Question: Starvation Mode, Why?

bchibdon · January 2017

Hi Everyone,

So, I'm scientifically minded, and I like to understand the chemistry and other metabolic processes that are going on in weight loss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually a scientist or otherwise scientifically-educated, so I'm really coming from a zero-knowledge standpoint here.

That being said, I was wondering if anyone knows why our metabolism rates suffer so much if we "enter starvation mode" by eating less than our daily required calories every day? I'm stumped on this because I don't understand why we'd go into starvation mode when we have fat to burn. It seems counter-evolutionary.

How could our bodies magically (seemingly) decide to lessen the amount of calories needed to function due to "starvation mode" based on short-term eating changes? How would eating fewer calories than the daily requirement make the base metabolism suffer longterm?

Anyone have any ideas or articles they could link?

Karen_can_do_this · January 2017

We don't go into starvation mode because there is no such thing as starvation mode.

Machka9 · January 2017

Karen_can_do_this wrote: »

We don't go into starvation mode because there is no such thing as starvation mode.

+1

bchibdon · January 2017

Karen,

I'm leaning on that side myself. However, what lead you to believe this? Do you have any articles?

Thanks for the input!

diannethegeek · January 2017

You might find these interesting:

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

jemhh · January 2017

The only time you go in to starvation mode is when you are actually starving. And even then, it's just called starvation, not starvation mode, and your body doesn't hold onto fat. Look at pictures from the Holocaust or any very poor country where people are starving. Nobody in those pictures is having trouble losing fat. I have no idea why people think that they are special snowflakes whose bodies can't lose fat while people in death camps where they truly are starving have no problem doing so. Any way to feel superior, I suppose.

AnvilHead · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

Karen,

I'm leaning on that side myself. However, what lead you to believe this? Do you have any articles?

Thanks for the input!

Starvation mode, in the context it is most commonly used, is a myth. Here are a couple good articles for your reading:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-qa.html/

AnvilHead · January 2017

jemhh wrote: »

The only time you go in to starvation mode is when you are actually starving. And even then, it's just called starvation, not starvation mode, and your body doesn't hold onto fat. Look at pictures from the Holocaust or any very poor country where people are starving. Nobody in those pictures is having trouble losing fat. I have no idea why people think that they are special snowflakes whose bodies can't lose fat while people in death camps where they truly are starving have no problem doing so. Any way to feel superior, I suppose.

One more link: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/

bchibdon · January 2017

Moved to bottom

red99ryder · January 2017

the two things i always think of is the Michigan Experiment , and the TV show Naked and afraid ,, they all lost weight not eating more food than required .

Good luck

bchibdon · January 2017

Thanks guys! This is exactly what I was looking for.

So, I'm reading through the articles, but just to get a live back-and-forth here to deepen my understanding, why are very low calorie diets so demonized?

For example, 900 calories a day for a 180 lb person, a person could lose as much weight as for however long they sustain that eating habit. However, if they were to get to 140 or so and decide that they'd like to maintain that weight, they'd just start eating the "minimum required calories" to maintain, and that would be that. Is that right?

And, if so, what is metabolism and how/why is it affected?

Also, what do you say to articles like this: https://healthyeater.com/eat-to-lose-weight

Unknown · January 2017

This content has been removed.

AnvilHead · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

Thanks guys! This is exactly what I was looking for.

So, I'm reading through the articles, but just to get a live back-and-forth here to deepen my understanding, why are very low calorie diets so demonized?

For example, 900 calories a day for a 180 lb person, a person could lose as much weight as for however long they sustain that eating habit. However, if they were to get to 140 or so and decide that they'd like to maintain that weight, they'd just start eating the "minimum required calories" to maintain, and that would be that. Is that right?

And, if so, what is metabolism and how/why is it affected?

Speaking in general terms:

1) Malnutrition. It's hard to have a well-rounded diet on such low calories and you can end up missing out on vital macro/micronutrients. That can have a lot of negative effects upon your entire body.

2) Body composition. Without adequate protein intake, you increase the risk of losing excessive amounts of muscle along with the fat. This can result in you getting to your goal weight and discovering that you just look like a smaller version of what you were before - skinny, but still soft and flabby. In the vernacular it's referred to as "skinnyfat" - the medical term for it is MONW (Metabolically Obese, Normal Weight). It means that you can still suffer the medical issues associated with obesity even though you're at a "normal" or "healthy" weight because of an excessively high body fat percentage.

3) Workout performance/fatigue. If you're not adequately fueling your workouts, your performance is going to suffer and you're going to feel tired, run down and more prone to injuries because your body can't recover properly without adequate "building materials" (nutrients).

Azdak · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

Thanks guys! This is exactly what I was looking for.

So, I'm reading through the articles, but just to get a live back-and-forth here to deepen my understanding, why are very low calorie diets so demonized?

For example, 900 calories a day for a 180 lb person, a person could lose as much weight as for however long they sustain that eating habit. However, if they were to get to 140 or so and decide that they'd like to maintain that weight, they'd just start eating the "minimum required calories" to maintain, and that would be that. Is that right?

And, if so, what is metabolism and how/why is it affected?

VLCDs are "demonized" for several reasons, some legitimate, some not.

1. They usually result in a loss of lean mass/muscle mass. This does cause a lowering of "metabolism", since muscle is a more metabolically active tissue.

2. They are usually associated with an artificial eating system, e.g. Protein shakes or the like. Losing weight in this way often does not prepare the person to return to "real" eating, so they often regain the weight. There is a greater tendency to view "weight loss" as separate from "the rest of your life". Weight loss/gain involves more than just food--there are behavioral, emotional, and psychological issues that must be addressed as well.

3. There is a concern that VLCDs can trigger eating disorders is more susceptible people.

Theoretically, all of these shortcomings could be addressed by a carefully constructed program with longer-term follow up support. In fact, a study done several years ago, suggested that those with a higher level of obesity lost more weight and had few ill effects and did as well in the 1-2 yrs following the study as the non-VLCD participants.

In reality, these programs have an extremely poor long-term success rate. I don't demonize them myself, but I have very little faith in them.

bchibdon · January 2017

Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »

Eating too low calories does not give your body the right nutrients it needs to run your basic functions... the less you give it the more its going to be forced to get it else where, its not just going to use your fat but it will also use your lean muscle mass.... lean muscle is what determines how many calories we burn over 24 hours... the less you have, the less calories you need... and a person who eats the typical calories it would take to maintain their new weight after losing their lean muscle would then gain weight easier then someone who lost weight at a normal healthy rate.

Most low calorie diets are very difficult to maintain, so anyone now stuck with a lower BMR cause of lean muscle loss probably wouldn't be able to stick to their now lower calorie goal even if they used one short term for faster weight loss.

Interesting point! However, as long as a person has fat to lose, why would their body burn instead lean muscle instead? What happens to a person working out and gaining new lean muscle? It's so confusing and seemingly contradictory.

ninerbuff · January 2017

Understand that if VCLD were okay for everyone, there wouldn't be anorexia. And people die from it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Unknown · January 2017

This content has been removed.

bchibdon · January 2017

AnvilHead wrote: »

bchibdon wrote: »

Thanks guys! This is exactly what I was looking for.

So, I'm reading through the articles, but just to get a live back-and-forth here to deepen my understanding, why are very low calorie diets so demonized?

For example, 900 calories a day for a 180 lb person, a person could lose as much weight as for however long they sustain that eating habit. However, if they were to get to 140 or so and decide that they'd like to maintain that weight, they'd just start eating the "minimum required calories" to maintain, and that would be that. Is that right?

And, if so, what is metabolism and how/why is it affected?

Speaking in general terms:

1) Malnutrition. It's hard to have a well-rounded diet on such low calories and you can end up missing out on vital macro/micronutrients. That can have a lot of negative effects upon your entire body.

2) Body composition. Without adequate protein intake, you increase the risk of losing excessive amounts of muscle along with the fat. This can result in you getting to your goal weight and discovering that you just look like a smaller version of what you were before - skinny, but still soft and flabby. In the vernacular it's referred to as "skinnyfat" - the medical term for it is MONW (Metabolically Obese, Normal Weight). It means that you can still suffer the medical issues associated with obesity even though you're at a "normal" or "healthy" weight because of an excessively high body fat percentage.

3) Workout performance/fatigue. If you're not adequately fueling your workouts, your performance is going to suffer and you're going to feel tired, run down and more prone to injuries because your body can't recover properly without adequate "building materials" (nutrients).

Great info here! That really clarifies the counter argument. However, looking at diets such as Paleo, where the diet is high protein, high veggie, and all around healthy, it seems like this type of lifestyle would be low in calories and high in nutrition. Would a person with this dietary habit still suffer lean muscle loss and malnutrition?

Why I bring up any of this is because I'm committed to a vegetarian-based paleo diet. This diet is focused on protein rich foods, and 90 % veggies. I'm finding it really hard to go above 1000 calories a day with this diet. I'm worried about the long-term implications, as I really like what this diet is doing to my weight, skin, overall wellbeing.

Thanks again for all the awesome insight!

PokeyBug · January 2017

Unless a person is living in Burundi or is anorexic, I don't think starvation mode is going to be an issue.

bpetrosky · January 2017

Simple. Eating very low calories makes it very difficult to get the nutrition your body needs. Your body needs certain proteins, fats, and micronutrients from your daily diet to support your normal bodily functions including cell repair, immune functions, synthesizing hormones, fertility, etc. Sustaining a very low calorie level for a period of time can lead to have dramatic health consequences.

The guideline of 1200 cals/day for females and 1500 cals/day for males is intended as a minimum goal for the majority of the adult population. At that level, a person should be able to get all the nutrients needed to sustain a healthy weight loss.

VLCDs are sometimes used under close medical supervision and support when a person needs to lose weight fast, such as in cases of a necessary surgical procedure where obesity is a risk factor. MFP discourages unsupervised VLCDs due to the risks and the potential for eating disorders among certain users.

bpetrosky · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

bchibdon wrote: »

Thanks guys! This is exactly what I was looking for.

So, I'm reading through the articles, but just to get a live back-and-forth here to deepen my understanding, why are very low calorie diets so demonized?

For example, 900 calories a day for a 180 lb person, a person could lose as much weight as for however long they sustain that eating habit. However, if they were to get to 140 or so and decide that they'd like to maintain that weight, they'd just start eating the "minimum required calories" to maintain, and that would be that. Is that right?

And, if so, what is metabolism and how/why is it affected?

Speaking in general terms:

1) Malnutrition. It's hard to have a well-rounded diet on such low calories and you can end up missing out on vital macro/micronutrients. That can have a lot of negative effects upon your entire body.

2) Body composition. Without adequate protein intake, you increase the risk of losing excessive amounts of muscle along with the fat. This can result in you getting to your goal weight and discovering that you just look like a smaller version of what you were before - skinny, but still soft and flabby. In the vernacular it's referred to as "skinnyfat" - the medical term for it is MONW (Metabolically Obese, Normal Weight). It means that you can still suffer the medical issues associated with obesity even though you're at a "normal" or "healthy" weight because of an excessively high body fat percentage.

3) Workout performance/fatigue. If you're not adequately fueling your workouts, your performance is going to suffer and you're going to feel tired, run down and more prone to injuries because your body can't recover properly without adequate "building materials" (nutrients).

Great info here! That really clarifies the counter argument. However, looking at diets such as Paleo, where the diet is high protein, high veggie, and all around healthy, it seems like this type of lifestyle would be low in calories and high in nutrition. Would a person with this dietary habit still suffer lean muscle loss and malnutrition?

Why I bring up any of this is because I'm committed to a vegetarian-based paleo diet. This diet is focused on protein rich foods, and 90 % veggies. I'm finding it really hard to go above 1000 calories a day with this diet. I'm worried about the long-term implications, as I really like what this diet is doing to my weight, skin, overall wellbeing.

Thanks again for all the awesome insight!

Even a vegetarian diet (paleo or not) allows for fats. Seeds, nuts, olives, avocados, etc are all great sources of fats and give an easy calorie boost. Fats are necessary for absorbing certain nutrients and other things your body needs.

bchibdon · January 2017

That's a great suggestion! I tried cashews to up my calories today and they were gross, but I could definitely do avocados.

One last thing, what do you guys think about this article about starvation mode?
https://healthyeater.com/eat-to-lose-weight
medical paper: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199706193362507

bpetrosky · January 2017

It's bunk.

There is a thing called adaptive thermogenisis. Basically you move less and expend less energy if you're under eating, but it only slows down weight loss by a small amount. Measurable yes, but nowhere near what people claim when they talk about "starvation mode". The article is making that mistake.

The NEJM article is behind a paywall, but it looks like it addresses endocrine changes when under eating, not "starvation mode" as is usually claimed in this site.

srk369 · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

That's a great suggestion! I tried cashews to up my calories today and they were gross, but I could definitely do avocados.

One last thing, what do you guys think about this article about starvation mode?
https://healthyeater.com/eat-to-lose-weight
medical paper: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199706193362507

Search for cashew cheese recipes. There are some really cool ways to use cashews!

Carlos_421 · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »

Eating too low calories does not give your body the right nutrients it needs to run your basic functions... the less you give it the more its going to be forced to get it else where, its not just going to use your fat but it will also use your lean muscle mass.... lean muscle is what determines how many calories we burn over 24 hours... the less you have, the less calories you need... and a person who eats the typical calories it would take to maintain their new weight after losing their lean muscle would then gain weight easier then someone who lost weight at a normal healthy rate.

Most low calorie diets are very difficult to maintain, so anyone now stuck with a lower BMR cause of lean muscle loss probably wouldn't be able to stick to their now lower calorie goal even if they used one short term for faster weight loss.

Interesting point! However, as long as a person has fat to lose, why would their body burn instead lean muscle instead? What happens to a person working out and gaining new lean muscle? It's so confusing and seemingly contradictory.

Because your body can't make amino acids (which it needs) from fat. Since amino acids are protein, it has to get them from your muscles if not enough is taken in through your diet.

As for gaining lean muscle, outside of newbie gains, this is incredibly difficult if possible when in a caloric deficit (you need extra calories for muscle building just like you do for fat storage).

red99ryder · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

That's a great suggestion! I tried cashews to up my calories today and they were gross, but I could definitely do avocados.

One last thing, what do you guys think about this article about starvation mode?
https://healthyeater.com/eat-to-lose-weight
medical paper: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199706193362507

I read the eat to lose weight story ,, and he goes on to recommend 20 percent less than TDEE as a goal and that sounds about right .. i disagree on the story about the girl that couldnt lose weight at 1300 calories but could at a higher number of calories , why do those guys on Naked and afraid lose so much weight if eating less made you stop losing weight ,,, and yes we want to save as much LBM as possible so slow and steady is the best way IMOP

Good luck

lemurcat12 · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

bchibdon wrote: »

Thanks guys! This is exactly what I was looking for.

So, I'm reading through the articles, but just to get a live back-and-forth here to deepen my understanding, why are very low calorie diets so demonized?

For example, 900 calories a day for a 180 lb person, a person could lose as much weight as for however long they sustain that eating habit. However, if they were to get to 140 or so and decide that they'd like to maintain that weight, they'd just start eating the "minimum required calories" to maintain, and that would be that. Is that right?

And, if so, what is metabolism and how/why is it affected?

Speaking in general terms:

1) Malnutrition. It's hard to have a well-rounded diet on such low calories and you can end up missing out on vital macro/micronutrients. That can have a lot of negative effects upon your entire body.

2) Body composition. Without adequate protein intake, you increase the risk of losing excessive amounts of muscle along with the fat. This can result in you getting to your goal weight and discovering that you just look like a smaller version of what you were before - skinny, but still soft and flabby. In the vernacular it's referred to as "skinnyfat" - the medical term for it is MONW (Metabolically Obese, Normal Weight). It means that you can still suffer the medical issues associated with obesity even though you're at a "normal" or "healthy" weight because of an excessively high body fat percentage.

3) Workout performance/fatigue. If you're not adequately fueling your workouts, your performance is going to suffer and you're going to feel tired, run down and more prone to injuries because your body can't recover properly without adequate "building materials" (nutrients).

Great info here! That really clarifies the counter argument. However, looking at diets such as Paleo, where the diet is high protein, high veggie, and all around healthy, it seems like this type of lifestyle would be low in calories and high in nutrition. Would a person with this dietary habit still suffer lean muscle loss and malnutrition?

Why I bring up any of this is because I'm committed to a vegetarian-based paleo diet. This diet is focused on protein rich foods, and 90 % veggies. I'm finding it really hard to go above 1000 calories a day with this diet. I'm worried about the long-term implications, as I really like what this diet is doing to my weight, skin, overall wellbeing.

Thanks again for all the awesome insight!

How much protein are you actually getting on your diet? I ask, because I have some experience with paleo (not doing it any more) and it prohibits two of the easiest vegetarian sources of protein: legumes and dairy. I think getting adequate protein on vegetarian paleo would be tough even without eating only 1000 calories. And some of the sources of protein (eggs, nuts and seeds) would be higher cal due to the fat content.

Anyway, I basically agree with AnvilHead's comments, and my understanding is that too steep a deficit can be a problem for muscle loss and greater metabolic adaptation than necessary, even with a healthy diet, and same for workout performance, of course. I also think a diet can't be considered truly healthy if it's hard to eat adequate calories on it--after all, how would you consider eating in that manner at maintenance if it makes eating adequate calories too much of a challenge?

Nevada · January 2017

When I did my first run with MyFitnessPal back in 2007, Starvation Mode was part of fitness orthodoxy. Here is a discussion from 2008 when it was accepted by all commentors without dissent: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/7611/starvation-mode

Another thread from back then says that MFP will warn you of Starvation Mode if your net calories fall below 1,200 for the day: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/25331/starvation-mode

I took me nine years to put 15 pounds back on, so I am here logging again. Starvation Mode has been reclassified from True to Wacky. That is one reason I like MFP. Advice is based on current science. Fitness woo is not tolerated.
When the evidence changed, the advice kept up with the science.

kommodevaran · January 2017

Losing weight on 900 calories wouldn't be a problem - apart from the obvious malnutrition - if 900 calories was all you had. But you are surrounded by delicious food 24/7. When you don't eat, you get hungry. When you are hungry, and there's food, you eat. When you haven't eaten enough for a while, you eat even more. Simples.

("Starvation mode" is basically just catering to people's vanity - nobody (who is overweight) likes to admit that they like food and are hungry.)

TimothyFish · January 2017

bchibdon wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

So, I'm scientifically minded, and I like to understand the chemistry and other metabolic processes that are going on in weight loss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually a scientist or otherwise scientifically-educated, so I'm really coming from a zero-knowledge standpoint here.

That being said, I was wondering if anyone knows why our metabolism rates suffer so much if we "enter starvation mode" by eating less than our daily required calories every day? I'm stumped on this because I don't understand why we'd go into starvation mode when we have fat to burn. It seems counter-evolutionary.

How could our bodies magically (seemingly) decide to lessen the amount of calories needed to function due to "starvation mode" based on short-term eating changes? How would eating fewer calories than the daily requirement make the base metabolism suffer longterm?

Anyone have any ideas or articles they could link?

"Starvation mode" is kind of a dirty word around here because so many people think it is this magical mode in which your body stores fat regardless of how active you are. However, there are things that happen when your body doesn't have enough food.

Athletes talk about "bonking" or "hitting the wall." This occurs when your glycogen levels fall too low. At that point, you don't have enough carbohydrates available in your body for your blood to carry them to the muscles that need them. The end result is that the muscles can't continue working until more are available. But if the muscles aren't working, then they aren't burning very many calories either.

Okay, so take that situation and apply it to a person who isn't running a race but who is eating very little. Their daily activities are still burning calories more quickly than their fat can convert fat into a usable form. They also aren't providing themselves with various vitamins and minerals we need. So, it's not just the muscles that don't have all the things they need to work but the other organs as well. Everything starts shutting down and you can't find the energy to drag yourself out of bed. When you do drag yourself out of bed, you don't feel like doing much. Because you aren't doing much and your organs aren't functioning at the same rate as normal, you are burning fewer calories than the charts say you should be burning if all you do is sit around. So, weight loss moves more slowly than you are expecting because your calorie deficit isn't as large as you think it is. This makes people think they are holding onto fat. In fact, the fat is probably the only thing that is working at peak capacity as it tries to provide the energy your body needs, but it takes longer to convert fat to energy than it does to use stored glycogen. The fat just can't keep up.

Maxematics · January 2017

Sorry if this has been covered already, but this is in reference to those people who think they don't lose weight at 1200 calories then magically lose weight when eating more.

The body can be funny. If you're eating the bare minimum of calories you need your body is going to try to utilize every calorie as much as possible. This may cause one to not pass a bowel movement on a regular basis. This causes them to remain steady on the scale, they eat more, take a big dump, then "lose weight". They now believe they lost weight eating more.

Another scenario is your body holding onto water when your deficit is too large. This has happened to me before. A day or two higher in calories and weight drops. Again, this would have happened anyway due to the lower calorie intake but may have taken longer to show on the scale.

Another possibility is those who think weight loss is input/output. They expect to see decreases on the scale daily. If not, they change up their calories and attribute any weight lost thereafter to eating more.

Question: Starvation Mode, Why?

Replies

Categories