is starvation mode real

Starvation mode is a myth, but there are other complications that come with chronic under-eating.

There is really such a thing as starvation. However, the idea well fed people will somehow quit losing weight because they are starving is utter nonsense.

kaizaku wrote: »

It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.

There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.

kq1981 wrote: »

show previous quotes

kaizaku wrote: »

It's real. What people generally refer to as “starvation mode” (and sometimes “metabolic damage”) is the body’s natural response to long-term calorie restriction. It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation. which can slow down weight loss.

There is no scientific evidence of this occurring (slow down weight loss) Eating disorders clearly debunk this.

Actually, there is scientific evidence that a 500 calorie deficit for 8 weeks causes an additional 10% reduction in NEAT. That is, the subjects NEAT is 10% lower than it would be naturally as a consequence of the weight loss. The same study demonstrated that this 10% additional decline in NEAT was reversed by feeding the subjects at maintenance for a week.

Since most of us lose weight this way, going through days and weeks of calorie deficits interrupted by days or weeks of calorie maintenance or surplus, we demonstrate that we lose weight without any demonstrably permanent reduction in our NEAT. We accidentally avoid the damage with our refeeds, cheats, IDGAFs, and 'life happens'.

I re-read this thread and I have just had a penny drop about how misunderstandings arise and are perpetuated and why threads about starvation mode mostly turn into people yelling past each other.

Person A says: Too aggressive a deficit will trigger physiological responses to conserve energy in order to slow down the rate at which you lose.

Person B hears: if you diet drastically for six weeks by eating too little, you will lose less weight over that time than  you would if you ate at a moderate deficit.

Person B accepts this and tells everyone else. This becomes 'you have to eat more to lose weight'.

Person C reads the same as person B ... and thinks "LOLOLOL. You're saying that you will lose less weight if you eat less? So what? If two identical twins go on diets and one is on a 1300 calorie diet and the other is on 1800, the one who eats more will weigh less? Can you even science?" Then they post something curt about concentration camps, asking how come people can die of starvation if starvation mode exists.

Both B and C are misinterpreting. When poster A says 'slows weight loss', A doesn't mean that you will lose weight more quickly on a 500 calories deficit than a 750 calorie deficit. That would be absurd. A is in fact talking about diminishing returns.


Let me expand on that. Basic arithmetic will tell you that if I want to save 100 dollars/pounds/Simoleans for something, and I save one a week, it will take me 100 weeks. If I save two a week, it'll halve the time until I can afford it. So far, so bleedin' obvious, yes?


The bleedin' obvious, applied to weight loss, says if you have a deficit of 100 calories a day (caution: made up numbers for ease of example!) and lose 0.5lbs a week, then a deficit of 200 calories per day will mean you lose 1lb.


I expect this is true. However, the body is not a simple machine. It is an immensely complex living organism, with more emergency protocols than the emergency services, so if you consistently eat at too large a deficit, this will trigger physiological responses to attempt to compensate, and our made-up(!) simple arithmetical relationship of 100 calories per day equalling 0.5lbs after a week will no longer hold true above a certain ceiling.


 It's a bit like the money analogy- if I want to save a lot each week, I will have to cut back on luxury spending. In this case, the body, responding to the drop in income (i.e. calories), will cut back on unnecessary movement, such as fidgeting. 


For the purposes of this example,  if you want to lose 3lbs a week, a deficit of 600 cals a day (an extrapolation from our purported 100 cals per 0.5lb) is no longer enough due to compensation measures, and it needs to be 850 a day. 3.5lbs might be 1115 calories a day. And thus, diminishing returns. You need to work far harder, i.e. eat less, to lose each additional 0.5 lbs if you want to lose it fast, and the impact of the deficit has been slowed beyond your projected calculation.

So if you are losing weight for your health or personal goals, staying up within the range that maximises the effect of every 100 calorie drop seems most productive.

Let me reiterate something at the end of all this. Yes, people do die of starvation.  It is a slow and horrific way to die and all of the above is why . Referencing Bergen-Belsen or the liberation of Auschwitz or the death rates of people with untreated anorexia does not disprove the existence of these processes: it illustrates how effective they are. 


If it were not for these processes, fewer people would survive prolonged starvation and the victims would have died far more quickly without the months of suffering they endured.