation...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
Dr. Jason Fung explains this @Christine_ in this 36 minute video. Run up to 21:00 if you wish to see how cutting calories to lose weigh can put one in starvation mode leading to weigh regain automatically at some point in time. Then go back and watch it from the start.
If one is burning 1800 calories daily and cuts calories to 1500 triggering starvation mode over time lowers their daily burn rate down to 1300 calories which means eating 1500 calories becomes a 200 calorie surplus.
Since when is a 300 calorie deficit starvation? Yes the slowing of the metabolism due to a calorie deficit has been demonstrated in multiple studies. But these scientific studies are conducted on people that are legitimately starving, not people eating at a 300 calorie deficit.
The people who honestly believe they suffer from 'starvation mode' need to contact the Department of Energy as soon as possible. Their physics defying abilities to create mass from no energy could help make some serious strides in the field of sustainable energy.11 -
-
fatfudgery wrote: »OP, while starvation mode is a myth, metabolic adaptations to prolonged caloric restriction are real and may be at play in your case. You could try a reverse diet for a few weeks and see if that gets your TDEE back up so you can restart your cut and lose more weight. Bear in mind, however, that it probably won't make that much of a difference unless you're actively working on your body composition by strength training properly. If you're currently able to lift 6 days a week on a deficit, you're most likely not lifting heavy enough to get much fat-burning/body composition benefits from it. Get on a real lifting program with progressive overload and big, heavy compound movements.
Also, cardio is an extremely ineffective way to lose weight, particularly for women, especially for women who are already fairly lean (which at 120-something pounds you probably are) and even more so for leaner women who've been calorie-restricted for a while. Do cardio because, as the name implies, it's good for your cardiovascular health - not because you want to lose weight.
Dr. Layne Norton has written extensively going over a lot of the scientific research that explains all of this stuff. Lyle McDonald is also a good source. Look them up.
https://bretcontreras.com/calling-out-lyle-mcdonald/
@fatfudgery is above the exercise Lyle McDonald guy you are talking about who may hold an undergraduate exercise science degree? Have you seen Dr. Layne Norton's video to women that supports Dr. Jason Fung info on calorie restriction only sets you up for a 100%+ weight rebound. Dr. Norton does have out some great no BS pod casts as well on nutrition if you have not heard them.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IhDnkrUEq6w
Below is another link to Dr. Fung's video that explains how the starvation mode and downward metabolic adaptations are One and the Same caused by longer term (more than six weeks) calorie restrictions. While calorie restriction seldom works look at Intermittent Fasting (IF) that does work and why below.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
0 -
Wow, lots of unnecessary arguments in this thread, with almost everyone missing the obvious stuff!
OP, with your stats, you are already at a healthy weight, so your rate of any further loss will be really slow and your calories have to be on point. I peeked at your diary and it looks like you aren't logging. My suggestions:- Set your goal to one-half lb per week.
- If you don't have one, buy a digital food scale.
- Start logging everything, accurately and consistently, using the food scale as often as possible for ALL solids.
- Log your exercise and eat back half your calories.
- Do this for 6-8 weeks and see what happens.
If you aren't using a food scale, small miscalculations in portion size could be causing your problem. I am 5'4", and at 140 lbs, I thought I was eating @ 1500 cals and wasn't losing. I got a food scale and soon realized I was actually eating more like 1800 cals. I started eating 1500 cals for real, increased my steps, and was able to lose 15 lbs, but it was S-L-O-W.
Sorry your thread was hijacked unnecessarily. Starvation mode is not something the average dieter needs to worry about, whether it technically exists or not. Best of luck!
ETA: As others have suggested, search the forum for "recomp", this might be a better plan for you. But as another 5'4" woman, I am considering going down to 120 now that I've lived at 125ish for a few months, so I understand wanting to lose a little more!20 -
shadow2soul wrote: »biocowgirl wrote: »Starvation mode is not a myth, if you are severely restricting your calories you can cause your body to store more fat and build less muscle, even when working out. Check out his nifty calculator to see how much you should be eating (complete with breakdown of your macros): https://legionathletics.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat/
And this great, although lengthy article about building muscle while losing fat : http://www.muscleforlife.com/build-muscle-lose-fat/
Nope. Severe restriction causes your body to start eating it's muscle and organs as well as your fat stores for fuel. Your metabolism will slow as your weight goes down, but your BF% is unlikely to change (possibly get higher) since you are losing your lean mass as well. However, your weight will continue to go down until you hit the point where you are eating right around your maintenance level (which will be lower then what would normally be estimated since lean body mass was lost).
This is a great explanation of what happens when you are eating too little.
OP, are you logging every single thing you put in your mouth to the gram (including prepackaged items, my prepackaged oatmeal can be off by 30-40 calories when I weigh it, do that with several items through the day and you wipe out your deficit)? As you get closer to goal weight, and particularly because you are smaller, it will become increasingly important that you are more accurate with your logging.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »No one gets to 250lbs due to starvation...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
Dr. Jason Fung explains this @Christine_ in this 36 minute video. Run up to 21:00 if you wish to see how cutting calories to lose weigh can put one in starvation mode leading to weigh regain automatically at some point in time. Then go back and watch it from the start.
If one is burning 1800 calories daily and cuts calories to 1500 triggering starvation mode over time lowers their daily burn rate down to 1300 calories which means eating 1500 calories becomes a 200 calorie surplus.
By which process does a TDEE of 1800 become a TDEE of 1300, a reduction of over 25%? What calorie burns go down and how, and why doesn't your body do that all the time to begin with as it is designed to store as much fat as possible on every single occasion?0 -
And as always, the guy in your youtube videos has all the signs of a quack who just wants to sell you his *kitten*. Claims of being able to beat diabetes, claiming "what REALLY causes obesity" etc. etc.5
-
MichelleLei1 wrote: »The people who suffer from 'starvation mode' need to contact the Department of Energy as soon as possible. Their physics defying abilities to create mass from no energy could help make some serious strides in the field of sustainable energy.
I really want to put that sentence in a signature so everyone can read it.
As for studies:
Jebb et al. (1991) - no metabolic adaptation, the subjects' BMR only got lower respective to their weight lost
Weisner et al. (2000) - subjects lost over 10 kg via caloric restriction without exercise, no metabolic adaptation
Amatruda et al. (1993) - comparison between formerly obese women, who were then at their ideal weight and women at their ideal weight, who were never even overweight, no difference found in calories needed to maintain their weight
Redman et al. (2009) - caloric adaptation ranging from 51 calories (weight lost via small deficit) to 83 calories (weight lost via high deficit) in subjects who lost without exercise, no caloric adaptation in subjects who lost via caloric restriction + exercise
Rosenbaum et al. (2008) - subjects lost weight via a 800 calorie liquid diet with limited protein (30 g) over the course of weeks and either maintained their weight for a year or just finished the diet, their BMR was compared to people who were the same weight all their adult lives, those who just finished the diet showed a caloric adaptation around 139 calories, those who maintained their weight for a year showed a caloric adaptation around 72 calories
7 -
How confusing, the OP isn't even logging.
A starvation mode mechanism as proposed by the cowgirl makes no sense, if the body isn't getting enough fuel to run on why would it suddenly switch to storing part of that fuel thereby increasing the shortfall.
It's like switching the engines off on a plane coming in to land with low fuel levels, in order to conserve fuel.6 -
Wow, lots of unnecessary arguments in this thread, with almost everyone missing the obvious stuff!
OP, with your stats, you are already at a healthy weight, so your rate of any further loss will be really slow and your calories have to be on point. I peeked at your diary and it looks like you aren't logging. My suggestions:- Set your goal to one-half lb per week.
- If you don't have one, buy a digital food scale.
- Start logging everything, accurately and consistently, using the food scale as often as possible for ALL solids.
- Log your exercise and eat back half your calories.
- Do this for 6-8 weeks and see what happens.
If you aren't using a food scale, small miscalculations in portion size could be causing your problem. I am 5'4", and at 140 lbs, I thought I was eating @ 1500 cals and wasn't losing. I got a food scale and soon realized I was actually eating more like 1800 cals. I started eating 1500 cals for real, increased my steps, and was able to lose 15 lbs, but it was S-L-O-W.
Sorry your thread was hijacked unnecessarily. Starvation mode is not something the average dieter needs to worry about, whether it technically exists or not. Best of luck!
ETA: As others have suggested, search the forum for "recomp", this might be a better plan for you. But as another 5'4" woman, I am considering going down to 120 now that I've lived at 125ish for a few months, so I understand wanting to lose a little more!
This is the post you need to pay attention to, @jvs125. You think you're eating 1200 to 1500 calories per day, but you aren't. With your stats, you have very little wiggle room and a food scale is going to play an integral part in your progress. I'm 5'3" and 112 pounds with my low being 109; getting to that weight without a food scale would be far more difficult.3 -
How confusing, the OP isn't even logging.
A starvation mode mechanism as proposed by the cowgirl makes no sense, if the body isn't getting enough fuel to run on why would it suddenly switch to storing part of that fuel thereby increasing the shortfall.
It's like switching the engines off on a plane coming in to land with low fuel levels, in order to conserve fuel.
This^^
OP Do you log your food somewhere else?1 -
evildeadedd wrote: »If starvation mode isn't a myth where are all the fat people in the pictures of holocaust survivor? As you lose weight it takes less calories to maintain, that's not starvation, that's physics. Every scientific study I have ever read shows the effects of calorie restriction on metabolism is very minor. The Minnesota starvation experiment showed a decrease of I believe 40% but thst was after the participants had very very low body fat.
If starvation mode was a real thing no-one would ever die of starvation.
I like this !0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »OP, why the variation in calories? Do you have a fitbit linked?
Also, are you using a food scale? With so little to lose, your deficit would be very small, so you'd have to be incredibly accurate.. even with 100 cals extra a day, you could be wiping out your deficit, so eating more would not the solution. Weight gain is caused by eating more than you need to maintain.
No. The way you described it, no. If it was the case, how do people starve to death? Please provide sources to prove the starvation mode theory..biocowgirl wrote: »Starvation mode is not a myth, if you are severely restricting your calories you can cause your body to store more fat and build less muscle, even when working out. Check out his nifty calculator to see how much you should be eating (complete with breakdown of your macros): https://legionathletics.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat/
And this great, although lengthy article about building muscle while losing fat : http://www.muscleforlife.com/build-muscle-lose-fat/
Ewww. Don't call Starvation Mode a theory. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Germ Theory is a theory. Starvation mode is a joke at best and outright lies at worst.3 -
Op your diary is blank but yet you are saying you believe you could be in starvation mode so think that's why your not losing ? Correct me if I'm wrong .
Your likely eating more then you think. Get yourself a food scale. Weigh all your solids. Measure your liquids. Log it all accurately. Keep in mind that you will have a small margin for error the closer you get to goal.
0 -
Chiming in real quick: Starvation Mode is real. But 95% of people on MFP do not actually understand what it is in reality or what effects it will take on you. Missing a meal a day will not cause starvation mode or people in 1st world countries are highly unlikely to ever experience it, see it, or feel it.
But that really shouldn't be the topic of discussion here, it should be helping the OP whom asked for assistance.
It is unlikely you are in a calorie deficit. What you may think is a deficit simply may not be. Logging by weight and logging honestly is VERY important.0 -
Chiming in real quick: Starvation Mode is real. But 95% of people on MFP do not actually understand what it is in reality or what effects it will take on you. Missing a meal a day will not cause starvation mode or people in 1st world countries are highly unlikely to ever experience it, see it, or feel it.
But that really shouldn't be the topic of discussion here, it should be helping the OP whom asked for assistance.
It is unlikely you are in a calorie deficit. What you may think is a deficit simply may not be. Logging by weight and logging honestly is VERY important.
Very well. Educate us, if you think you have the evidence. Evidence is all that matters here. You wouldn't find a more willing group outside an Atheist convention that could so easily be swayed by actual evidence. So put up.2 -
Seriously, it's science but it's not rocket science. Eating at a moderate deficit will not throw your body into starvation mode.
Eating at a large deficit for a long time will cause your body to start consuming vital tissues, hence you will literally be starving and energy for basic functions will start being slowed until they stop and you die. Because you starved to death. But leading up to that point, even when things begin to slow down, will in no way stop your body from using whatever it can for fuel until you're dead. That is "starvation mode."
Severe anorexics are in "starvation mode." Do you see extra stored fat on them?3 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Very well. Educate us, if you think you have the evidence. Evidence is all that matters here. You wouldn't find a more willing group outside an Atheist convention that could so easily be swayed by actual evidence. So put up.
You aggressive attitude is unappreciated.
Your body's energy output depends significantly on the activities within it.
On MFP, most people that believe they are in 'starvation mode' may be actually suffering from mild malnutrition. Your body will engage in many activities, but most of them require resources. For a time, the body can cannibalize itself for said resources. However, many are not easily and readily available. So, the activities the body normal does with them, will slow. This means less energy expenditure.
In 'starvation mode', there is a combination of malnutrition and lack of energy. So even with the resources, the energy required to perform an action is not readily available, so the process waits. Remember, most biological energy is chemical, not electrical, so it physically needs to move, unlike an electrical field which is established when connecting a circuit. Think of it this way, if your liver needed 300 calories a day for optimal performance, it could be ran at 250 calories a day instead for sub-par performance. However, this can and does lead to organ damage. Worth noting, most chronic anorexics die of organ failure.
This is also why thyroid problems (Hypo and Hyper) are medical issues that should be resolved.
But the idea that you'll store extra fat in 'starvation mode' or that you skipped lunch and thus are in 'starvation mode' etc. is mostly false.3 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »Chiming in real quick: Starvation Mode is real. But 95% of people on MFP do not actually understand what it is in reality or what effects it will take on you. Missing a meal a day will not cause starvation mode or people in 1st world countries are highly unlikely to ever experience it, see it, or feel it.
But that really shouldn't be the topic of discussion here, it should be helping the OP whom asked for assistance.
It is unlikely you are in a calorie deficit. What you may think is a deficit simply may not be. Logging by weight and logging honestly is VERY important.
Very well. Educate us, if you think you have the evidence. Evidence is all that matters here. You wouldn't find a more willing group outside an Atheist convention that could so easily be swayed by actual evidence. So put up.
I think the poster was referring to the fact that starvation mode is a real physiological response to an extremely low calorie intake, not that the OP was suffering from being in starvation mode.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions