Starvation Mode? Really?
balancebean
Posts: 96 Member
I've heard this before; the phenomena when one stops losing weight because he/she is consuming too few calories. Is this fact or myth? I just thought this was a way "pre-packaged" food plans keep you on a perpetual diet; you will lose, but very slowly. My rational side tells me that when fewer calories are consumed or burned, weight loss should be faster.
0
Replies
-
The problem occurs when you go on a very low calorie diet and then return to normal eating.
Your body gets used to the reduced calories and your metabolism slows, to stop you starving to death.
Unfortunately when you return to normal eating your metabolism is still slow. Hence the weight gain.0 -
I agree with you, how else would anerexics still lose weight when they starve themselves? if you don't eat you lose weight. To me it is that simple. Not that I condone starving oneself! I think my fitness pal is a great tool to help with losing weight in a sensible way!
0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?0
-
Nope, no problems with starving yourself. Pants! Pants! Pants!0
-
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
You asked for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor0 -
I agree with you, how else would anerexics still lose weight when they starve themselves? if you don't eat you lose weight. To me it is that simple. Not that I condone starving oneself! I think my fitness pal is a great tool to help with losing weight in a sensible way!
The reason anerexics lose weight is because they are starving themselves to a point far beyond what MFP considers starvation mode, or for a very prolonged period of time. Of course you'll lose weight by eating less but when you do go below a certain point (which MFP deems 1200 calories but is different for everyone) your metabolism slows and holds on to everything you consume so it can keep itself going. So if you do lose it won't be very much.0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
That's distension due to parasites and such. It's not fat.0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
They don't have big stomachs.
They do have linternal organs that basically remain the same size
They do have wasted muscle mass most noticable in the arms and legs0 -
My understanding is that if you take in too few calories then your body slows down so as not to lose too much weight - it will also be burning off your lean muscle mass as well as fat. You may still lose weight but the problem is that when you try to return to a higher calorie level you body will still have this slower metabolism and will store the excess as fat - hence the problem with yo-yo dieting where after you 'finish' the diet you gain it all back and some, and each time your body fat percentage will rise. Less lean muscle mass = slower metabolism.
The key to sucessful longer term wieght loss is to retain or build your muscle mass while losing fat. This means that you must not starve yourself. You need a good diet with enough calories to build muscle (and I don't mean bodybuilding, I mean good muscle tone) As we age we tend to lose muscle mass and gain fat and starvation dieting can make this worse.
There are lots of posts on this subject and another related topic of eating back your exercise calories.
Hope this helps0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
Kwashiorkor (protein malnutrition): bloated stomach0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
are you serious?
Distended stomach can happen in famine and extreme starvation, gas distention, the fact that they are so malnourished and thin that any little thing they eat will show enormously, and often tapeworms, but its not fat :indifferent:0 -
I lost 120lbs and then put a load back on afterwards, now hovering around the 99-100lb (lost) mark so I have another 20 to lose again. This is because I was following a VLCD and after I came off it there were two factors 1) metabolism and 2) behavioural.
I started to let old habits creep back and did nothing to increase my metabolic rate0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
The distended bellies are filled with fluid. According to a website, it's due to a protein deficiency.0 -
Re: Anorexia
The long-term malnutrition associated with anorexia can cause a range of serious complications, such as:
•osteoporosis (weakening of the bones)
•kidney disease
•heart failure
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Introduction.aspx
I think the point is that starving yourself, whether to the extent of anorexia or other eating disorders, or just through eating too few calories while dieting all equates to malnutrition - where your body does not get enough of what it needs to sustain itself so will become weaker. On the whole I cannot see that any good would ever come from starving yourself. Its about eating 'enough' instead of 'too much'.
(Ohps typo)0 -
but how about those kids in the third world countries who are starving but yet they have quite a bit stomach?
You have got to be kidding me0 -
if you consistently undereat, your metabolism will start to slow down, because your body gets used tio a lesser intake and utilises everything it gets more effectively.
This is a good useful biological response, to stop people withering away and dying when food is short, but if youre actively trying to get skinny, its annoying when things start slowing down.
The extent to which it happens though gets exaggerated a bit I think.0 -
And you tend to start burning muscle for energy when your body can't burn calories0
-
0
-
And you tend to start burning muscle for energy when your body can't burn calories
only after all the fat is burnt. Wouldnt make evolutionary sense otherwise. Fat is second energy fuel after food, then muscle, then other organs.0 -
Wow! Thanks!0 -
And you tend to start burning muscle for energy when your body can't burn calories
only after all the fat is burnt. Wouldnt make evolutionary sense otherwise. Fat is second energy fuel after food, then muscle, then other organs.
I disagree. This is how I understand it.
Muscle is calorically expensive for your body to run - in that it COSTS your body more calories to maintain muscle than it does to maintain fat stores. So it makes evolutionary sense that in times of scarcity, your body will burn muscle over fat for energy.
Think of it like this - You're not eating enough calories to provide the energy your body needs to keep you going throughout the day. Your body HAS to get that energy from somewhere so it looks to the stores (fat tissue, muscle tissue, organ tissue). It's not going to burn organ tissue unless the situation is extremely dire so that leaves fat tissue and muscle tissue as viable stores of energy.
If it burns the fat tissue, it gets the energy it needs for today but tomorrow it has almost the same energy requirement and has to find the same number of calories to plug the deficit between intake and requirement.
If it burns muscle tissue, it gets the energy it needs today and tomorrow it will need less energy because there will be less muscle to feed - AND it still has those fat tissue stores which it doesn't need to feed. Double bubble in the evolutionary survival stakes!
This is why it's important to maintain your muscles through exercise and strength training when you're eating a caloric deficit. Your body can't burn the muscle tissue at the same time it's putting resources into repairing it.
Bit of a 'back of a *kitten* packet' explanation I feel but the essentials are there...0 -
yeah i guess that does make sense. Thanks for explaining that0
-
I eat a fairly low calorie diet but I do a lot of exercise and usually have a cheeky cheat meal once a week, It seems to balance out! I'm losing weight but I'm also getting fitter, so I can't be wasting away all my muscles, otherwise I'd barely have the strength to walk. I eat loads of protein and do resistance training so yerrrrr that helps.
Also, @ the person who made the comment about african kids, really? REALLY? reaaaaaallly? *sighs*0 -
Fat doesn't get to tag along for free. Your body still has to pump blood to it, shuttle nutients in and out of it all day long, and take care of it in exactly the same manner. If I remember right the difference in calories need to do that and to do the same for your muscles is somewhere around 4 calories per day per pound. In other words not enough for your body to care that today it gets to burn 2 calories less than yesterday but still has a ton of storage.And you tend to start burning muscle for energy when your body can't burn calories
only after all the fat is burnt. Wouldnt make evolutionary sense otherwise. Fat is second energy fuel after food, then muscle, then other organs.
I disagree. This is how I understand it.
Muscle is calorically expensive for your body to run - in that it COSTS your body more calories to maintain muscle than it does to maintain fat stores. So it makes evolutionary sense that in times of scarcity, your body will burn muscle over fat for energy.
Think of it like this - You're not eating enough calories to provide the energy your body needs to keep you going throughout the day. Your body HAS to get that energy from somewhere so it looks to the stores (fat tissue, muscle tissue, organ tissue). It's not going to burn organ tissue unless the situation is extremely dire so that leaves fat tissue and muscle tissue as viable stores of energy.
If it burns the fat tissue, it gets the energy it needs for today but tomorrow it has almost the same energy requirement and has to find the same number of calories to plug the deficit between intake and requirement.
If it burns muscle tissue, it gets the energy it needs today and tomorrow it will need less energy because there will be less muscle to feed - AND it still has those fat tissue stores which it doesn't need to feed. Double bubble in the evolutionary survival stakes!
This is why it's important to maintain your muscles through exercise and strength training when you're eating a caloric deficit. Your body can't burn the muscle tissue at the same time it's putting resources into repairing it.
Bit of a 'back of a *kitten* packet' explanation I feel but the essentials are there...
Muscle is burned when in starvation to provide the essential amino acids you need to keep functioning that it can't produce on it's own, and that you didn't eat. Your body has an absolute requirement for them, and if it doesn't get them from your food it starts cannibalizing your internal sources to get it.
Food first. Fat second. Muscle as a last resort.0 -
trying to delete my comment but it won't let me ..0
-
did i ever mention they were fat?! no! i just said that they appear bloated! sorry i didnt know all the facts that you all know.
i apoligise for having an input. last time i ever comment on a forum.0 -
Hi BalanceBean.
After looking at the pros and cons in many forums, I eat back my exercise calories, or at least most of them. It seems like the healthier choice for me. I am OK with losing weight at a moderate rate. I know you will make your own decision on this subject.
I wish you well.0 -
Fat doesn't get to tag along for free. Your body still has to pump blood to it, shuttle nutients in and out of it all day long, and take care of it in exactly the same manner. If I remember right the difference in calories need to do that and to do the same for your muscles is somewhere around 4 calories per day per pound. In other words not enough for your body to care that today it gets to burn 2 calories less than yesterday but still has a ton of storage.And you tend to start burning muscle for energy when your body can't burn calories
only after all the fat is burnt. Wouldnt make evolutionary sense otherwise. Fat is second energy fuel after food, then muscle, then other organs.
I disagree. This is how I understand it.
Muscle is calorically expensive for your body to run - in that it COSTS your body more calories to maintain muscle than it does to maintain fat stores. So it makes evolutionary sense that in times of scarcity, your body will burn muscle over fat for energy.
Think of it like this - You're not eating enough calories to provide the energy your body needs to keep you going throughout the day. Your body HAS to get that energy from somewhere so it looks to the stores (fat tissue, muscle tissue, organ tissue). It's not going to burn organ tissue unless the situation is extremely dire so that leaves fat tissue and muscle tissue as viable stores of energy.
If it burns the fat tissue, it gets the energy it needs for today but tomorrow it has almost the same energy requirement and has to find the same number of calories to plug the deficit between intake and requirement.
If it burns muscle tissue, it gets the energy it needs today and tomorrow it will need less energy because there will be less muscle to feed - AND it still has those fat tissue stores which it doesn't need to feed. Double bubble in the evolutionary survival stakes!
This is why it's important to maintain your muscles through exercise and strength training when you're eating a caloric deficit. Your body can't burn the muscle tissue at the same time it's putting resources into repairing it.
Bit of a 'back of a *kitten* packet' explanation I feel but the essentials are there...
Muscle is burned when in starvation to provide the essential amino acids you need to keep functioning that it can't produce on it's own, and that you didn't eat. Your body has an absolute requirement for them, and if it doesn't get them from your food it starts cannibalizing your internal sources to get it.
Food first. Fat second. Muscle as a last resort.
Hmm... That still doesn't quite make sense to me. Under that rationale then gaining fat would increase your metabolic requirement almost as much as gaining muscle. We know that muscle is calorically expensive as building muscle increases your caloric expenditure (see: just about all advice I've ever read about increasing resting BMR through strength training). I'll take your word for it though, I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong.
I think the truth of the matter is that your body doesn't EXCLUSIVELY differentiate one from the other. If it just burned fat first until it had none left and then switched to muscle as a last resort, there'd be no such thing as 'skinny fat'. Everyone would lose all of their fat through diet until they looked ripped and it would be a whole lot easier.
Never gonna happen like that though as your body will be burning muscle as well as fat the whole time you're in a deficit UNLESS you're maintaining muscle through strength training - note: maintaining, not building. It's very difficult to build muscle while in deficit for the same reason I outlined, muscle is expensive to the body and it's not likely to add more on while it's not getting enough intake to cover what it already has.0 -
Fat doesn't get to tag along for free. Your body still has to pump blood to it, shuttle nutients in and out of it all day long, and take care of it in exactly the same manner. If I remember right the difference in calories need to do that and to do the same for your muscles is somewhere around 4 calories per day per pound. In other words not enough for your body to care that today it gets to burn 2 calories less than yesterday but still has a ton of storage.And you tend to start burning muscle for energy when your body can't burn calories
only after all the fat is burnt. Wouldnt make evolutionary sense otherwise. Fat is second energy fuel after food, then muscle, then other organs.
Muscle is calorically expensive for your body to run - in that it COSTS your body more calories to maintain muscle than it does to maintain fat stores. So it makes evolutionary sense that in times of scarcity, your body will burn muscle over fat for energy.
Think of it like this - You're not eating enough calories to provide the energy your body needs to keep you going throughout the day. Your body HAS to get that energy from somewhere so it looks to the stores (fat tissue, muscle tissue, organ tissue). It's not going to burn organ tissue unless the situation is extremely dire so that leaves fat tissue and muscle tissue as viable stores of energy.
If it burns the fat tissue, it gets the energy it needs for today but tomorrow it has almost the same energy requirement and has to find the same number of calories to plug the deficit between intake and requirement.
If it burns muscle tissue, it gets the energy it needs today and tomorrow it will need less energy because there will be less muscle to feed - AND it still has those fat tissue stores which it doesn't need to feed. Double bubble in the evolutionary survival stakes!
This is why it's important to maintain your muscles through exercise and strength training when you're eating a caloric deficit. Your body can't burn the muscle tissue at the same time it's putting resources into repairing it.
Bit of a 'back of a *kitten* packet' explanation I feel but the essentials are there...
Muscle is burned when in starvation to provide the essential amino acids you need to keep functioning that it can't produce on it's own, and that you didn't eat. Your body has an absolute requirement for them, and if it doesn't get them from your food it starts cannibalizing your internal sources to get it.
Food first. Fat second. Muscle as a last resort.
Hmm... That still doesn't quite make sense to me. Under that rationale then gaining fat would increase your metabolic requirement almost as much as gaining muscle. We know that muscle is calorically expensive as building muscle increases your caloric expenditure (see: just about all advice I've ever read about increasing resting BMR through strength training). I'll take your word for it though, I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong.
I think the truth of the matter is that your body doesn't EXCLUSIVELY differentiate one from the other. If it just burned fat first until it had none left and then switched to muscle as a last resort, there'd be no such thing as 'skinny fat'. Everyone would lose all of their fat through diet until they looked ripped and it would be a whole lot easier.
Never gonna happen like that though as your body will be burning muscle as well as fat the whole time you're in a deficit UNLESS you're maintaining muscle through strength training - note: maintaining, not building. It's very difficult to build muscle while in deficit for the same reason I outlined, muscle is expensive to the body and it's not likely to add more on while it's not getting enough intake to cover what it already has.
per pound, fat requires about 1 calorie per day, muscle requires between 6 and 10 depending on multiple factors (like distance from blood stream, type of muscle it is, usage, efficiency...etc.). But this is only with regards to muscle NOT IN USE. Muscle that's in use requires vastly more calories, and because the body doesn't put muscle in areas that would compromise the body's balance and CoG, it's less of a hindrance for the body to have it (I.E. when someone has excess fat in an area, the weight and gravity that area require the body to change to center it, this means, long term, changing how muscles work, and changing our posture). This can stress some of the muscles in the body that are used as stabilizers. This is why people with weak cores and bellies often times have odd gates and arched backs and lower back issues.
As to the timing of when fat is burned, the above equation is true in a metabolically normal state, I.E. you are delivering enough energy to the body for it to not recognize starvation as a problem. But when we don't eat enough to satisfy energy requirements over a long period (multiple days at least) then the body changes, hormone levels alter, and the body begins searching for any metabolically active tissues that it doesn't need, because that is the fastest way to lower your total energy needs, therefore muscle that is rarely or never used, is canabalized. While it's true, when the body is deficient in amino acids, the body will also canabalize muscle, that's not specifically why it burns muscle while in starvation mode. Amino acids from muscle tissue are broken down in that case and enter into the krebs cycle to be used as energy as a same-time supplement to fat. Why does this happen? Well the body can only process so much fat at 1 time, when the gap between energy used and energy needed is to large for fat usage to compensate, the body must do something to make up the difference (because there is NO case where the body will allow an actual energy deficit, not until there is no more energy to take), so it takes muscle as well as fat.
As to whether 1 lb of fat is significant with regards to daily metabolic needs, it's true, 1 lb isn't a big deal metabolically, but for someone who is (as an example) 40% body fat and weighs 200 lbs, that's 80 lbs of extra weight (after taking essential body fat into account), which translates into 80 or so calories a day extra. Hope this clears some things up.0 -
Re: Anorexia
The long-term malnutrition associated with anorexia can cause a range of serious complications, such as:
•osteoporosis (weakening of the bones)
•kidney disease
•heart failure
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Introduction.aspx
I think the point is that starving yourself, whether to the extent of anorexia or other eating disorders, or just through eating too few calories while dieting all equates to malnutrition - where your body does not get enough of what it needs to sustain itself so will become weaker. On the whole I cannot see that any good would ever come from starving yourself. Its about eating 'enough' instead of 'too much'.
(Ohps typo)
Well said, and there are signs that lead up to malnutrition including: hair loss, low blood sugar, fatigue..... From over time of eating too few of calories. It's no joke. Eat your exercise calories back! LOL0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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