Starvation Mode - Adaptive Thermogenesis and Weight Loss

BeachGingerOnTheRocks wrote: »

Thank you for compiling all this together into one post. I do think "starvation mode" is an overused and misunderstood term on MFP, and it is very helpful to understand what it happening and why there is a real need for going slow with weight loss. Thank you!

I agree. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the term so people tend to argue about semantics a lot. Maybe there should be a glossary on MFP so we can all discuss the same terms. I appreciate the validation that we really do slow down our metabolism when dieting and need to take breaks to give our bodies a chance to recover and adjust. Plateaus are normal ways for our bodies to do this, but people freak out when the body tries to take a break instead if riding them out.

@EvgeniZyntx I'm glad you mentioned this thread recently in another thread I read. I already had it bookmarked, and hadn't finished reading the last few pages yet.

Beyond the great science backed input by you and a few others of the crowd that often do post in such ways, it could be an excellent thread to use as an example of what happens when people discuss, dialogue and/or debate in a civil way, rather than try to win the internet. I've even bookmarked some of the "drifting topic" threads as well.

And as broken down, I'm still not quite sure where the line is where true long term adaptation takes place. But I've avoided quick losses for that and other reasons. I like food, and I don't want to work my tail off or suffer to not be able to eat as much of it.

Even in the short term, I think extremes can cause issues, but more in line with negative energy balance to 4 digits. I been led to believe the military has actually changed some of their extremes in survival training for the more elite groups, as they were doing multiple days of thousands of calorie deficits to teach the worst case scenario's of where it puts a persons body and mindset. Having done the very mild versions of the military training, I'd venture to say that very few people with internet access have ever come remotely close to true "survival mode" shutdowns, or any short or long term adaptations. It makes a "bonk" seem like childs play. I can't see why anyone just on a weight loss bender would go to such extremes, but people do some wild stuff.

Even though the government still picks up my medical bills (well mostly) I'd rather just not have to go in for medical care, or even worse get shorted a slice or a beer (gasp) on pizza night.


Some good science backed stuff up in here. Worthy of regular bumps.

So much useful information here - the initial post for sure, but also the comments & dialog. I wish they were all like this! I'm commenting mostly to bump it.

I have to say, though I definitely harvested a lot of useful info from this, that I still feel like an outlier: I came through and out of weight loss able to eat substantially more than I ever expected - hundreds of calories more daily than the calculators predict - and I don't understand why. I'm curious . . . but there's also that "don't look a gift horse in the calorie allowance" thing. Don't want to jinx my maintenance!

I 'only' lost 60-some pounds, but did so fairly rapidly, over 10 months or so, around 2 pounds/week initially, dropping to 1 pound at maybe 20 or so to go, then 0.5 at 10 to go or a little less, then adding 100 or so daily calories every week or two to ease into maintenance over the last few pounds. Exercise all the way, though limited weight training (I'm a rower - have been for a decade, even while fat - so my 'cardio' is kinda strength-oriented, but I try for more weight work in off-season). I wonder if it's helped that I haven't yo-yo-ed over the years much, unlike most women my age (60)?

Thanks, @EvgeniZyntx especially, but also everyone who's contributed thoughtful comments of substance. Good stuff!

(Now I gotta go read all those linked threads . . . . ).

Seems like there are a few threads that could use a bump today...

BUMP! Thanks for recommending the read, @stanmann571

bump and tag this great post

cheryldumais wrote: »

Bump as this article is well worth a read.

Agreed I was just thinking mentioning this thread in another thread

This is a great post

stargirlhorse wrote: »

It might've been said before, but what about smaller weight losses? It was kind of hard to read (and that's my fault because I'm tired) but TDEE is 10-15% lower than the one a calculator will spit out at you?

"Smaller" means 15lbs originally lost, but now I'm unfortunately around 12/13ish. The doctor's scale said I was only down 10, but I also had a 11-day late period, bladder full of pee and had eaten breakfast about an hour before (seriously, doc, what gives? Let me feel good about myself for once...)

Highest weight: 136.
Lowest weight: 121.
Doctor's scale with the added anommalies above: 126.

If your period is 11 days late, that in and of itself will affect your weight, given the potential causes for that (other than pregnancy). I did read your other conversation thread; you received good advice there.

Emmile1 wrote: »

Hold up... if i currently maintain on 1450 calories per day (im 4'10 or 147.3 cm), once done my 15lb weight loss, I will require as little as 1088 calories per day? Thats... offputting.... Can someone confirm?

Improbable IMO. Lose very slowly with so little to lose, do some strength-challenging activities, push for extra daily life activity if you're worried. You have a lot of control over the relevant factors, in practice, IMO. Some people maintain above estimates, some maintain below - shift your odds to the extent practical, otherwise don't worry about it. Just my opinion, and maybe easy for me to say as someone maintaining several hundred calories above MFP's (and Garmin's) estimates despite losing 50+ pounds in less than a year back in 2015-16. Your n=1 is unique, and you won't know what it is until you get there.

Thanks for the advice.