Question about the starvation mode myth
jvs125
Posts: 223 Member
Ok, so I keep reading starvation mode is a myth.
But, after being on a calorie deficit for months and working out 6 days per week, weight training and cardio, My weight loss has completely stalled. For months now, and I don't care much about scale, but inches aren't coming down.
I was thinking maybe I should increase my calorie intake to see if it helps the fat loss process but if starvation mode is a myth, then that would not help... So what would help?
I'm 33, female, 5'4", 127 pounds and currently eat between 1200-1500 cals daily..
But, after being on a calorie deficit for months and working out 6 days per week, weight training and cardio, My weight loss has completely stalled. For months now, and I don't care much about scale, but inches aren't coming down.
I was thinking maybe I should increase my calorie intake to see if it helps the fat loss process but if starvation mode is a myth, then that would not help... So what would help?
I'm 33, female, 5'4", 127 pounds and currently eat between 1200-1500 cals daily..
1
Replies
-
I'm reading that you would need 1241 calories to lose a pound per week with your height. Working out obviously helps. I think you'd better brace yourself for being reminded to weigh everything you eat.
Perhaps you can try eating at the bottom of your range, which is 1200-ish to lose a pound per week?0 -
Eating 1200-1500 cals daily, NOT counting the burn from my workout..1
-
The closer you get to your goal, the smaller your margin of error is. Have you been adjusting your calorie goal as you lose? If you have a small frame you are right within idea weight for your height, which means it is going to be extremely difficult to continue losing. Talking a quarter to half pound a week. If you are not happy with the way you look I recommend you do some research on body recomposition.2
-
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/2 -
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.19 -
How are you calculating how many calories you are consuming?
So I ran some numbers for you:
Sedentary lifestyle - 0 workouts
TDEE: 1457
Sedentary lifestyle - 3 workouts a week - 30 min workouts - moderate intensity
TDEE: 1553
Sedentary lifestyle - 3 workouts a week - 60 min workouts - moderate intensity
TDEE: 1650
Lightly Active lifestyle - 3 workouts a week - 30 min workouts - moderate intensity
TDEE: 1680
Lightly Active lifestyle - 3 workouts a week - 60 min workouts - moderate intensity
TDEE: 1777
Lightly Active lifestyle - 5 workouts a week - 60 min workouts - moderate intensity
TDEE: 1905
Sedentary lifestyle - 7 workouts a week - 60 min workouts - moderate intensity
TDEE: 1907
0 -
Eating 1200-1500 cals daily, NOT counting the burn from my workout..
@jvs125 as noted by biocowgirl starvation mode is not a myth and eating in a starvation mode is 99.9% why my weight yo yo'ed for 40 years wrecking my health.
Are you eating in a starvation mode I do not know. I do know the USDA states a female needs 1600-2000 calories to maintain good health.0 -
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).5 -
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/
6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Eating 1200-1500 cals daily, NOT counting the burn from my workout..
@jvs125 as noted by biocowgirl starvation mode is not a myth and eating in a starvation mode is 99.9% why my weight yo yo'ed for 40 years wrecking my health.
Are you eating in a starvation mode I do not know. I do know the USDA states a female needs 1600-2000 calories to maintain good health.
No.Sorry. you had other stuff going on. You can't function opposite the science.
I suspect you deprived and binged. And other posts you have made tend to indicate that.11 -
allenpriest wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Eating 1200-1500 cals daily, NOT counting the burn from my workout..
@jvs125 as noted by biocowgirl starvation mode is not a myth and eating in a starvation mode is 99.9% why my weight yo yo'ed for 40 years wrecking my health.
Are you eating in a starvation mode I do not know. I do know the USDA states a female needs 1600-2000 calories to maintain good health.
You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
@allenpriest do you have any science to back up your personal opinion on the subject?0 -
No one gets to 250lbs due to starvation...15
-
The science is posted all over this site. If you want to support myth then you need to post the support - which doesn't exist.GaleHawkins wrote: »allenpriest wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Eating 1200-1500 cals daily, NOT counting the burn from my workout..
@jvs125 as noted by biocowgirl starvation mode is not a myth and eating in a starvation mode is 99.9% why my weight yo yo'ed for 40 years wrecking my health.
Are you eating in a starvation mode I do not know. I do know the USDA states a female needs 1600-2000 calories to maintain good health.
You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
@allenpriest do you have any science to back up your personal opinion on the subject?
6 -
Christine_72 wrote: »No one gets to 250lbs due to starvation...
Indeed they do not. One gains by eating more, over time, than the body requires to maintain itself.
That may come from restrict and binge. But filks seem to frequently underestimate what they consume and overestimate what they burn.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »allenpriest wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Eating 1200-1500 cals daily, NOT counting the burn from my workout..
@jvs125 as noted by biocowgirl starvation mode is not a myth and eating in a starvation mode is 99.9% why my weight yo yo'ed for 40 years wrecking my health.
Are you eating in a starvation mode I do not know. I do know the USDA states a female needs 1600-2000 calories to maintain good health.
You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
@allenpriest do you have any science to back up your personal opinion on the subject?
Show me one scientific study that supports starvation mode as it is portrayed in weight loss circles. Show me ONE single example of a fat POW.
If you over restrict your calories for a long period, you are likely to be susceptible to calorie creep. Things like mindlessly grazing, and binging are what cause people to stop losing weight.5 -
Duplicate0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »No one gets to 250lbs due to starvation...
As a former 250 pounder, I can confirm. I only thought I was starving and ate friggin EVERYTHING. It turns out I was just bored.9 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions