Starvation mode and the Biggest Loser participants
Themajez
Posts: 61 Member
What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
16
Replies
-
Metabolic adaptation is a thing and that’s likely what they’re enduring. Starvation mode is not.25
-
I hate that show... They encourage crazy kcal deficits and ridiculously excess exercise; no wonder the poor people have negative experiences post show both physically (and mentally I suspect)13
-
this thread has some info in it:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p11 -
I have done crazy crash dieting for 3 months at a time a couple of times. I think I have suffered some AT, but only in the 150-200 calorie range. I should be able to maintain at ~1900 with no exercise but I will slowly gain if I eat that much each day. I could eat more each day and still have a stable weight if I hadn't done the crash dieting. But it isn't starvation mode because that's not really a thing. When you suffer some AT, it can either be an excuse to get fat or a reason to eat less. Unfortunately it seems to be relative to what your total diet normally was and/or the deficit you restricted yourself to for a long time so the biggest loser competitors had more significant AT, like as high as 600 calories a day. They would have to get used to eating significantly less to maintain a lower weight. It was just too much of an adjustment for most of them.3
-
As a male, I lost 90 pounds in only 7-8 months on 1000-1200 calories a day (252 to 162 pounds). Obviously I don't recommend doing this for health reasons but starvation mode is definitely a myth. Metabolic adaptation is a thing, but your body is not going to stop losing weight when you are in a calorie deficit.13
-
This study has become a weird obsession of mine. So, do i think AT is real, yes very real. There were some flaws with this study. The former contestants were given prior warning of the study times. They were not weight stable. Losing an average of .5 lbs a week or more. Basically some went on a crash diet. They were exercising a lot which will also drop RMR. I have been luck enough to talk to some professionals about the study. Most have told me to Look at Leibel's metabolic ward studies. All the people were weight stable to withen 15grams. The subjects had everything controlled. It showed a drop of 10-15% of RMR. Most of the calorie burn differences were NEAT and muscle adaptation. What is not talked about is, there were many degrees of weight regain. Some have managed to keep off a lot of weight. How did they do It? Tracked their diets and high physical activity. 30mins of vigorous or 80 mins of moderate activity a day. The study did not differentiate from scheduled exercise and movement in general life. Kevin Hall, the NIH researcher who did the study, made a calorie calculator. For me, it's pretty damn accurate so far. That is what he used to predict calorie burn for the study. They were almost spot on. I know that a burn 300 to 400 calories less a day than someone always my size. Just as many of the contestants now do. Just my 2 cents.8
-
CarvedTones wrote: »I have done crazy crash dieting for 3 months at a time a couple of times. I think I have suffered some AT, but only in the 150-200 calorie range. I should be able to maintain at ~1900 with no exercise but I will slowly gain if I eat that much each day. I could eat more each day and still have a stable weight if I hadn't done the crash dieting. But it isn't starvation mode because that's not really a thing. When you suffer some AT, it can either be an excuse to get fat or a reason to eat less. Unfortunately it seems to be relative to what your total diet normally was and/or the deficit you restricted yourself to for a long time so the biggest loser competitors had more significant AT, like as high as 600 calories a day. They would have to get used to eating significantly less to maintain a lower weight. It was just too much of an adjustment for most of them.
I do not believe it had anything to do with your history of crash dieting. It's just normal AT, Reduction of neat and muscles adapting to run on less energy. If you look at the Minnesota starvation experiment, all the men RMR recovered when they regained their bf and lean mass. I know it is an old study, but these days you would never be able to recreate it. Damn human rights things.... jk5 -
psychod787 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »I have done crazy crash dieting for 3 months at a time a couple of times. I think I have suffered some AT, but only in the 150-200 calorie range. I should be able to maintain at ~1900 with no exercise but I will slowly gain if I eat that much each day. I could eat more each day and still have a stable weight if I hadn't done the crash dieting. But it isn't starvation mode because that's not really a thing. When you suffer some AT, it can either be an excuse to get fat or a reason to eat less. Unfortunately it seems to be relative to what your total diet normally was and/or the deficit you restricted yourself to for a long time so the biggest loser competitors had more significant AT, like as high as 600 calories a day. They would have to get used to eating significantly less to maintain a lower weight. It was just too much of an adjustment for most of them.
I do not believe it had anything to do with your history of crash dieting. It's just normal AT, Reduction of neat and muscles adapting to run on less energy. If you look at the Minnesota starvation experiment, all the men RMR recovered when they regained their bf and lean mass. I know it is an old study, but these days you would never be able to recreate it. Damn human rights things.... jk
You may be right. I have never lost a lot of weight without the crash. This time I joined mfp and started doing it more sensibly after a crash start. At this point, I am certain that all the calculators estimate too much and I don't think I burn as much as the exercise estimates (even supposedly good ones). I think I am just going to have to average a lower intake than expected to keep it off. The big pain is creating a deficit to offset overage when maintenance is low.5 -
-
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!8 -
I'm interested in this topic as well--I maintain on a pretty low calorie level, maybe 1600-1700 with exercise, and I am not sure if that's because I'm already within a healthy weight range, because I did crash diet as a younger person and have always had to track/eat carefully to maintain my weight, if it's because I'm in my 40s, or what. I have added strength training and it's been great for my muscle definition, but I have not had the experience other people do where they can suddenly start eating thousands of extra calories a day because their body is "always burning." It's OK--I'm not fighting it at this point. Have figured out how to eat strategically so that I am always satisfied and have enough energy for workouts. But, will admit to jealousy when I hear of people losing pounds and pounds a week on calorie levels that would result in me gaining!!!4
-
Running_and_Coffee wrote: »But, will admit to jealousy when I hear of people losing pounds and pounds a week on calorie levels that would result in me gaining!!!
I think these people get up during the night and sneak 5 mile runs with a backpack full of rocks instead of sneaking a handful of oreos.
Yeah, I am pretty jealous of them also and no, I don't sneak a handful of oreos; if I eat them (and sometimes I do) I log them. 3 -
I’m not sure how they lose weight on the biggest loser is the healthiest or most advisable way to go about it.1
-
CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Lyle McDonald isn't the most politically correct person. He doesn't give a rat's *kitten*.10 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Lyle McDonald isn't the most politically correct person. He doesn't give a rat's *kitten*.
And while it's a *kitten* thing to say. Doesn't mean it's false. He possibly could have worded it more diplomatically, but then you wouldn't have remembered it.So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!4 -
But as @psychod787 pointed out from the Leibel's study, that NEAT was one of the largest components of metabolic adaption. Increasing/maintaining NEAT seems to be key to preventing weight regain...
Increasing your NEAT is in your control ...
4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »
There is some good info in there, but he does some serious damage to his credibility with this sort of stuff:So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Lyle McDonald isn't the most politically correct person. He doesn't give a rat's *kitten*.
And while it's a *kitten* thing to say. Doesn't mean it's false. He possibly could have worded it more diplomatically, but then you wouldn't have remembered it.So combine your typical headcase female dieter (who is already mentally stressing themselves out), add a massive caloric restriction, add tons of cardio. And cortisol goes through the roof. And this is worse in some personality types. You can always tell them on Internet forums, they type in all caps with lots of !!!
Maybe if you just took "female" out. LOL8 -
Your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) isn't static. It's a dynamic rate that responds to all manner of stimulus - quantity of food source, substance, temperature, hormone variance, etc. Even so all the variables amount to a relatively small impact on BMR.
Your metabolism is primarily driven by mass - have more need more, have less need less. Metabolic adaptation is a phenomenon working in the same manner of a fire - provide more fuel you get a hotter burn, but less sustainability. When you eat a large meal your body needs to process the incoming food quickly to get the biochemical pathways in motion. Interesting as people eating unusually large meals will actually raise their body temperature. There are several YouTube videos that illustrate this very well - search any 10k calories challenge and watch the before/after BMR results.
This phenomenon trends toward "normal" BMR as time goes on - typically in a matter of weeks.6 -
What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
The article I read said that after 6 years there was still no improvement in the contestants reduced BMR even if they had gained back all the weight and more. It's still early to be sure, but they might be screwed for life. There probably needs to be some sort of intervention (medical?) to get it to return to the prior state, but this last part is just me guessing.0 -
I have always wondered if some of those that have a lower BMR than should be calculated are people that always had a lower BMR and that is why they gained weight before. So now they lost weight and yes still have the lower BMR.6
-
KWlosingit wrote: »I have always wondered if some of those that have a lower BMR than should be calculated are people that always had a lower BMR and that is why they gained weight before. So now they lost weight and yes still have the lower BMR.
This is not in the Biggest Loser article I read, but in some other "Adaptive Thermogenesis study" (google that and you will find several) they checked BMR before weight loss and it is the weight loss that causes the change.2 -
CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
The article I read said that after 6 years there was still no improvement in the contestants reduced BMR even if they had gained back all the weight and more. It's still early to be sure, but they might be screwed for life. There probably needs to be some sort of intervention (medical?) to get it to return to the prior state, but this last part is just me guessing.
Is this the Scientific American article based on Kevin D. Hall's research? I cannot find any objective data to support this. It appears that Dr. Hall's confirmation bias has exceeded the level of research:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
Scientific American's standards appear to have decreased immensely...and this was never great to begin with. There is no cited study and appears to be based upon the fallacy of "set point" and largely disregards the fact that behavior drives weight management.
This appears to be nothing more than a advertisement for gastric bypass.7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
Is there hard objective data supporting this?
Say in 2012 Patient X had a BMR of 2000 and now in 2018 is at 1400, but by algorithm should be at 1600?
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
Is there hard objective data supporting this?
Say in 2012 Patient X had a BMR of 2000 and now in 2018 is at 1400, but by algorithm should be at 1600?
The study linked on the mega thread https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1 Suggests 10-15% variance.0 -
I have been watching old episodes of the Biggest Loser lately and I hate the fact that when someone loses 1 lb or nothing everybody always looks so grim and shocked, seriously, you think the trainers would be like well maybe they are on TOM or their body is just taking a break this week,e tc. Instead it is like well I guess they did not do enough. Espeically when you are close to goal it does come off slower.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
Is there hard objective data supporting this?
Say in 2012 Patient X had a BMR of 2000 and now in 2018 is at 1400, but by algorithm should be at 1600?
The study linked on the mega thread https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1 Suggests 10-15% variance.
...but normal variance is within this range. This is where I'm not seeing any hard evidence suggesting that weight loss, regardless how extreme results in a lower than expected BMR.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »What's the current consensus on starvation mode after it was discovered that Biggest Loser winners had drastically reduced metabolic rates? Has there been any further research?
General consensus is that reduced BMR is a real thing and depending on the scale/scope of the damage determines the time taken for recovery. Although some variation is to be expected, and some damage may take years to fully recover.
Is there hard objective data supporting this?
Say in 2012 Patient X had a BMR of 2000 and now in 2018 is at 1400, but by algorithm should be at 1600?
The study linked on the mega thread https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1 Suggests 10-15% variance.
...but normal variance is within this range. This is where I'm not seeing any hard evidence suggesting that weight loss, regardless how extreme results in a lower than expected BMR.
not to be rude, but are you one of those people who are not convinced we landed on the moon? This study, even with its small subject pool, is still valid. Could have been done a hell of a lot better, but it is what it is. I am hoping that I never have to have gastric bypass, but if I need to, I have already started an account. I am going to edit this by also stating that behavior doe drive regain, but how much if that "behavior" is pushed by hormones and the hypothalamus? BF set point a myth? LOL I see by your profile you lost 60lbs? Try being class 3 obese and losing 150-200lbs. I think further we move from that set point, the harder the body pushes back. Maybe not with a declining RMR with time, but with hormonal and brain changes.20 -
Such an awful show1
-
Well I guess I am just posting from "my" experience. Honestly, maybe I got too lean. Sub 9% bf. I have been in a lean bulk for maybe 6 months, and trends are only up 2-3lbs. As of today, actually weight gain is 4.2 up from my lowest of 176.2 to 180.4. I will say, I am always hungry. I will still be as low as 178 on some AM weigh ins. Maybe other folks here who have lost 150lbs and got too lean can help me. Will it get better? Kitten, I will eat a large meal and be full for all of about an hour. I look forward to someone who may have dealt with this. If you have, please respond.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions